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

New Jersey Offshore Wind Farm Clears Big Federal Hurdle Amid Environmental Concerns

News Feed
Tuesday, October 1, 2024

SEA GIRT, N.J. (AP) — The federal government gave a key approval Tuesday to an offshore wind farm in New Jersey, even as residents in the town where its power cable would come ashore worry it could go through underground toxic waste that's still being cleaned up. The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management approved Atlantic Shores' plan to construct and operate an energy facility, a major milestone in moving the project forward. The project still requires a review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and several state permits, the company said.The project, consisting of two phases, would be built between Atlantic City and Long Beach Island in southern New Jersey. It would generate 2,800 megawatts from 197 turbines, enough to power 1 million homes. “Atlantic Shores is thrilled to receive approval to build our first two projects and deliver sufficient clean power to serve one third of New Jersey households,” said Joris Veldhoven, the company's CEO. “Securing these critical approvals enables New Jersey’s first offshore wind project to start construction next year, and represents meaningful progress in New Jersey achieving 100% clean energy by 2035."The federal government says the project would be about 8.7 miles (14 kilometers) from the shore at its closest point. But the company has previously said that it will not build right up to that line and that the closest turbines will be at least 12.8 miles (20 kilometers) from shore.Atlantic Shores is a joint partnership between Shell New Energies US LLC and EDF-RE Offshore Development LLC.“Responsibly developed offshore wind is a critical component in a clean energy future, which will fight climate change, create union jobs and improve the air quality in overburdened communities," said Ed Potosnak, executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters.Offshore wind foes, who are particularly vocal and well-organized in New Jersey, vowed to try to keep the project from ever being built.“We understand this development would be devastating for the marine and coastal habitats, and it would destroy the Jersey Shore as we know it,” said Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast NJ. BOEM said the power cables for the project will “potentially” come ashore in Atlantic City and Sea Girt.That possibility has angered residents of Sea Girt, a wealthy Jersey Shore community about seven miles (11 kilometers) south of Asbury Park, due to concerns that its route would run through two federal Superfund sites where underground toxic contamination from former dry cleaning operations is still being cleaned up.The route proposed through Sea Girt would likely take the cable through contamination at the former White Swan and Sun cleaners sites in neighboring Wall Township where chemicals leached into the soil and contaminated underground water in a wide area including Sea Girt. More than 300 dump truck loads of contaminated soil have been removed from the site, and a ground water treatment system has been designed that will operate for at least 30 years.Kimberly Paterson is a leader of a Sea Girt-based residents group opposing the cable landing project; it takes no position on offshore wind energy itself.“It's just common sense that when you have a Superfund site still in remediation and the ground water is still contaminated, you shouldn't be messing around there,” she said. “When you start digging, you stand a very good chance of disturbing this plume of contamination. It seems to be all risk and no reward.”Elias Rodriguez, a spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the federal Superfund cleanup projects, said the agency is aware of concerns about the sites.“We understand that the public believes there could be risks associated with running electric cables through areas with site-related groundwater contamination,” he said. “EPA will work with the (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) to make sure relevant officials are aware of these concerns. EPA will continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that the ongoing cleanup is protected.”The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities does not plan to authorize a specific route for the cable to connect with the power grid about 9 miles west in Howell Township. It said that decision is for the company eventually chosen to build the project, in consultation with local governments.“Should the site become a part of the future (cable route project), all federally-mandated site remediation measures will be followed,” the board said in a statement.Follow Wayne Parry on X at www.twitter.com/WayneParryAC Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

The federal government has given a key approval to an offshore wind farm in New Jersey

SEA GIRT, N.J. (AP) — The federal government gave a key approval Tuesday to an offshore wind farm in New Jersey, even as residents in the town where its power cable would come ashore worry it could go through underground toxic waste that's still being cleaned up.

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management approved Atlantic Shores' plan to construct and operate an energy facility, a major milestone in moving the project forward. The project still requires a review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and several state permits, the company said.

The project, consisting of two phases, would be built between Atlantic City and Long Beach Island in southern New Jersey. It would generate 2,800 megawatts from 197 turbines, enough to power 1 million homes.

“Atlantic Shores is thrilled to receive approval to build our first two projects and deliver sufficient clean power to serve one third of New Jersey households,” said Joris Veldhoven, the company's CEO. “Securing these critical approvals enables New Jersey’s first offshore wind project to start construction next year, and represents meaningful progress in New Jersey achieving 100% clean energy by 2035."

The federal government says the project would be about 8.7 miles (14 kilometers) from the shore at its closest point. But the company has previously said that it will not build right up to that line and that the closest turbines will be at least 12.8 miles (20 kilometers) from shore.

Atlantic Shores is a joint partnership between Shell New Energies US LLC and EDF-RE Offshore Development LLC.

“Responsibly developed offshore wind is a critical component in a clean energy future, which will fight climate change, create union jobs and improve the air quality in overburdened communities," said Ed Potosnak, executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters.

Offshore wind foes, who are particularly vocal and well-organized in New Jersey, vowed to try to keep the project from ever being built.

“We understand this development would be devastating for the marine and coastal habitats, and it would destroy the Jersey Shore as we know it,” said Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast NJ.

BOEM said the power cables for the project will “potentially” come ashore in Atlantic City and Sea Girt.

That possibility has angered residents of Sea Girt, a wealthy Jersey Shore community about seven miles (11 kilometers) south of Asbury Park, due to concerns that its route would run through two federal Superfund sites where underground toxic contamination from former dry cleaning operations is still being cleaned up.

The route proposed through Sea Girt would likely take the cable through contamination at the former White Swan and Sun cleaners sites in neighboring Wall Township where chemicals leached into the soil and contaminated underground water in a wide area including Sea Girt. More than 300 dump truck loads of contaminated soil have been removed from the site, and a ground water treatment system has been designed that will operate for at least 30 years.

Kimberly Paterson is a leader of a Sea Girt-based residents group opposing the cable landing project; it takes no position on offshore wind energy itself.

“It's just common sense that when you have a Superfund site still in remediation and the ground water is still contaminated, you shouldn't be messing around there,” she said. “When you start digging, you stand a very good chance of disturbing this plume of contamination. It seems to be all risk and no reward.”

Elias Rodriguez, a spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the federal Superfund cleanup projects, said the agency is aware of concerns about the sites.

“We understand that the public believes there could be risks associated with running electric cables through areas with site-related groundwater contamination,” he said. “EPA will work with the (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) to make sure relevant officials are aware of these concerns. EPA will continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that the ongoing cleanup is protected.”

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities does not plan to authorize a specific route for the cable to connect with the power grid about 9 miles west in Howell Township. It said that decision is for the company eventually chosen to build the project, in consultation with local governments.

“Should the site become a part of the future (cable route project), all federally-mandated site remediation measures will be followed,” the board said in a statement.

Follow Wayne Parry on X at www.twitter.com/WayneParryAC

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

Related News

NSW government passes bill to repair ‘broken’ biodiversity offset scheme

Reforms include public registers to track how developers are meeting their commitments and avoiding damaging endangered ecosystemsFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe New South Wales parliament has passed the “biggest reforms to the biodiversity offsets scheme since its inception” after inquiries triggered by a 2021 Guardian Australia investigation.The legislation, promised by the Minns government before the 2023 election, introduces changes aimed at reversing the decline of the state’s biodiversity and improving the integrity of the offsets scheme.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

The New South Wales parliament has passed the “biggest reforms to the biodiversity offsets scheme since its inception” after inquiries triggered by a 2021 Guardian Australia investigation.The legislation, promised by the Minns government before the 2023 election, introduces changes aimed at reversing the decline of the state’s biodiversity and improving the integrity of the offsets scheme.“The goal of the Minns Labor government is to leave nature better off than we found it. We owe this to the next generation,” the environment minister, Penny Sharpe, said.Sharpe said governments “cannot simply be the manager of environmental decline” and the legislation was the first tranche of reforms to address a biodiversity crisis that threatens beloved species such as the koala with extinction.The state’s upper house passed the bill with some environmental improvements by crossbench MPs on Thursday night.Introducing the legislation to the lower house for a final vote on Friday, the Blue Mountains MP, Trish Doyle, said: “This bill represents the biggest reform to the biodiversity offset scheme since its inception.”“It is a significant first step in implementing our commitments to fix the biodiversity offset scheme and set nature in NSW on a path to recovery.”The Nature Conservation Council of NSW welcomed the legislation as a first step in reforming the state’s nature laws after a review by former federal treasury secretary Ken Henry found substantial changes were needed with half of the species under threat in NSW on course to become extinct within the next 100 years.“We have been calling for reform of the broken scheme for many years, and today we finally have an important first step to deliver better protections for nature,” said the NCC’s policy and advocacy director, Dr Brad Smith.Biodiversity offsets are used by developers to compensate for clearing of endangered habitat by protecting and restoring equivalent ecosystems elsewhere. A series of reports by Guardian Australia in 2021 revealed major problems with the NSW scheme, triggering numerous inquiries.The government legislation introduces several new requirements, including that the scheme transition to one that delivers a net positive for nature after those inquiries found it had been facilitating loss. Developers will now have to demonstrate how they have first avoided damage to endangered ecosystems and species. New public registers will track how developers meet their environmental commitments.The reforms reduce the circumstances in which developers can pay into a fund managed by the state’s Biodiversity Conservation Trust after a parliamentary inquiry found that money paid into the fund was outstripping the availability and delivery of necessary offsets. And a controversial policy that allowed mining companies to claim future rehabilitation of mine sites towards their offset requirements will be ended.skip past newsletter promotionOur Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe changes will also exempt a small number of low-risk local developments from the requirement to deliver offsets.The bill passed on Friday with support from the Coalition but was opposed by the Greens, who said it would not be sufficient to change the “business as usual” scenario of offsets facilitating further environmental decline.The independent MP Greg Piper spoke strongly in favour of the bill but said it was not the end of the reform task that was necessary for nature and that he would welcome government consideration of the introduction of so-called no-go zones for areas of high biodiversity value.Although voting in favour of the bill, the Nationals expressed some concerns about the costs of the scheme for developers in regional areas.The opposition’s environment spokesperson, James Griffin, said a “functioning biodiversity offset scheme is more than a policy tool”.“There’s an opportunity to restore ecosystems and create thriving, resilient economies for a sustainable future,” he said.

Government
Business
Crisis

Can Lula still save the Amazon?

The power imbalance in Brazil's government that keeps environmental protections and Indigenous rights under threat.

When Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva took office in January 2023, he inherited environmental protection agencies in shambles and deforestation at a 15-year high. His predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, had dismantled regulations and gutted institutions tasked with enforcing environmental laws. Lula set out to reverse these policies and to put Brazil on a path to end deforestation by 2030.  Environmental protection agencies have been allowed to resume their work. Between January and November of 2023, the government issued 40 percent more infractions against illegal deforestation in the Amazon when compared to the same period in 2022, when Bolsonaro was still in office. Lula’s government has confiscated and destroyed heavy equipment used by illegal loggers and miners, and placed embargoes on production on illegally cleared land. Lula also reestablished the Amazon Fund, an international pool of money used to support conservation efforts in the rainforest. Just this week, at the G20 Summit, outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden pledged $50 million to the fund.   Indeed, almost two years into Lula’s administration, the upward trend in deforestation has been reversed. In 2023, deforestation rates fell by 62 percent in the Amazon and 12 percent in Brazil overall (though deforestation in the Cerrado, Brazil’s tropical savannahs, increased). So far in 2024, deforestation in the Amazon has fallen by another 32 percent.       Throughout this year, Brazilians also bore witness to the effects of climate change in a new way. In May, unprecedented floods in the south of the country impacted over 2 million people, displacing hundreds of thousands and leaving at least 183 dead. Other regions are now into their second year of extreme drought, which led to yet another intense wildfire season. In September, São Paulo and Brasília were shrouded in smoke coming from fires in the Amazon and the Cerrado.   And yet, despite the government’s actions, environmental protections and Indigenous rights are still under threat. Lula is governing alongside the most pro-agribusiness congress in Brazilian history, which renders his ability to protect Brazil’s forests and Indigenous peoples in the long-term severely constrained.  “I do believe that the Lula administration really cares about climate change,” said Belen Fernandez Milmanda, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Trinity College and author of Agrarian Elites and Democracy in Latin America. “But on the other side, part of their governing coalition is also the agribusiness, and so far I feel like the agribusiness is winning.” Read Next In Brazil, Lula vows to halt deforestation — but it won’t be easy Blanca Begert Brazilian politics has always been fragmented, with weak parties. The current Chamber of Deputies, Brazil’s equivalent to the House of Representatives, is made up of politicians from 19 different parties. “It makes it really difficult to govern without some kind of coordination device,” said Fernandez Milmanda. Weak party cohesion makes it easier for interest groups to step into the vacuum and act as this coordination device.  Agribusiness has long been one of the most powerful interest groups in Brazilian politics, but its influence has grown steadily over the past decade as the electorate shifted to the right and the sector developed more sophisticated strategies to affect politics. In Congress, agribusiness is represented by the bancada ruralista, or agrarian caucus, a well-organized, multi-party coalition of landowning and agribusiness-linked legislators that controls a majority in both houses of congress. Of the 513 representatives in the Chamber of Deputies, 290 are members of the agrarian caucus. In the senate, they make up 50 of 81 legislators.  Today, the agrarian caucus is larger than any single party in the Brazilian legislature. “Members of the agrarian caucus vote together. They have high discipline and most Brazilian parties don’t,” said Fernandez Milmanda. “This gives them immense leverage towards any president.”  Much of the coordination around the legislative agenda takes place away from congress, at the headquarters of Instituto Pensar Agropecuária (IPA), a think tank founded in 2011 and financed largely by major agribusiness corporations, including some in the US and the European Union. Among IPA’s main backers are Brazilian beef giant JBS, German pesticide producer BASF, and the US-based corporation Cargill, the world’s largest agribusiness. Core members of the agrarian caucus reportedly meet weekly at IPA headquarters in Brasilia’s embassy row to discuss the week’s legislative agenda.  “IPA is really important because they are the ones doing all the work, all the technical work,” says Milmanda. “They are drafting the bills that they then give to the legislators, and the legislators will present it as their own.”  Read Next Marco temporal: The anti-Indigenous theory that just won’t die Lyric Aquino The agrarian caucus has tallied several long-awaited victories in the current congress, which took office alongside Lula in January 2023. Late last year, they overhauled Brazil’s main law governing the use of pesticides. The new legislation, which Human Rights Watch called a “serious threat to the environment and the right to health,” removes barriers for previously banned substances and reduces the regulatory oversight of the health and environment agencies. Instead, the Ministry of Agriculture, which has traditionally been led by a member of the agrarian caucus, now has the final say in determining which pesticides are cleared for use. Lula attempted to veto parts of the bill, but was overruled by congress. In the Brazilian system, an absolute majority in each chamber is enough to overrule a presidential veto. Another recent victory for the agrarian caucus came as a major blow to Indigenous rights. Agribusiness has long been fighting in the courts for a legal theory called marco temporal (“time frame,” in English), which posits that Indigenous groups can only claim their traditional lands if they were occupying it in 1988, the year the current Brazilian constitution was drafted. Opponents of the theory argue it disregards the fact that many Indigenous groups were expelled from their native lands long before that date. It has dire implications for the hundreds of Indigenous territories in Brazil currently awaiting demarcation, and could even impact territories that have already been recognized by law.  The theory had been making its way through the Brazilian justice system for 16 years, until it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court last year. Blatantly flouting the court’s ruling, congress passed a bill codifying marco temporal into law. Lula tried to veto the bill, but he was overruled by the agrarian caucus again. The bill is currently being discussed in conciliation hearings overseen by the Supreme Court, which is tasked with figuring out how the new law will work in light of the court’s 2023 decision. The legal grey area in which many Indigenous groups occupying disputed lands now find themselves has contributed to a wave of attacks by land-grabbers and farmers in recent months.  These are only two examples of legislation that are part of what environmentalists have come to call the “destruction package,” a group of at least 20 bills and three constitutional amendments currently proposed in congress that take aim at Indigenous rights and environmental protections.  “The executive has to put a stop to this, because otherwise the tendency will be towards very serious setbacks,” said Suely Araújo, Public Policy Coordinator at Observatório do Clima, a coalition of climate-focused civil society organizations.  But the government has limited tools at its disposal to block anti-environmental legislation. In the past, the executive branch had greater control over discretionary spending and was able to use this to its advantage while negotiating with congress. The past decade has seen a major power shift in Brazilian politics. Congress has managed through a series of legislative maneuvers to capture a significant portion of the federal budget, weakening the hand of the executive.  Among projects which have a high likelihood of passing, according to analysis by Observatório do Clima, are bills that weaken Brazil’s Forest Code, the key piece of legislation governing the use and management of forests. “It would make control much more difficult because illegal forms of deforestation would become legal,” said Araújo.  One such bill reduces the amount of land farmers in the Amazon must preserve within their property from 80 to 50 percent. The move could open almost 18 million hectares of forest to agricultural development, according to a recent analysis that the deforestation mapping organization MapBiomas conducted for the Brazilian magazine Piauí. That is an area roughly the size of New York state, New Jersey, and Massachusetts combined. In a similar vein, another bill in the package removes protections for native grasslands, including large parts of the Cerrado and the Pantanal (the world’s largest tropical wetland). In theory this would affect 48 millions hectares of native vegetation. Yet another bill, which has already been approved in the Chamber of Deputies, overhauls the process of environmental licensing, essentially reducing it to a rubber stamp. “It does away with 40 years of environmental licensing in Brazil,” said Araújo. “You might as well not have licensing legislation.”  Part of the reason many of these bills have a chance of passing is the Lula government’s limited leverage. With little support in congress and less control over the budget, bargaining with the agricultural caucus becomes a necessary tool to pass even legislation unrelated to the environment, such as economic reforms. During these negotiations, some environmentalists believe concerns over Brazil’s forests fall by the wayside.  “Perhaps there is a lack of leadership from the president himself, with a stronger stance in response to the demands of the ruralistas,” said Araújo. “There are political agreements and negotiations that must be made. The bargaining chip cannot be environmental legislation.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Can Lula still save the Amazon? on Nov 21, 2024.

Government
Indigenous
Business

Overwhelmed by ever more clothing donations, charities are exporting the problem. Local governments must step up

We give or throw away more and more clothes every year, overwhelming charities and triggering large exports of secondhand clothing. There’s a better way

anna.spoka/ShutterstockWhat happens to your clothes after you don’t want them any more? Chances are, you will donate them to op shops run by a charity organisation. There are more and more clothes in circulation, and they are getting cheaper and lower quality. That means the clothes you give away are worth less and less. For charities, this means donated clothes are less gift, more rubbish. Our new research explores what happens to clothes and other textiles after we don’t want them across nine cities in Europe, North America and Australia. The pattern was the same in most cities. The sheer volume is overwhelming many shops. In Geneva, donations to charity shops have surged 1,200% in three decades, from 250 tonnes in 1990 to 3,000 tonnes in 2021. Worldwide, we now dump 92 million tonnes of clothes and textiles a year, double the figure of 20 years earlier. There’s less and less value in managing these clothes locally. As a result, charities are forced to send more clothes to landfill – or sell bale after bale of clothing to resellers, who ship them to nations in the Global South. Local governments usually handle other waste streams. But on clothes and textiles, they often leave it to charitable organisations and commercial resellers. This system is inherited from a time when used clothing was a more valuable resource, but the rising quantity of clothing has pushed this system towards collapse. From January, all EU states have to begin rolling out collection services for used textiles. But in Australia and the United States there are no moves to do the same – even though these two countries consume the most textiles per capita in the world. As we work towards creating circular economies, where products are continually reused, this will have to change. Textile waste is a new problem Historically, textiles were hard to make and hence valuable. They were used for as long as possible and reused as rags or other purposes before becoming waste. These natural fibres would biodegrade or be burned for energy. But synthetic fibres and chemical finishings have made more and more clothes unable to biodegrade. Fast fashion – in which high fashion trends are copied and sold at low cost – is only possible because of synthetic fibers such as polyester. These clothes are often worn for a brief period and then given or thrown away. What happens to this waste? To find out, we looked at textile waste in Amsterdam, Austin, Berlin, Geneva, Luxembourg, Manchester, Melbourne, Oslo and Toronto. In eight of these cities, charities and commercial resellers dealt with the lion’s share of clothing waste. But in Amsterdam, local governments manage the problem. Across the nine cities, most donated clothes go not to charity shops shelves but to export. In Oslo, 97% of clothes are exported. The flood of clothes is producing strange outcomes in some places. In Melbourne, charities are now exporting higher quality secondhand clothes to Europe. But we found this forces independent secondhand clothing outlets to import similar clothes back from Europe or the US. Charity organisations usually export the clothes across the Global South. But shipping container loads of secondhand clothes and textiles can do real damage environmentally. Clothing that can’t be sold becomes waste. In Ghana, there are now 20-metre-high hills made of clothing waste. Synthetic clothes clog up rivers, trap animals and spread plastics as they break apart. This practice has been dubbed “waste colonialism”. Uganda has recently banned imports. The secondhand clothing export industry provides work, but its social and environmental impacts have been devastating. What should we do? At present, charities and resellers are struggling with managing the rising volume of donations, but they have little room to change. Exporting excess clothing is getting less profitable, but moving to local sorting and resale would be even less so due to higher costs and too many clothes collected relative to demand for secondhand items. These clothes are disposed of by consumers who live in cities in wealthier countries. The actions city leaders take can reduce the problem globally, such as encouraging residents to buy fewer new clothes and boosting local reuse, repair and recycling efforts. Charity shops are inundated with fast fashion donations. triocean/Shutterstock We are already seeing seeing grassroots initiatives emerging in all nine studied cities promoting local reuse and repair, with some receiving government support and others operating independently. To make real change, municipal governments will have to take on a larger role. At present, municipal governments in most of the cities we studied have limited roles, ranging from sending clothing waste to landfill to sharing data on clothing recycling bins, letting charities and resellers set up collection points and supporting repair and swapping. Here are three ways local governments could take the lead: 1. Curb overconsumption Dealing with waste is a major role for municipal governments, and comes with major costs. To reduce clothing waste, cities could launch campaigns against overconsumption by focusing on the environmental damage done by fast fashion – or even banning ads for clothing retailers in city centres. 2. Boost reuse Local governments could stop charging charities for the right to collect clothing and instead offer compensation for every kilo of collected textiles to help replace the money they get from sending clothing bales to resellers for export. Cities can also train and support circular economy practitioners, such as those involved in repair and upcycling. 3. Reduce exports of clothing waste City leaders could reduce textile exports by recognising them as a waste stream and including textiles in their waste management planning. One thing is certain – if we keep going as we are, flows of clothing waste will only grow, leading to more waste locally – and greatly increase the waste problem overseas. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Government
Animals
Energy

Construction is the world’s biggest polluter, yet Labour still refuses to tackle it | Simon Jenkins

Refurbishing an old building is subject to full VAT, but it isn’t if you build a polluting new one. The government’s priorities are all wrongYou can damn oil companies, abuse cars, insult nimbys, kill cows, befoul art galleries. But you must never, ever criticise the worst offender of all. The construction industry is sacred to both the left and the right. It may be the world’s greatest polluter, but it is not to be criticised. It is the elephant in the global-heating room.It’s hard not to feel as though we have a blind spot when it comes to cement, steel and concrete. A year has now passed since the UN’s environment programme stated baldly that “the building and construction sector is by far the largest emitter of greenhouse gases”. The industry accounts for “a staggering 37% of global emissions”, more than any other single source. Yet it rarely gets the same attention as oil or car companies.Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist Continue reading...

You can damn oil companies, abuse cars, insult nimbys, kill cows, befoul art galleries. But you must never, ever criticise the worst offender of all. The construction industry is sacred to both the left and the right. It may be the world’s greatest polluter, but it is not to be criticised. It is the elephant in the global-heating room.It’s hard not to feel as though we have a blind spot when it comes to cement, steel and concrete. A year has now passed since the UN’s environment programme stated baldly that “the building and construction sector is by far the largest emitter of greenhouse gases”. The industry accounts for “a staggering 37% of global emissions”, more than any other single source. Yet it rarely gets the same attention as oil or car companies.Everywhere, building anew is revered. In her budget last month, Rachel Reeves refused to end the 20% VAT imposed on the refurbishment of old buildings, while continuing to exempt new ones from VAT. This amounts to a subsidy for polluting, carbon-intensive activities, much like her failure to index fuel duty. She is doing so because she and the prime minister, like the Tories before them, are putty in the hands of Britain’s powerful construction and oil lobbies. In his party conference speech, Keir Starmer promised to “bulldoze” local planners who impeded developers. He wants to build 1.5m new homes, and defies locals who oppose him. He even harks back to the 1940s and 50s in planning new towns in the countryside, the most carbon-costly, car-reliant form of development imaginable.Of course, Britain needs more homes, and many of these are likely to be new ones. Yet there is plenty the government could do to free up houses. Britain’s regulation of its existing building stock is atrocious. Council tax bands have been frozen since 1991, meaning people rattling around in homes that are too big for them are discouraged from moving. A million homes in England are now estimated to be lying empty and millions more are underoccupied. Deterred by the VAT that applies to refurbishing existing buildings, developers are allowed to demolish 50,000 mostly reusable buildings a year. The release of their embodied carbon is colossal.A much greater conversation is needed about the merits of constructing new homes versus retrofitting existing housing stock. While Labour has pledged to build 300,000 eco-friendly new homes each year, and is expected to tighten environmental standards for construction projects, the housebuilding lobby will fiercely resist any changes. The dominant cry is still build, baby, build. Rarely is it “convert”, “retrofit” or “reuse”. There are plenty of reasons we should be wary of this simple mantra, aside from the climate costs. Building lots more houses in south-east England would only worsen the widening gap between north and south, for example. Towns awash in brownfield sites need restoring, while villages should be allowed to grow organically, rather than being forced to swallow giant housing developments.Starmer is relying on his energy secretary, Ed Miliband, to mitigate the emissions from his construction boom. The latest astonishing proposal is for western Europe’s biggest solar panel farm in the Oxfordshire countryside. It will utterly destroy this area, passing through 15 villages. Britain needs renewable energy, but this should be planned according to national priorities, not allowed to deface the countryside wherever a landowner chooses. And if we are to reduce our impact on the environment, we surely also need to be taking a closer look at properly valuing and zoning the rural landscape in general. Bulldozing all sense of town and country planning to appease a commercial lobby is a shocking abuse of the last shred of local democracy in Britain – the public’s right to some say in the physical future of its communities.

Government
Climate
Energy

Satellites spot methane leaks – but ‘super-emitters’ don’t fix them

Governments and companies almost never take action when satellites alert them about large methane leaks coming from oil and gas infrastructure

A methane plume at least 4.8 kilometres long billows into the atmosphere south of Tehran, IranNASA/JPL-Caltech The world has more ways than ever to spot the invisible methane emissions responsible for a third of global warming so far. But according to a report released at the COP29 climate summit, methane “super-emitters” rarely take action when alerted that they are leaking large amounts of the potent greenhouse gas. “We’re not seeing the transparency and the sense of urgency that we require,” says Manfredi Caltagirone, director of the United Nations Environment Programme’s International Methane Emissions Observatory, which recently launched a system that uses satellite data to alert methane emitters about leaks. Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas to address, behind carbon dioxide, and a rising number of countries have promised to slash methane emissions in order to avoid near-term warming. At last year’s COP28 climate summit, many of the world’s largest oil and gas companies also pledged to “eliminate” methane emissions from their operations. Today, a growing number of satellites are beginning to detect methane leaks from the biggest sources of such emissions: oil and gas infrastructure, coal mines, landfill and agriculture. That data is critical to holding emitters to account, says Mark Brownstein at the Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental advocacy group that recently launched its own methane-sensing satellite. “But data by itself doesn’t solve the problem,” he says. The first year of the UN methane alert system illustrates the yawning gap between data and action. Over the past year, the programme issued 1225 alerts to governments and companies when it identified plumes of methane from oil and gas infrastructure large enough to be detected from space. It now reports that emitters only took steps to control those leaks 15 times, a response rate of under 1 per cent. There are a number of possible reasons for this, says Caltagirone. Emitters might lack technical or financial resources and some sources of methane can be difficult to cut off, although emissions from oil and gas infrastructure are widely seen to be the easiest to deal with. “It’s plumbing. It’s not rocket science,” he says. Another explanation might be that emitters are still getting used to the new alert system. However, other methane monitors have reported a similar lack of response. “Our success rate is not much better,” says Jean-Francois Gauthier at GHGSat, a Canadian company that has issued similar satellite alerts for years. “It’s on the order of 2 or 3 per cent.” All 2974 methane super-emitter plumes that the Copernicus Sentinel-5P satellite detected in 2021ESA/SRON There have been some successes. For instance, the UN issued several alerts this year to the Algerian government about a methane source that had been continuously leaking since at least 1999, with a global warming effect equivalent to half a million cars driven for a year. By October, satellite data showed it had disappeared. But the overall picture suggests monitoring isn’t yet translating into emissions reductions. “Simply showing methane plumes is not enough to generate action,” says Rob Jackson at Stanford University in California. A core problem he sees is that satellites rarely reveal who owns the leaky pipeline or the well emitting methane, making accountability difficult. Methane is a major topic of discussion at the COP29 meeting, now under way in Baku, Azerbaijan. A summit this week on “non-CO2 greenhouse gases”, convened by the US and China, saw countries announce several actions on methane emissions. They include a fee on methane in the US, which is aimed at oil and gas emitters – although many expect the incoming Trump administration to undo that rule.

Government
Agriculture
CO2

Suggested Viewing

The Fellowship of the Springs

Florida’s artesian springs are a natural wonder of the world. As unique as the geysers of Yellowstone and as mesmerizing as Vernal Falls in Yosemite, these blue jewels surrounding the north Florida landscape are considered a treasure by many who see them. The state contains the largest and highest concentration of fresh water springs on earth. But today, the future of Florida’s springs is uncertain. With flow levels declining and nitrate pollution on the rise, the springs today bear the scars of a profound struggle. Florida's own government continues to approve permits for large companies that want to pump water from the springs and their springsheds, for nominal permit fees that often cost less than a day pass to Disney World. The Fellowship of the Springs takes viewers behind the scenes of the fight to save Florida's springs, from the halls of the state capitol in Tallahassee to deep caves of Ichetucknee spring.

Water
Government
Business

Waters of the U.S.

The current administration is rolling back crucial protections for streams and wetlands across the country in a direct assault on the Clean Water Act. This incredibly beautiful film tells the story of the rivers, streams, and wetlands of Alabama to illustrate the dangers of the proposed regulation. By doing so, it shows the economic benefits, ecological health, and cultural way of life that hang in the balance. The director hails from Miami, Florida, with a strong passion for environmental advocacy. With a degree in Editing, Writing & Media from Florida State University and a background in environmental journalism, he intends to make documentaries to inspire protection wildlife and our natural resources.

Government
Water
Pollution

The Green Amendment: New Mexico, Part One

Join Maya van Rossum, Founder of Green Amendments For The Generations, in her exploration of New Mexico’s biggest environmental issues and the role a NM Green Amendment could play in the fight for environmental justice with: Senator Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, legislative sponsor of the New Mexico Green Amendment; Emma Rose Cohen, CEO/Founder of the sustainable business Final; Beata Tsosie-Peña, Environmental Health and Justice Program Coordinator for Tewa Women United; Artemisio Romero y Carver, founding member of Youth United for Climate Crisis Action (YUCCA); and Dee George and Penny Aucoin, fracking waste accident victims impacted residents of Otis, NM.

Government
Activism
Documentary

THE SPRAYER

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

Plants
CO2
Animation

Lake Victoria: An Ecosystem in Turmoil

Decades of mismanagement, environmental changes and a burgeoning population have created tensions for the 40 million people living on the shores of the world's second largest freshwater lake, Lake Victoria. Desperate fishermen use illegal nets and overfish the East African lake's dwindling stocks, while many fishermen have had to turn to other forms of work - much of which has a detrimental impact on the health of the lake and its residents. Lake Victoria: An Ecosystem in Turmoil follows some of those trying to eek out a living on the lake: a Kenyan fisherman who illegally crosses the border into Uganda in the search for fish; a Ugandan who gave up fishing to become a palm oil farmer; and a Tanzanian gold miner using mercury with his bare hands to extract the precious mineral from unregulated mines on the lake's shores. But how well do they comprehend the pressure that they’re putting on the lake, and can the regional governments and communities take action before irreversible damage happens?

Land Use
Water
Government

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.