Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

Archived copies of the article:

• archive.today
• web.archive.org

There is also coverage in the New York Times (gift link)

The article also has a second section on the failure of the Canadian carbon tax.

Main Takeaways

• Internal combustion vehicles – those that run on gasoline and diesel fuel – produce CO~2~ and a number of air pollutants.
• Over recent decades, big improvements have been made in reducing vehicle-emission pollution; however, it is still problematic at a global scale.
• Transport accounts for one fifth of CO~2~ emissions globally; of this portion the majority comes from road transport (cars, motorcycles, buses, and taxis).
• Rising atmospheric CO~2~ from vehicle emissions and other human activities has been driving recent global warming.
• Air pollution from vehicles has health effects like respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and even an increased risk of getting cancer.
• You can reduce your vehicle pollution by using more sustainable transport options like electric vehicles, ride sharing, walking, bicycles, and public transport.

The message is everywhere: You (alone) can save the planet

Choose a veggie burger instead of beef. Book this flight, not that one. Buy thrift over fast fashion. Shrink your "carbon footprint."

But here's what most people don't know: The very concept of a personal carbon footprint originated with oil giant British Petroleum (BP). In 2004, BP launched a carbon calculator to persuade people to measure their personal climate impacts. The campaign worked — shifting our collective gaze from fossil fuel companies, the biggest drivers of the climate crisis, to individuals like you and me.

Two decades later and with climate disasters rapidly intensifying, we're still caught in this sleight-of-hand. Choices made by corporations and governments continue to shape the speed and scale of climate disruption, while marketing campaigns around climate action try to shift our focus to consumer decisions.

New WRI research tells a different story. Our data shows that pro-climate behavior changes, such as driving less or eating less meat, could theoretically cancel out all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions an average person produces each year^1^ — specifically among high-income, high-emitting populations.

But it also reveals that efforts focused exclusively on changing behaviors, and not the overarching systems around them, only achieve about one-tenth of this emissions-reduction potential. The remaining 90% stays locked away, dependent on governments, businesses and our own collective action to make sustainable choices more accessible for everyone. (Case in point: It's much easier to go carless if your city has good public transit.)

...

Voting at both the national and local levels is key, as elections directly determine whether governments enable or hinder pro-climate behaviors.

...

Systemic pressure creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It's a two-way street — bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them. When we adopt these behaviors, we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment.

WRI's research quantifies the individual actions that matter most. While people worldwide tend to vastly overestimate the impact of some highly visible activities, such as recycling, our analysis reveals four significant changes that deliver meaningful emissions reductions. In order of climate impact, these behaviors are:

1. Shift to sustainable ground travel

2. Shift to air travel alternatives

3. Install residential solar and increase home energy efficiency

4. Eat more plant-rich meals

...one thousand trucks poured into the national park, offloading over 12,000 metric tons of sticky, mealy, orange compost onto the worn-out plot. The site was left untouched and largely unexamined for over a decade. A sign was placed to ensure future researchers could locate and study it.

16 years later, Janzen dispatched graduate student Timothy Treuer to look for the site where the food waste was dumped.

Treuer initially set out to locate the large placard that marked the plot — and failed.

The most important thing people can do to start addressing the climate crisis is to start talking about it, the Texas Tech scientist says.

The president directed agencies to boost coal leasing, mining and exports. But these steps are unlikely to usher in a coal renaissance.

Access options:

• gift link , registration required
• archive.today

Archived copies of the article:

• ghostarchive.org
• archive.today

Archived copies of the article:

• archive.today
• ghostarchive.org - key graphics missing
• web.archive.org - key graphics missing

Access options:

• gift link
• archive.today

Yes, this means a ton of carbon ends up in the atmosphere instead of in the trees. The right move would be thinning and prescribed burns, but this administration isn't going to do that.

In November 2024, Monica Feria-Tinta, a veteran of UN tribunals and the international criminal court, strode through a heavy black door into a Georgian building in London’s august legal district for a meeting about a tree in Southend. Affectionately known as Chester, the 150-year-old plane tree towers over a bus shelter in the centre of the Essex seaside town. The council wanted to cut it down and residents were fighting back – but they were running out of options. Katy Treverton, a local campaigner, had travelled from Southend to ask Feria-Tinta’s legal advice. “Chester is one of the last trees left in this part of Southend,” said Treverton, sitting at a large table in an airy meeting room. “Losing him would be losing part of the city’s identity.”

Feria-Tinta nodded, deep-red fingernails clattering on her laptop as she typed. She paused and looked up. “Are we entitled to nature? Is that a human right? I would say yes. It’s not an easy argument, but it’s a valid one.” She recommended going to the council with hard data about the impact of trees on health, and how removing the tree could violate the rights of an economically deprived community. Recent rulings in the European court of human rights, she added, reinforced the notion that the state has obligations on the climate crisis. This set a legal precedent that could help residents defend their single tree in Southend. “It isn’t just a tree,” said Feria-Tinta. “More than that is at stake: a principle.”

The meeting was just a tiny example of a much bigger shift in how law is being used to fight climate breakdown. Since the early 1980s, communities and campaigners have turned to the courts to fight back against polluting industries. But traditional environmental claims are geographically specific – as in West Virginia, say, where residents sued the chemical firm DuPont for failing to prevent toxic chemicals from leaking into their water supply. Climate litigation presents very different challenges. A vast number of actors are responsible for emissions, making it hard to establish legal responsibility, and often the worst harms occur in a different continent to the worst emissions. But in the last decade, a series of court cases around the world have sought to change the legal status quo. “It’s been a huge shift,” said Adam Weiss, chief programmes and impact officer at ClientEarth, an environmental law charity that has spearheaded this approach. “Judges now see the environmental issues we’re facing as existential, and have allowed the interpretation of human rights law to shift to grasp that.”

Feria-Tinta is one of the pioneers of this change. In 2017, she worked on the first case to argue before an international court that state failings on the climate crisis were violating the human rights of a group of Indigenous people. The case was successful, and since then, hundreds of claimants around the world have made similar arguments. Feria-Tinta is “one of a small group that’s really engaged in thinking strategically about how to use the law as a tool to push for greater ambition on climate change and biodiversity”, says Margherita Cornaglia, a barrister specialising in climate and environmental justice.

After the meeting with Treverton, Feria-Tinta explained to me how all of these grand legal debates related to Chester the tree. “It is not just that this tree is threatened, but that it’s valuable,” she said. “After the second world war we developed certain standards in human rights treaties because of the horrors humanity endured. But we separated what is human from nature. We are living in such a cataclysmic moment that only now are we realising how vital nature is for human beings. The law has to be reframed, rethought.”

Many observers see the law as the last hope for preventing catastrophic climate change. “It seems to me all other avenues have been exhausted,” says Brett Christophers, professor at Uppsala University and the author of The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism Won’t Save the Planet. “Governments and companies aren’t taking serious and significant action, but in theory, at least, both are beholden to the law.” This strategic shift also has limitations, since, put bluntly, states can ignore rulings made in faraway international courts (or, for that matter, in their own courts). Meanwhile, it is not just environmental groups who are embracing climate-related litigation. In the US, there has been a significant rise in cases filed by airlines, fossil fuel producers and even states arguing against the obligation to consider climate risk in their financial planning. Yet Feria-Tinta passionately believes in the power of the law to create change. As the world passes the grim benchmark of 1.5 degrees of global heating, can the law save us from environmental destruction?