Surprise, Surprise. As if we weren't warned.
Greenhouse gas emissions are on course to be about 30 percent above the 2030 global target. An annual U.N. audit of progress towards that goal showed emissions are likely to be 53.0-55.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2030, far above the 42 billion tonne threshold for averting the 2 degree rise.
The U.N. says greater efforts will be needed because temperatures are set to rise by 3.0-3.2 degrees Celsius this century.
The world's 250 biggest listed companies account for a third of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions yet few have strong goals to limit rising temperatures, a study showed. Only about 30 percent of the 250 firms had set strong goals to curb them.
"Without continual reduction in emissions from this group of companies, effectively mitigating the long-term risks of climate change is not possible," according to the study,
In the past three years, emissions from the group of 250 had been flat "when they should have been going down by roughly three percent per year" to limit temperatures in line with goals set by the 2015 Paris climate agreement, it said.
Coal India, Gazprom and Exxon Mobil topped the list when measuring carbon dioxide emitted by companies and by consumers using their products.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt on Tuesday signed a directive that bars scientists who have received federal grants from serving on the EPA's advisory boards. Justifying the new rule, which will take effect immediately, Pruitt suggested that the research of scientists who have received federal money lacks objectivity and gives off "the appearance of conflict." Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), noted in a statement responding to the directive, Pruitt doesn't apply this same standard to oil industry-funded scientists, whose input he eagerly courts. Rosenberg concluded. "Pruitt is turning the idea of 'conflict of interest' on its head—he claims federal research grants should exclude a scientist from an EPA advisory board but industry funding shouldn't."
Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune commente that the directive shows "Pruitt doesn't want to listen to a word from anyone who isn't in the pocket of corporate polluters."
Michael Halpern, program manager of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, said "It's all consistent with a hostile takeover of science-based policymaking: those with true conflicts of interest are exerting control over not only staff positions but also the independent entities who are there to provide science advice. Without public protections that are fully informed by independent science, more people will die and get sick, and our quality of life will suffer. We should do all we can—including challenging the new directive in court—to prevent administrator Pruitt from excluding independent scientific advice from the work of the EPA."
Pruitt didn't unveil the names of appointees to the EPA's Science Advisory Board who will replace scientists receiving agency grants, bt an unofficial list obtained by the Washington Post includes "several categories of experts—voices from regulated industries, academics and environmental regulators from conservative states, and researchers who have a history of critiquing the science and economics underpinning tighter environmental regulations."
http://news.trust.org/item/20171031120643-cwxwe/
http://news.trust.org/item/20171031091242-styvf/
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/31/new-directive-pruitt-bars-scientists-who-arent-pocket-corporate-polluters-epa
Greenhouse gas emissions are on course to be about 30 percent above the 2030 global target. An annual U.N. audit of progress towards that goal showed emissions are likely to be 53.0-55.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2030, far above the 42 billion tonne threshold for averting the 2 degree rise.
The U.N. says greater efforts will be needed because temperatures are set to rise by 3.0-3.2 degrees Celsius this century.
The world's 250 biggest listed companies account for a third of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions yet few have strong goals to limit rising temperatures, a study showed. Only about 30 percent of the 250 firms had set strong goals to curb them.
"Without continual reduction in emissions from this group of companies, effectively mitigating the long-term risks of climate change is not possible," according to the study,
In the past three years, emissions from the group of 250 had been flat "when they should have been going down by roughly three percent per year" to limit temperatures in line with goals set by the 2015 Paris climate agreement, it said.
Coal India, Gazprom and Exxon Mobil topped the list when measuring carbon dioxide emitted by companies and by consumers using their products.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt on Tuesday signed a directive that bars scientists who have received federal grants from serving on the EPA's advisory boards. Justifying the new rule, which will take effect immediately, Pruitt suggested that the research of scientists who have received federal money lacks objectivity and gives off "the appearance of conflict." Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), noted in a statement responding to the directive, Pruitt doesn't apply this same standard to oil industry-funded scientists, whose input he eagerly courts. Rosenberg concluded. "Pruitt is turning the idea of 'conflict of interest' on its head—he claims federal research grants should exclude a scientist from an EPA advisory board but industry funding shouldn't."
Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune commente that the directive shows "Pruitt doesn't want to listen to a word from anyone who isn't in the pocket of corporate polluters."
Michael Halpern, program manager of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, said "It's all consistent with a hostile takeover of science-based policymaking: those with true conflicts of interest are exerting control over not only staff positions but also the independent entities who are there to provide science advice. Without public protections that are fully informed by independent science, more people will die and get sick, and our quality of life will suffer. We should do all we can—including challenging the new directive in court—to prevent administrator Pruitt from excluding independent scientific advice from the work of the EPA."
Pruitt didn't unveil the names of appointees to the EPA's Science Advisory Board who will replace scientists receiving agency grants, bt an unofficial list obtained by the Washington Post includes "several categories of experts—voices from regulated industries, academics and environmental regulators from conservative states, and researchers who have a history of critiquing the science and economics underpinning tighter environmental regulations."
http://news.trust.org/item/20171031120643-cwxwe/
http://news.trust.org/item/20171031091242-styvf/
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/31/new-directive-pruitt-bars-scientists-who-arent-pocket-corporate-polluters-epa
No comments:
Post a Comment