By Sonali Kolhatkar for YES! Media.
Broadcast version by Roz Brown for New Mexico News Connection reporting for the YES! Media-Public News Service Collaboration

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- The Conference of the Profiteers" is how some Black, Brown, and Indigenous environmental justice activists have described the 26th Conference of the Parties, or COP26, the United Nations Climate Change Conference. The conference, which convened in Glasgow, Scotland, earlier this month, has an ambitious-sounding goal of achieving "net-zero" emissions by 2030.

In a Nov. 1 speech in Glasgow, President Joe Biden explicitly cited net-zero emissions as a centerpiece of his approach to climate change, saying, "Our administration has been hard at work unlocking clean energy breakthroughs to drive down the cost of technologies that will require us ... to achieve net-zero emissions, and working with the private sector on the next generation of technologies that will power a clean economy of the future."

But several Black, Brown, and Indigenous activists who attended COP26 say the net-zero framework-and other "market-based solutions" that rely on technological fixes-is no panacea for the disproportionate harm being done to mostly Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities, known as front-line communities.

"What's being negotiated at COP26 is the making of another carbon market," says Ananda Lee Tan, strategy advisor to the Just Transition Alliance in San Diego, California.

"Grassroots movements and movements representing the voices of front-line communities have to take an oppositional stance to COP26 and its frameworks of net-zero emissions, its framework of carbon capture and storage, carbon trading and offsets, and the myriad subsidies they're hoping to provide dirty energy," Tan said frankly in a Zoom call from Glasgow.

Jonathan Alingu, co-director of Central Florida Jobs with Justice, who also attended COP26, agrees.

"Untested technologies brought up at COP26, they're all going to be placed in these Black, Brown, [and] Indigenous communities," says Alingu. "The picture looks really grand when you see it on TV, but the results of that will be at the expense of Black people's health, Brown people's health, Indigenous people's health."

Tan, Alingu, and their colleagues see racial justice as a central tenet of climate justice and offer solutions that are quite different from net-zero emissions, carbon capture, and other similar ideas championed by political and corporate elites at COP26. Those solutions include phasing out fossil fuels and following the lead of front-line communities.

Why Technological Fixes to Climate Change Could Harm People of Color

The idea behind net-zero is that if enough greenhouse-gas emissions are removed from the environment to balance out those emissions being generated to power the global economy, the net effect on the atmosphere will be effectively neutral.

But Alejandría Lyons, environmental justice organizer with the SouthWest Organizing Project, based in Albuquerque, New Mexico, says, "It's not a real solution, it's a false solution, and it's going to continue to affect our communities because we're the ones that these offsets are always put towards."

José Bravo, executive director of the Just Transition Alliance, concurs, and explains that "for communities of color in the United States and in the environmental justice movement, what 'net-zero' means is that in aggregate pollution, carbon emissions for much of the population will go down." But for communities at the "fenceline" of these industries, "carbon emissions will go up."

Such concerns are based on decades of disproportionately deadly impacts of extractive and polluting industries placed in low-income communities of color. A recent investigation on pollution in the U.S. by ProPublica concluded that areas "where the majority of residents are people of color experience about 40% more cancer-causing industrial air pollution on average than tracts where the residents are mostly white." Additionally, "In predominantly Black census tracts, the estimated cancer risk from toxic air pollution is more than double that of majority-white tracts."

If and when innovations such as carbon-capture plants become viable, there is a consensus among activists of color at COP26 that their communities will bear the disproportionate brunt of the technology's potential negative impact, as stated above by Alingu, who marched in the streets of Glasgow alongside Lyons and Bravo.

"In our communities, there is much of the production of carbon emissions and little of the reductions, because companies can buy pollution credits," says Bravo.

Conference of the Profiteers?

While offsetting greenhouse gases so the net result is zero emissions sounds like an elegant theoretical solution to climate change, the technology to achieve it-such as carbon capture-is, according to the BBC, "still emerging, very expensive and as yet unproven." Climate scientists are increasingly skeptical of the viability of such an approach.

But the world's largest private asset management firm, BlackRock, which climate activists have dubbed "the world's top investor in climate destruction," has backed the idea of net-zero emissions to address climate change, as have about 20% of the top multinational firms in the world. One reason may be that there are trillions of dollars in technology financing up for grabs.

Tan says a net-zero approach privileges "the industries that are most responsible for causing this crisis, the most carbon-intensive, the most polluting industries," and provides them "loopholes and ways in which they can continue to profiteer off causing harm."

A recent analysis of COP26 attendees by numerous watchdog groups concluded, "Fossil fuel lobbyists as a bloc outnumber the biggest country delegation." Echoing what has become a common refrain among activists, Bravo said the Conference of the Parties really represents a "Conference of the Profiteers."

What Would Real Climate Solutions Centered on Racial Justice Look Like?

Alingu, Bravo, Lyons, and Tan traveled to Glasgow for COP26 as part of It Takes Roots, a delegation of climate justice activists of color from the U.S. and Canada. Lyons says it is important for activists like her to be present at global climate meetings because historically the voices of Black, Brown, and Indigenous people have been "completely left out."

"And our communities are always the last at the table," Lyon says.

According to Tan, the COP26 negotiations are taking place within a "colonial framework," meaning wealthy nations are exercising their privilege to protect their own interests.

In response, Indigenous activists led a series of actions over a period of five days in late October in Washington, D.C., in preparation for the Glasgow convening. They dubbed the protests "People vs. Fossil Fuels" and demanded President Biden "Build Back Fossil Free," an obvious reference to the president's landmark Build Back Better legislation.

Then, in Glasgow on Nov. 6, many of those same activists marched alongside an estimated 100,000 people denouncing net-zero as a "smoke screen," and demanding that fossil fuels remain in the ground. Over the course of the global meeting, activists, including delegates from It Takes Roots, continued carrying out smaller-scale actions to bring attention to the false solutions of net-zero.

"We seek real solutions, not net-zero nonsense," says Tan.

The baseline demand many climate justice activists are making is the elimination of fossil fuels altogether, which they say would directly address the source of the problem. The fact that the phasing out of a fossil fuel such as coal was explicitly mentioned in a draft agreement circulating at COP26 for the first time was, according to the Washington Post, "a welcome breakthrough for most activists," and is likely the result of relentless pressure from grassroots groups that have demanded such language be inserted into COP agreements for years.

They posit that if industries continue to extract and burn fossil fuels, humanity will not survive, and no amount of technological fixes will suffice.

But even phasing out fossil fuels by keeping them in the ground is insufficient.

In order to not repeat the environmental racial injustices of the past, "There needs to be actual power for these communities to come to the table," says Lyons, "[because] historically folks that come from traditional and Indigenous communities, they have solutions and have learned to work with the land."

Tan agrees, saying that what is needed is a "just transition" away from fossil fuels. That transition must "center the voices of those most impacted," he adds. "[And it must include] deepening democracy and ... turning to the voices and the knowledge who have the longest living relationships with the land."

Sonali Kolhatkar wrote this article for YES! Magazine.

Across Pennsylvania and other northern U.S. states, climate change -- from burning oil, coal and methane gas -- is increasing the number of winter days with minimum temperatures above freezing.

The phenomenon is known as "lost winter" and a Climate Shift Index analysis of temperatures showed more than 60% of 28 snow belt states are having at least one additional week of days above freezing.

Shel Winkely, a meteorologist and weather and climate engagement specialist for Climate Central, said winter weather will not be as cold for as long as it used to be.

"Temperatures that are below freezing -- so, 32 degrees Fahrenheit, or zero degrees Celsius -- those are important days," Winkely explained. "We found out how many days climate change has taken away overnight lows that are at or below the freezing temperature."

Winkley pointed out when you look at the 30-year average of snowfall for Pennsylvania, cities like Philadelphia now have only a 9% chance of seeing a white Christmas, with Pittsburgh faring a bit better at about 31%.

Winkley emphasized the loss of cold winter days can negatively affect some regions that depend economically on winter sports for recreation and tourism income. He added lost winter days can also contribute to a smaller snowpack, meaning less spring-melt water is available for municipal systems or agricultural operations.

"On the whole, the state, when you take the average over this decade -- again, 2014 to 2023 -- climate change added about 10 days per year above 32 degrees or so above freezing," Winkley reported.

Winkley noted the report does not mean winters are going away but the warming climate is making winters shorter and less intense.

"This doesn't mean that there's not cold, or that we're losing all of the cold," Winkley stressed. "We still have cold that is to be found. It just means that we're losing those classic winters. This isn't the winters that our parents experienced or that our grandparents experienced."


get more stories like this via email

By Ysabelle Kempe for Smart Cities Dive.
Broadcast version by Freda Ross for Texas News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Lately, the city of Dallas has been hearing from local leaders across the U.S. and as far as London, England, said Rosana Savcic, a division manager in the city's code compliance department. What has caught their attention? A city policy that took effect in 2017 requiring landlords to provide working air conditioning equipment.

More cities are looking into establishing a renter's right to cooling equipment as climate change drives record-breaking temperatures across the world. Such rules codify tenants' right to housing that can be cooled to a specific maximum indoor temperature, a number that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Tenants may still be on the hook for their energy bills, however.

Right now, cities that require landlords to provide AC systems are the exception, not the rule, says V. Kelly Turner, a heat policy researcher and associate director of the University of California, Los Angeles' Luskin Center for Innovation.

That may be changing. Montgomery County, Maryland, passed a first-in-the-region law in 2020 requiring many landlords to provide AC equipment capable of cooling units to at least 80 degrees Fahrenheit from June through September. A 2022 Chicago law requires some large residential buildings or buildings for older people to provide AC in common spaces when the outdoor heat index exceeds 80 F. A New Orleans rule went into effect this year mandating AC equipment that can cool bedrooms to at least 80 F.

In New York City's sustainability plan, the nation's largest city indicates its intention to develop a summer indoor maximum temperature policy by 2030. In July, a NYC council member introduced legislation that would require landlords to provide AC equipment in the summer. Los Angeles County officials are in the early stages of developing a similar policy.

The case for cooling

The trend toward cooling requirements is part of a broader recognition that climate change necessitates new protections and policies, experts say.

"What we're learning is we have to develop policies specific to the issue of heat," said Ashley Ward, director of Duke University's Heat Policy Innovation Hub. In addition to rental cooling standards, heat-specific policy needs include worker protections and universal cooling for schools and prisons, Ward notes.

The major challenge proponents of rental cooling standards need to overcome, Ward says, is the public perception that air conditioning is a luxury, not a necessity. That perception "is why we can justify not having air conditioning in prisons. Forty percent of our schools in the U.S. have inadequate HVAC," Ward said. But as heat records get broken again and again, and heat-related deaths escalate, proponents see policymaker attitudes shifting.

Limitations of right-to-cooling policies

While rental cooling standards may be a step toward addressing urban heat impacts on residents, these policies aren't perfect solutions, Ward said.

Even if lower-income renters have AC equipment, they might not turn it on for fear of high energy bills. That's why some experts have urged states and cities to complement rental cooling standards with utility bill assistance programs that take cooling needs into account. States typically use much more of the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to help people with heating rather than cooling bills. And while the need for support is growing, the pot of available LIHEAP funding shrank from $6.1 billion in fiscal year 2023 to $4.1 billion in fiscal year 2024, according to a June report from the National Energy Assistance Directors Association and Center for Energy Poverty and Climate.

Cities need to start monitoring low-income households' ability to pay for cooling, Turner said in an email. That data could build a case for better supporting cooling through subsidy programs like LIHEAP.

Utilities can also help make cooling more affordable, explained Gregory Pierce, research and co-executive director of UCLA's Luskin Center and an associate professor of urban planning. State public utilities commissions can play a big role in imposing or encouraging utility-run energy affordability programs, but cities can pitch in on the effort, too, such as by collaborating with utilities on programs that make baseline amounts of energy more affordable for people, Turner said.

Tiered payment programs, for example, charge those who use a lot of electricity a higher rate than those who use less. Hotter weather, however, might mean those tiers need to be adjusted, so that the most affordable tier accounts for the amount of energy needed to cool the typical home, Pierce said.

"Not a lot of utilities have, I think, adjusted those tiers accordingly yet to account for AC, much less electrification," he said.

Any equity-oriented program must involve listening to community members about their specific struggles, Turner added. "There may be solutions we don't even know to think about because we need to hear from those that would be facing those tough choices," such as between turning on the AC and putting food on the table, she said.

Rental cooling standards also present other challenges. Cash-strapped landlords may struggle to undertake complex, expensive retrofits. Waste heat that AC equipment generates increases the urban heat island effect, and adding cooling equipment to buildings can drive up greenhouse gas emissions - although heat pumps allow building owners to simultaneously offer cooling and potentially replace fossil fuel-powered HVAC equipment.

How low should cities go?

Then there's the question of what cities should set as the maximum temperature in rental housing. Dallas' rule requires AC equipment that can keep rooms at least 15 degrees cooler than the outdoor temperature, with a maximum temperature threshold of 85 F. That means that even if it's 105 degrees outside, rental housing must be equipped to stay at 85 F or cooler.

Ward thinks cities should set the maximum temperature lower. She cites 73 F as the threshold for a good night's sleep and recovery. She recommends cities set a maximum temperature around 76 F, since fans can help bring the temperature down another couple of degrees.

However, over-debating the exact maximum temperature can stifle productive policymaking, Turner warned. She said she'd rather set the maximum temperature at 80 F and start a conversation about what it will take to implement the policy, including developing a complaint-reporting process and finding funding.

"To some degree, the question isn't, 'Can we get exactly [the right] temperature?' The question is, 'Can we get something on the books to at least give people a fighting chance of having a safe thermal environment?'" she said. "Once we do that, we can start to tinker."


Ysabelle Kempe wrote this article for Smart Cities Dive.


get more stories like this via email

Three environmental nonprofits filed suit Wednesday against the California Air Resources Board to oppose the expansion of a program allowing oil and gas companies to offset their pollution by buying credits from huge farms producing natural gas from animal waste.

Last month, the state amended the low carbon fuel standard to expand credits favoring biogas, arguing it removes methane from the waste stream and creates renewable power.

Tyler Lobdell, staff attorney for the nonprofit co-plaintiff Food and Water Watch, said the program is actually a perverse incentive for factory farms to get bigger.

"The biggest operators, the biggest polluters, are the most rewarded," Lobdell pointed out. "That is the incentive structure here. Go out and be as big and as polluting as possible, and you will see the largest reward from our program."

The low carbon fuel standard is intended to reduce carbon pollution by incentivizing the transition to clean cars. The lawsuit argued the credit program prioritizes pollution-heavy practices over sustainable solutions.

Lobdell noted manure only produces methane when large quantities are liquefied at concentrated animal feeding operations. He suggested the state require factory farms to manage their manure in ways which do not rely on anaerobic environments emitting methane.

"The real solution to addressing pollution is to reduce the pollution, not to monetize it and lock it in for generations," Lobdell contended. "We should be requiring these facilities to more sustainably manage their waste. That would have climate benefits, that would also have benefits to local air quality and to local water quality."

The lawsuit asks the court to require the California Air Resources Board to disclose, analyze and mitigate the environmental impact caused by the change to the low-carbon fuel standard. The other two plaintiffs include the nonprofits Defensores del Valle Central para el Aire y Agua Limpio, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.


get more stories like this via email