A weekly reckoning with life in a warming world—and the fight to save it |
|
|
|
|
A methane flare releases polluting gases at an oil well. Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images |
|
|
|
|
|
“If we continue with business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions, there is no adaptation that is possible,” climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe told The Guardian in an interview published today. No matter how high we build seawalls, or how much we change building materials to better prepare for storms and extreme heat, or how much we genetically engineer corn to withstand drought, we have to cut emissions, as well. Think about that while you read The New York Times’ review of recent Republican efforts to retaliate against businesses that divest from fossil fuels. It’s good to see this story finally getting attention from the big papers; a few days after the Times’ article, The Washington Post came out with its own piece on red-state bills requiring officials to pull state investments from companies that make moves toward sustainability.
TNR’s Kate Aronoff, naturally, identified this trend more than six months ago. Back in December, she reported on model legislation that debuted at the American Legislative Exchange Council. “Both draft laws exhibit the emerging right-wing argument that policy that reduces emissions is in fact discriminatory,” she wrote. “The move marks a deepening split between a Republican Party committed to ginning up a culture war and major arms of capital. The GOP’s war on renewables is increasingly at odds with large segments of the utility sector that are ditching coal and gas for economic reasons, as well as the financial sector, where environment, social, and governance, or ESG, assets … are on track to exceed $50 trillion by 2025.”
|
|
|
|
|
{{#if }} Our writers and editors are bringing you vital reporting, explanation, and analysis to understand the current climate crisis—but they need your help. Here’s a special offer to subscribe to The New Republic. |
—Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor |
|
|
|
|
|
{{/if}} The attack on sustainable investing is largely preemptive, Kate pointed out at the time—there’s nothing to indicate Wall Street is serious about divesting from fossil fuels. But this new right-wing culture war is nevertheless gaining steam: Five days before the Times published its story, Kate identified a new convert to the Republicans’ cause: Elon Musk. You can read her analysis of Musk’s tantrum over S&P’s ESG index here. In reality, banks aren’t divesting from fossil fuels fast enough: Their financial risk calculations seem to wildly underestimate the level of damage higher temperatures and associated extreme weather will cause. Both The Guardian, in its interview with Katharine Hayhoe, and Kate, in her piece on Musk, highlight a telling quote from Stuart Kirk, head of responsible investing at HSBC Asset Management, at an event last month: “Who cares if Miami is six meters underwater in 100 years?” It seems that a lot of Republican leaders feel likewise, though they won’t come out and say it (yet). Amid terrifying climate projections for cities, countries, and the entire globe, these efforts to protect fossil fuels at all costs look increasingly like a death cult. —Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor |
|
|
|
|
Read up on some of the state-level efforts to pass climate legislation this year, if you’re eager to find some sign of progress. In addition to those covered in this Bloomberg Law piece, there’s still a chance New York will manage to pass two crucial environmental bills before the current session ends (although there’s also reason to worry). |
|
|
Hurricane Agatha, which hit Oaxaca, Mexico, this week, killing at least 10, was the strongest hurricane ever to make landfall in the month of May during the eastern Pacific hurricane season. This will get worse unless governments around the globe work to cut emissions, fast. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That’s the goal for cutting water use in Southern California right now, with new restrictions on outdoor water use beginning June 1 in response to worsening drought. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elsewhere in the Ecosystem |
Once upon a time, the goal was to drain swamps. But now, as this feature from The Washington Post explains, government officials and nonprofits are doing everything they can to keep peatlands alive—funneling water into them to reverse centuries of human engineering. |
|
While the basic idea is simple, the implications can be profound. Restoring peatland can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires that in the past have fed on the parched peat and burned for months on end, sending greenhouse gases and other pollution into the air, scientists say. It can safeguard habitat for black bears, migratory birds and other animals that call these wetlands home. Healthy peat can improve local water quality and help mitigate flooding. And as the world speeds toward dangerous levels of global warming, few landscapes can prevent as much carbon from escaping into the atmosphere as peat, which is made up of decayed organic matter that forms over thousands of years. It is one of nature’s least glamorous, most powerful forms of carbon capture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Subscribers Are Reading |
Disaster preparedness doesn’t need to be right-wing and individualistic. It does, however, need to be paired with policy. |
|
|
The Environmental Voter Project wants to turn infrequent voters who care about the environment into a force that can swing elections. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update your personal preferences for newsletter@newslettercollector.com by clicking here.
Copyright © 2022 The New Republic, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is: The New Republic 1 Union Sq W Fl 6 New York, NY 10003-3303 USA
Do you want to stop receiving all emails from TNR? Unsubscribe from this list. If you stopped getting TNR emails, update your profile to resume receiving them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
