•   
  •   

World The Weekly Planet: The Best Way to Donate to Fight Climate Change (Probably)

19:46  01 december  2020
19:46  01 december  2020 Source:   theatlantic.com

Greta Thunberg spoke zero words to anyone outside her family for 3 years before becoming the face of the youth climate movement, a new film reveals

  Greta Thunberg spoke zero words to anyone outside her family for 3 years before becoming the face of the youth climate movement, a new film reveals Greta Thunberg, a teenage activist from Sweden, is the face of the youth climate movement. A new documentary reveals that Thunberg didn't speak to anyone outside her family for three years before her rise to the world stage. Since 2018, Thunberg has addressed the United Nations, US Congress, and UK Parliament, and met with countless powerful world leaders. Thunberg has Asperger's syndrome, which she partially credits for her fierce activist nature. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

1. The best way to offset additional carbon pollution is to permanently remove existing carbon pollution from the atmosphere. This is what the Swiss company Climeworks So if you are going to donate to fighting climate change , which of these groups should you give to? None of them, Stein told me.

Many plants have changed and developed in ways (D) _. These changes have become So as long as the writers of the show keep coming up with new planets for the Doctor and his The plots are well written, and sometimes you feel like you’re twisting your brain into a knot, trying to figure out

Every Tuesday morning, our lead climate reporter brings you the big ideas, expert analysis, and vital guidance that will help you flourish on a changing planet. Sign up to get The Weekly Planet, our guide to living through climate change, in your inbox.

a field with a mountain in the background: As carbon pollution has risen, the glaciers in Grand Teton National Park have retreated. © Matt Anderson / Getty As carbon pollution has risen, the glaciers in Grand Teton National Park have retreated.

Let’s say you want to donate $25 to fighting climate change. Where should your money go?

Since I started this newsletter, this inquiry (or something like it) is among the most common questions I’ve received from readers. And for good reason: There are at least 461 nonprofits in the United States devoted to environmental causes, according to the evaluator Charity Navigator. Not all of them approach climate change effectively, or even do what they claim to. The green-nonprofit world is a thicket, contained in a morass, reachable only by slog.

‘World War Zero’: Biden names John Kerry as US climate envoy

  ‘World War Zero’: Biden names John Kerry as US climate envoy Biden has pledged to reverse course on climate from President Donald Trump, who doubts mainstream climate science. Trump pulled the United States out of the 2015 Paris agreement on climate and dismantled Obama-era climate and environmental regulations to boost drilling, mining and manufacturing. Kerry will face a challenging task gaining the world’s trust after Trump’s rejection of climate diplomacy.

There are many ways to prevent global warming from becoming worse. Many nations have put laws into place to fight climate change Do your homework to find the best supplier. Turn your city into a climate sanctuary, rally on Main Street, and other ways to make change globally by acting locally.

What's low-tech, sustainable and possibly the most effective thing we can do to fight climate change ? Planting trees. A trillion of them.

Daniel Stein, an economist who trained at the London School of Economics, learned this lesson about 18 months ago when he went looking for the best ways to maximize his climate giving. “I thought I could find the information after a couple hours of Googling,” he told me last week. “But not only could I not find it, a lot of the information that I could find was straight-up wrong.”

So he founded Giving Green, to help people ford the swamp. Giving Green advises people on how to fight climate change with their donations in the most evidence-based way possible. It emerged from beta and published new recommendations last month. Because today is Giving Tuesday—the capstone of America’s ersatz Holy Week and the only square on the calendar devoted to philanthropy—I wanted to look at those recommendations.

20 ideas for meaningful and impactful giving this holiday season

  20 ideas for meaningful and impactful giving this holiday season The holidays may look different this year, but there are still many ways to give back to both your local community and individuals around the globe. Crafty individuals can volunteer to paint murals or make masks and blankets to donate. People who want to donate their time can become a virtual tutor or volunteer to transcribe museum documents or map rural areas. Those who love wildlife can gift national-park memberships or symbolically adopt endangered animals. Supporting local artists, putting together kits for those experiencing homelessness, and donating blood are also great ways to give back.

What can companies do to fight climate change ? We know that due to climate change outcomes, many companies are and will be in the future, greatly affected in many different ways . The first step for any company that wants to reduce its impact on the planet and the environment, and therefore These small gestures gradually create the ground for best practices that individuals then reproduce at

advance policies to fight climate change . engage with businesses to reduce carbon emissions. help people and nature adapt to a changing climate . Forests are home to many of the world’s most endangered wildlife. They also protect the planet by absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2), a major source

Some background: Giving Green is part of the effective-altruism movement, which tries to answer questions such as “How can someone do the most good?” with scientific rigor. Or at least with econometric rigor.

Some readers of this newsletter might be familiar with GiveWell, which tries to find charities that save the most lives on a dollar-per-dollar basis. It uses randomized control trials and empirical evidence to identify charities that it says “improve lives the most per dollar.”

Giving Green applies this same principle to climate change. It asks: If you donate a dollar to fighting climate change, where will your money go furthest? Right now, it makes recommendations in two areas: carbon offsets and policy change. Each illustrates the benefits of its approach—and the potential problems.

Carbon offsetting should be a perfect fit for Giving Green. There’s nothing theoretically impossible about using money to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet doing so has proved devilishly hard in practice. The field is haunted by an idea called “additionality,” which says that every additional dollar spent on offsets should prevent additional CO₂ pollution. According to the European Union, about 85 percent of carbon-offset projects don’t have additionality. That is, they might prevent some carbon pollution, but the amount of pollution prevented doesn’t reliably match the amount of money spent.

Global tariffs the only way to end Australia’s climate criminality

  Global tariffs the only way to end Australia’s climate criminality With a corrupted political process and a media industry pushing climate denialism, the chances of Australia embracing effective climate action appear slim. The rest of the world is therefore justified in punishing a country that is becoming a climate criminal.It abolished an effective and efficient carbon pricing scheme in 2014 and didn’t replace it with anything. It refuses to endorse a net zero carbon emissions target despite its four biggest trading partners all establishing one, or announcing their intention to.

Most of the good news in climate change lately has come from the power sector, where emissions have dropped by 18 percent over the last five years. Sheldon Whitehouse, who delivers a weekly climate -themed haranguing on the Senate floor, recently told Vox’s Jeff Stein that way to politically

Ten ways you can help fight climate change . 1. Urge Ottawa to support a green recovery. But that’s not the way things have to be. Together, we can build a society based on better not more, sharing Let industry know you care about climate change by meeting with your bank or investment adviser to

Giving Green recommends three carbon-offsetting programs that it says have strong additionality (among other traits):

1. The best way to offset additional carbon pollution is to permanently remove existing carbon pollution from the atmosphere. This is what the Swiss company Climeworks does: It sucks carbon dioxide from the air and turns it into a solid material underground.

This is the “most certain” way to offset carbon emissions, according to Giving Green; it’s also the most expensive. Climeworks charges more than $1,000 to remove a ton of CO₂ from the atmosphere. For context: If you wanted to offset the carbon dioxide emitted by the average U.S. car each year, you’d be set back $4,600.

This is out of reach for most people. So Climeworks offers a subscription service: You can pay the company to capture a small amount of carbon every month in your name. For $8 a month, Climeworks will, over the course of a year, remove 85 kilograms of CO₂—about as much as the average car releases in 210 miles of driving.

2. There are cheaper ways to offset carbon pollution. Giving Green also recommends Tradewater, which finds and destroys stores of chemical refrigerants that are more than 10,000 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide is.

Humans waging 'suicidal war' on nature - UN chief

  Humans waging 'suicidal war' on nature - UN chief Secretary General Antonio Guterres says our "war" on the natural world will come back to haunt us.Humanity is waging what he will describe as a "suicidal" war on the natural world.

Because Tradewater targets chemicals that are so much more potent than CO₂, and because it doesn’t need to remove those gases from the atmosphere—it only needs to keep them from reaching the atmosphere—it is much cheaper than Climeworks. At $15 a ton, Tradewater “offers one of the most attractive combinations of price and certainty,” Giving Green says.

3. Finally, Giving Green recommends BURN, which provides fuel-efficient cookstoves to people in Kenya. BURN requires $10 to prevent a ton of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. (While many of the early hopes for efficient cookstoves haven’t panned out, Giving Green says that the BURN approach is backed by research.)

So if you are going to donate $25 to fighting climate change, which of these groups should you give to? None of them, Stein told me. If you want to seriously fight climate change, he said, you need to move beyond buying offsets to supporting “lower-certainty but higher-potential-impact spaces”—specifically, policy.

On policy, Giving Green recommends that donors support two very different organizations—the Clean Air Task Force and the Sunrise Movement.

The Clean Air Task Force works with policy makers in both parties to deploy technologies that could alter the basic math of climate change. Essentially that means it promotes new kinds of nuclear energy, improvements to the power grid, and machines that capture carbon from smokestacks or from the open air. It’s technocratic and nonpartisan.

Great Barrier Reef outlook worsens to 'critical' as climate change named number one threat to world heritage sites

  Great Barrier Reef outlook worsens to 'critical' as climate change named number one threat to world heritage sites The Great Barrier Reef's classification worsens to "critical", with climate change named the biggest threat to the planet's natural world heritage by a UNESCO advisory body report.The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) escalated the reef's status to the worst possible rating in its report on Thursday and named climate change the greatest threat to the Australian natural wonder.

The Sunrise Movement, by contrast, champions the Green New Deal, which calls for massive investment in climate-action and social-welfare programs. Sunrise is one of the most visible activist organizations on the American left, and it’s informally allied with Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other progressive leaders. So it’s assertively partisan, aiming to help Democrats win elections while compelling their party to recognize climate change as an emergency.

Giving Green certifies both organizations as highly effective, but says that donors should choose one or the other based on their theory of how the political system works. If donors believe pragmatic dealmaking gets results, then they should choose the Clean Air Task Force. Giving Green says it has a “long track record of successfully advocating for national-level policy change.” But if donors trust that passionate activism and shifting the terms of national debate will triumph over the long term, then they should go with Sunrise. Though that group is only a few years old, Giving Green says that it “shows promise” and that it has a “strong theory of change and some victories.”

(Technically, Giving Green advises that donors give to the Sunrise Movement’s education fund, which is—again, technically—nonpartisan. Because Giving Green is part of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, it cannot support partisan political groups.)

Sunrise is certainly the more controversial of the two groups. It has vacillated on the utility of nuclear energy and carbon-removal technology, and it gave President-elect Joe Biden’s climate plan a low grade during the 2020 Democratic primary. (It then endorsed him during the general election.) I asked Stein whether Giving Green’s recommendation might alienate more centrist or conservative donors.

UK aims to cut emissions by 68% by end of 2030

  UK aims to cut emissions by 68% by end of 2030 The "ambitious" target would see the UK cutting emissions faster than any major economy so far, the PM says.The prime minister said the "ambitious" target would see the UK cutting greenhouse gasses at the fastest rate of any major economy so far.

“That is unquestionably right,” he said. “Sunrise is associated with policies that are on the left side of the political spectrum … and there’s risk of that, there’s risk of blowback.

“But how does change get done?” he continued. “Sometimes it’s bipartisan compromise, but sometimes it’s extremely passionate people on one side.” Many of Sunrise’s tactics are borrowed from the civil-rights movement, he said—a cause that was undeniably effective at changing U.S. policy.

Ultimately, Giving Green reveals the value—and the limits—of an evidence-based approach to philanthropy. Jennifer Rubenstein, a political-theory professor at the University of Virginia who has written about effective altruism, told me that she thinks the methodology is good at helping donors avoid the worst 15 percent of nonprofits. Giving Green has likely done so here.

But in climate, it faces a harder, even epistemological, question. The carbon-offset question is knowable; some organizations remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere better than others, and it is possible to learn their names. But supporting political action, as Giving Green recommends, goes beyond the realm of quantifiable evidence; it requires arguing about what will change people’s behavior. Sunrise and the Clean Air Task Force are good options for certain kinds of donors. But to support either group is to make a bet about the future. And nobody can run a randomized controlled trial on the future.

Someone Else’s Weather

a boat parked next to a body of water: Karen Buczynski-Lee © Provided by The Atlantic Karen Buczynski-Lee

Our reader Karen Buczynski-Lee shared this photo of a misty, rainy day in Bagni di Lucca, Italy. November was unusually warm nearly everywhere in the world, including Italy. It was far and away the warmest November on record, and nearly 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than Novembers during the late 19th century.

The EU’s biggest oil producer has taken a huge step: It’s ending oil production by 2050

  The EU’s biggest oil producer has taken a huge step: It’s ending oil production by 2050 Denmark’s significant move makes EU climate change targets actionable.Following a December 3 vote, the Danish parliament has issued a near-total ban on companies receiving new licenses to hunt for and extract oil. The agreement will also cancel an eighth round of licensing that was set to occur. Licenses that were issued before the vote will be honored until 2050.

Every week, I feature a weather photo from a reader or professional in this part of the newsletter, because the climate is someone else’s weather. If you would like to submit one, please email weeklyplanet@theatlantic.com.

3 Fascinating Things

1. We’re still waiting to find out who will fill many of the most important climate positions in the Biden administration. We don’t know who will lead the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Energy under Biden, nor do we know who will serve as his domestic-climate-policy chief. (John Kerry will lead climate policy abroad.) But one important name has come into focus: Brian Deese will direct the White House National Economic Council, making him Biden’s top economic adviser.

Deese’s nomination has aroused some controversy. Deese led a White House regulatory office during the Obama administration. But he left to lead environmental efforts at BlackRock, an investment powerhouse that owns a huge share of the U.S. economy, by dint of operating some of the world’s most successful index funds.

Some climate activists argue that BlackRock, by idly owning many fossil-fuel companies, is making global warming worse; progressive activists take issue with its attempt to relax financial regulation. This history led the Sunrise Movement to oppose Deese’s nomination—which, in turn, led Bill McKibben, who has written about climate change since the 1980s and is perhaps the country’s most influential climate activist, to endorse Deese’s nomination.

McKibben, in fact, had officiated Deese’s wedding. “I imagine he'll work steadfastly and competently and honorably, to the betterment of the world, and that he'll get a lot done,” McKibben said of Deese.

I tell this story not to come down on one side or the other. Instead, I want to call attention to a conflict that will become more common as investment firms become larger players in the climate fight and actively push poorly performing companies to do better. Activists’ skepticism of financial power and the use of that corporate power to accelerate climate action are going to collide.

2. An EPA investigation has found that diesel-engine tuners, installed on pickup trucks, are responsible for a staggering amount of air pollution. Trucks with these devices are collectively responsible for emitting 10 times more nitrogen-dioxide pollution than the cars at the center of the Volkswagen scandal. Yet the Trump administration hasn’t yet publicized the paper that reached these conclusions, The New York Times reports.

3. Some reasonably good news: Bank of America has announced that it won’t finance any oil exploration or drilling in the Arctic. This means that none of the six major U.S. banks will fund Arctic drilling, a potential obstacle for any company that might want to pursue it. (An anemic global oil market doesn’t help much either.)

Thanks for reading. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here.

The EU’s biggest oil producer has taken a huge step: It’s ending oil production by 2050 .
Denmark’s significant move makes EU climate change targets actionable.Following a December 3 vote, the Danish parliament has issued a near-total ban on companies receiving new licenses to hunt for and extract oil. The agreement will also cancel an eighth round of licensing that was set to occur. Licenses that were issued before the vote will be honored until 2050.

usr: 2
This is interesting!