(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Earth Matters: Inslee still battling climate action foes; a few EVs now cheaper than average new car [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Daily Kos Staff Emeritus']

Date: 2024-06-23  

You may recall that in 2019, the Democratic National Committee turned down Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s campaign request that one of the party’s primary presidential debates be focused on climate issues. The expressed rationale for rejecting the request was that it wouldn’t make sense to focus on a single issue when there were so many needing attention.

Instead, on the two nights of the first primary debate June 26-27, 15 minutes of the 240-minute total was devoted to poor climate questions and skimpy one-minute answers from the 20 candidates. In the second debate in August, however, in a 12-minute segment, Inslee at least got a chance at something more ample. His key points were that climate change should be the lens through which we view other issues, including the economy, health, and national security, and urgency is bearing down on us. “The time is up,” he said. “Our house is on fire.”

For those of us who had watched climate be brushed off for 30-plus years by politicians, plutocrats, and media no matter how loud the alarm bells scientists were ringing, Inslee’s few minutes were bitter vindication, especially since that was his final debate appearance as the Democratic field narrowed via the polls. He wasn’t the only candidate who had something valuable to say about our climate predicament, but he was the most focused.

Despite his generally progressive record in office, Inslee was relatively unknown nationally and didn’t gain any traction in the crowded 2020 field. After that second debate in August he ended his presidential campaign and announced he would seek a third gubernatorial term. He won that contest, but decided last year he would not to run for a fourth term this year.

The debate was hardly the first time Inslee had advocated for climate action. Reporting on a 2011 congressional hearing about the Environmental Protection Agency, John Broder at The New York Times called Inslee, then a six-term representative from Washington’s 1st District, "one of Congress's most ardent advocates of strong action to combat global warming." In 2002, he pushed for an Apollo-style program to expand clean energy, and wrote a book about it in 2007.

As governor, Inslee worked diligently to turn words in action. As David Roberts at the Volts substack notes, the governor’s “climate initiatives reflect a comprehensive approach to addressing climate change through legislation, regulatory actions, and investments in clean energy and environmental justice. His policies aim to transition Washington to a sustainable, low-carbon economy while addressing the impacts on communities and the environment.” As a consequence, when his term ends in January, he will leave a powerful legacy of climate-related policies, an outstanding record among the states.

It hasn’t been all victories. Two attempts at enacting a statewide carbon tax failed.

Brian Heywood

Inslee isn’t quite done yet. Earlier this month, Roberts interviewed him with a focus on the right-wing effort to repeal one of the governor’s biggest achievements, the 3-year-old, market-driven Climate Commitment Act. The law sets forth a cap-and-invest program to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by establishing a cap on them, which is lowered over time to ensure that state emissions goals are met. By 2050, emissions must be reduced by 95% under state law. Businesses must either reduce their emissions or at auction buy carbon offsets. In its first year and a half in operation, the program has raised more than $2 billion.

Behind the repeal effort is hedge-fund owner and Republican megadonor Brian Heywood, who said in an interview with Adam Aton at Climatewire:

“Exactly what does it mean to decarbonize? I’d like a definition of that,” he said. Given a definition of the state releasing less carbon into the atmosphere than the landscape absorbs, he responded: “That’s not what they’re using. … They don’t want net[-zero emissions], they want zero carbon emissions. Wait, what? Like, every time I breathe, I have a carbon emission.”

—MB

Below is an excerpt from Roberts’ interview with Inslee to whet your appetite for the whole thing. (There is also a video version at this link.)

Governor Jay Inslee [...] Washington state is a state that really wants to protect its children from the ravages of air pollution. It's a state that recognizes we're such a beautiful state with trees and clean water. It's a state that recognizes that we can use our brains to create clean energy technology, to create whole new job industries. And because we believe in those three things, we passed the Climate Commitment Act. The Climate Commitment Act basically starts with — in some degree, might be unfortunately named, it is a pollution reduction control act. It fights pollution. And anybody who doesn't like pollution should like the Climate Commitment Act. Anybody like this Brian Heywood, who wants unlimited pollution, he thinks that's wonderful, that that's what the creator really meant for the earth. He may not like the Climate Commitment Act, but the first thing it does is it does something very radical. It helps our people, our children breathe. And our kids have an epidemic of asthma right now. And because it limits carbon pollution, it limits not only carbon dioxide, which of course, is causing the climate to go haywire, so to speak, but it also, at the same time, prevents small particulate matter from getting in our kids' lungs, which causes massive problems for our children, by the way, not just children. We have twelve counties in our state that we have found out have premature death of two and a half years. In twelve counties, because they have high particulate matter, high use of fossil fuels, they have premature death of an average of two and a half years. Think about that. That's killing our people. So, the Climate Commitment Act is a very effective way to, first, the most important thing about it, it limits pollution. There's a concrete, enforceable, legally meaningful cap on pollution so you can get cleaner air. And then what it does is it helps Washingtonians make a transition to a cleaner system of our economy in hundreds, if not thousands, of ways. I mean, today I was just at a woman named Portia's house over in Issaquah, a low-income person. She got a new heat pump, right? So now she gets reduced utility bills. We have electric school buses going to our schools. We have air filtration systems going to our schools. We have a massive amount of clean energy transportation investments being made. We have utility credits at $200 a month to help people. So, it provides now over a billion dollars of assistance to Washingtonians to help them make this transition in a very reasonably, economically reasonable way. So, it fights pollution, it limits pollution. It helps Washingtonians make this transition, and it grows the economy like crazy. Our economy is a rocket engine on clean fuel right now, from battery production to fuel cells to electric powered airplanes. Man, we're rocking it. So, that's a thumbnail of what the Climate Commitment Act is — and this dastardly, low-life effort to take it away from Washington. I've said, "You're not prying the Climate Commitment Act out of our cold, dead fingers," okay? This is staying in the state of Washington. David Roberts I get the intensity of feeling about it. But let's talk political realities, real quick. Brian Heywood has said he's not contributing any more money to it. The oil guys, interestingly, have said publicly that they're not getting involved in it. Like the Western Petroleum States Petroleum Association has said they're staying out of it. Everybody and their sister is contributing to the no on 2117 campaign — Bill Gates and all sorts of clean energy champions. So, do you feel pretty good about beating it, I guess in November is what I'm saying? Like, it seems like the side that wants to preserve it is outraising its opponents, has more people on its side than its opponents. It just doesn't, it seems like a kind of a, almost like a kind of a half-ass effort on their part. Are you really scared of it passing? Governor Jay Inslee Well, I don't wake up being scared, but I wake up being cautious and aggressive. And we want to be both. Look, you just can't take anything for granted. We have to win this. And by the way, we don't want to just defeat it. We want to crush it. We want to make sure it never raises its ugly head again. And so it's really important that we not only defeat it, but we defeat it as convincingly as possible. And I do believe this is one thing that's important. And for the folks who are listening to this, wherever you are in New Jersey or Indiana, wherever you are, this is an issue in your neighborhood, because we have to win this. We don't want a message from Washington State going to the rest of the political class of members of Congress and legislators to think this was potentially rejected. So, this is a very important national fight that we're having here in Washington State. That's why it's so important. Yes, we have a massive coalition. It's actually one of the strengths of our position that our coalition is so strong, from nonprofit housing community, to healthcare folks, through Physicians for Social Responsibility, to businesses large and small, to folks in agriculture. We have a huge coalition which shows you how healthy our position is on it. But we have to be very aggressive to make sure we're successful. [...]

ECO-VIDEO

x YouTube Video

RESOURCES & ACTION

GREEN BRIEFS

The electric vehicle transition roll-out has tapped the brakes in two of the world’s three largest automobile markets. This has caused heart palpitations and panic among many green advocates who view the EV transition as an essential element in addressing the climate emergency, as well as fodder for gleeful EV slams among certain media and social media haters of the whole concept of electrifying transportation. Even the less hyperbolic mainstream media have been tsk-tsking the fall-off from the previously steep growth in EV sales

The reality is rather more complicated. Rho Motion, which tracks such matters, notes that more than 5 million plug-in vehicles were bought globally during the first five months of 2024. That’s an increase of 20% year over year, and includes 1.3 million sales in May, also up 20% year over year. However, the distribution of that growth varies markedly.

China leads, with a 31% increase from January-May 23. Europe and the UK saw a sales increase in those five months of 4%; the U.S. and Canada, an increase of 5%. In May itself, China’s sales growth was 36% year over year, while sales in Europe and the UK fell by 9%, and in the U.S. and Canada fell by 3%. Unfortunately missing from the report is any distinction between Plug-In Hybrid EVs and fully Battery Electric Vehicles.

We’ll see how the market shakes out when the effects of higher tariffs that Europe and the United States are imposing on Chinese BEVs, with Beijing threatening retaliation in kind.

Mark Kane reports:

Rho Motion noted that the increase in tariffs will make EVs imported from China more expensive. If vehicle prices go up, this will not help adoption, and the ambitious climate goals might be missed. This might be true in the short term, but policymakers have more complex goals, including other aspects like local production, economy, and security. Mass electrification with the use of imported EVs at the expense of removing most of its auto industry is not a compelling vision either.

Tony Randall reports:

Meanwhile, two of the key, completely understandable objections to EVs—how expensive they are, and their range—are being undermined. We’re seeing the first long-range EVs that are not just at price parity with the average gas-powered car, but actually cheaper to buy.

An analysis by Bloomberg Green reveals that Tesla, Hyundai-Kia, and General Motors currently offer EVs with more than 300 miles (480 kilometers) of EPA-rated range for less than the cost of the average new vehicle sold in the United States. The best price deal is Hyundai’s 2024 Ioniq 6, which has 361 miles of range and is priced 25% below the national average of around $47,000. There’s a catch:

EVs as a whole are still expensive to buy, with prices averaging about 15% more than a typical US car, according to data from Cox Automotive. That’s partly because early EVs were disproportionately aimed at the luxury end of the US market. Until recently, the few affordable models on offer were hobbled by insufficient battery range and slow charging speeds. That started to change as battery technology matured and the urgency rose to achieve economies of scale.

The speed of the price drops over the past year, much less the past two, has nevertheless been nothing short of phenomenal.

One of the remaining objections is the availability of public charging in some areas. This doesn’t matter to people who own or rent homes where they can do most of their charging. But other renters, especially those in apartment complexes, are inadequately served by the charging infrastructure. But even that situation is changing fast.

—MB

RELATED:

ECO-TWXXT

x This high school in Walnut, California just gave its parking lot a #solar upgrade. Shading vehicles and helping to power the school.



Shouldn't every parking lot get a #solarpower upgrade like this one? #ActOnClimate#climateaction #climate #GreenNewDeal #renewables pic.twitter.com/6UaIulwZTn — Mike Hudema (@MikeHudema) June 14, 2024

HALF A DOZEN OTHER THINGS TO READ (OR LISTEN TO)

Scientists and Indigenous leaders team up to conserve seals and an ancestral way of life at Yakutat, Alaska by Aron L. Crowell & Judith Da x̱ ootsú Ramos at The Conversation. Long ago, migrating clans of the Eyak, Ahtna, and Tlingit tribes settled Yakutat fjord as the Sít Tlein (Hubbard) glacier retreated, shifting their hunting camps over time to stay close to the ice floe rookery where the animals give birth each spring. Clan leaders managed the hunt to avoid premature harvesting, overhunting or waste, reflecting Indigenous values of respect and balance between people and nature. Now, Yakutat’s 300 Tlingit residents continue this way of life in modern form, harvesting more than 100 different fish, birds, sea mammals, land game and plants for subsistence use. Harbor seals are the most important, their rich meat and blubber prepared using traditional recipes and eaten at everyday meals and memorial potlatch feasts. Yet the community faces a crisis: The dramatic decline of the Gulf of Alaska seal population due to commercial hunting in the mid-20th century and the failure of the animals to recover because of warming ocean waters. To protect the seals and their way of life, residents are turning to traditional ecological knowledge and ancestral conservation practices.

Ronnie Converse, Yakutat’s “seal chef,” holds a piece of seal meat and blubber that will be thinly sliced, salted and smoked to make bacon.

UN food chief: Poorest areas have zero harvests left by Aleks Phillips at the BBC News. Droughts and flooding have become so common in some of the poorest places on Earth that the land can no longer sustain crops, the director of the World Food Programme’s global office has said. Martin Frick told the BBC that some of the most deprived areas had now reached a tipping point of having “zero” harvests left, as extreme weather was pushing already degraded land beyond use. He said that as a result, parts of Africa, the Middle East and Latin America were now dependent on humanitarian aid. [...] The Global Environment Facility estimates that 95% of the world’s land could become degraded by 2050. The UN says that 40% is already degraded. [...] Environmentalists expect that as soil degrades, failing crops will strain global food supplies and increase migration from affected areas. “It's going to be disaster for human beings,” Praveena Sridhar, chief science officer of environmental group Save Soil, said. “It’s going to be like Mad Max.”

Ayesha Qazi-Lampert

Chicago teachers demand climate solutions in their next contract by Juanpablo Ramirez-Franco at Grist. Solar panels. Heat Pumps. Electric buses. Those are just three of the things the Chicago Teachers Union, or CTU, is hoping to acquire in their latest negotiations for a new contract, one that would address the rising toll of climate change in the more than 500 schools in which their members teach. Arguably one of the most powerful unions for teachers in the nation, the CTU held public negotiations last Friday (June 14 in a crowded elementary school gymnasium, facing off against leaders from Chicago Public Schools, or CPS. [...] “Chicago Public Schools will face more than a billion dollars in climate driven cooling costs by 2025,” Ayesha Qazi-Lampert, an environmental science teacher, explained. The CTU wants to transform the city’s schools into “climate-resilient community hubs,” Qazi-Lampert said to the crowd. To do it, the union wants the school district to install heat pumps, transition to solar and geothermal power, and get all lead contamination out of the school’s drinking water. [...] It isn’t just physical infrastructure the union wants to modernize, but also what happens inside classrooms and cafeterias. The CTU is calling for expanded career technical education that puts Chicago students on track for jobs in the emerging clean energy economy. And better lunches for the students to keep students full while they learn inside their newly solar-powered school.

Midwest States Have Approved Hundreds of Renewable Energy Projects. So Why Aren’t They Online? by Kristoffer Tigue at Inside Climate News. Across the nation, more than 11,000 solar, wind and battery storage projects, together capable of powering tens of millions of homes, were still waiting to connect to a power grid at the beginning of 2024, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s annual report, released in April. Clean energy developers have long complained that they’re often waiting years to get their projects online, even after construction is complete. Midwest states, including Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan, have recently passed laws aimed at shortening that wait time. Last year, Michigan passed legislation that gave the state, rather than counties and municipalities, citing authority for large renewable energy projects to reduce the number of jurisdictions in which developers would need to get approval. And last month, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed a sweeping package of reforms into law that are expected to shave as much as nine months off the state’s permitting process. Despite those efforts, many clean energy projects are still expected to experience lengthy wait times to connect to the Midwest’s regional grid, run by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, or MISO. Energy experts say that addressing the myriad delays developers face in the MISO interconnection process—and in other regional grids—is key to ramping up the clean energy transition to meet state and federal climate goals.

FEMA faces potential funding shortfall amid increasing natural disasters by Kristin Toussaint at Fast Company. FEMA could run out of money by August, before the September peak of Atlantic hurricane season. The agency’s report last month shows its disaster relief fund could see a $1.3 billion shortfall two months and be more than a whopping $6.8 billion in the red by September. “FEMA continues to work with the administration and Congress to ensure sufficient funding is available,” an agency spokesperson said via email. “Without additional funding, FEMA will take steps prior to funding exhaustion to ensure resources are available to support ongoing lifesaving and life-sustaining activities and provide a reserve for initial response and recovery operations for a new catastrophic event.” FEMA faced similar budget issues last year. In late August 2023, the agency projected its disaster relief fund would reach a $4 billion deficit—and that was before Hurricane Idalia, a Category 4 storm, hit Florida. This doesn’t mean there won’t be any disaster. FEMA can take emergency measures, invoke “immediate needs funding,” or pause and divert money from longer-term recovery projects to respond to immediate situations.

RELATED: Dozens of Groups Push FEMA to Recognize Extreme Heat as a ‘Major Disaster’

Farmers who graze sheep under solar panels say it improves productivity. So why don’t we do it more? by Aston Brown at The Guardian. As a flock of about 2,000 sheep graze between rows of solar panels, grazier Tony Inder wonders what all the fuss is about. “I’m not going to suggest it’s everyone’s cup of tea,” he says. “But as far as sheep grazing goes, solar is really good.” Inder is talking about concerns over the encroachment of prime agricultural land by ever-expanding solar and windfarms, a well-trodden talking point for the loudest opponents to Australia’s energy transition. But on Inder’s New South Wales property, a solar farm has increased wool production. It is a symbiotic relationship that the director of the National Renewables in Agriculture Conference, Karin Stark, wants to see replicated across as many solar farms as possible as Australia’s energy grid transitions away from fossil fuels. “It’s all about farm diversification,” Stark says. “At the moment a lot of us farmers are reliant on when it’s going to rain, having solar and wind provides this secondary income.” By keeping the grass trimmed, which can otherwise pose a fire risk during dry summer months, sheep save the developer the cost of slashing it themselves.

Sheep grazing at the solar farm outside Warwick, Queensland, Australia.

ECO-QUOTE

“Animals are, like us, endangered species on an endangered planet, and we are the ones who are endangering them, it, and ourselves. They are innocent sufferers in a hell of our making.” —Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson,

ECOPINION

It's Bloody Hot and Deadly—and We Still Have No Climate Action Plan by John J. Berger at Common Dreams. It could hardly be clearer that the world is already in the throes of a climate catastrophe. That means it’s high time for the U.S. to declare a national climate emergency to help focus us all on the disaster at hand. Such a declaration of a climate emergency is long overdue. Some 40 other nations have already done so, including 2,356 jurisdictions and local governments representing more than a billion people. Of course, a declaration alone will hardly be enough. As the world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation, and the one that historically has contributed the most legacy greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the U.S. needs to develop a coherent exit strategy from the stranglehold of fossil fuels, a strategy that could serve as an international example of a swift and thorough clean-energy transition. But at the moment, of course, this country remains the world’s largest producer and consumer of oil and natural gas and the third largest producer of coal—and should former President Donald Trump win in November, you can kiss any possible reductions in those figures goodbye for the foreseeable future. Despite the laudable examples of smaller nations like Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Paraguay, and Costa Rica that are already at, or within a percentage point or two, of being 100% powered by clean, renewable energy, the world sorely needs the U.S. as a global role model.

The University of Chicago hired David Keith, one of the most visible proponents of solar geoengineering,

The University of Chicago’s new climate initiative. Brave research program or potentially dangerous foray into solar geoengineering? by Jessica McKenzie at The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Many experts and nonexperts alike consider the idea of solar geoengineering—deliberately mucking about with Earth’s climate systems to counteract centuries of mostly accidental mucking about in Earth’s climate systems—ethically dubious and potentially highly dangerous. But many scientists say we may have no choice given that the goal of keeping average global temperatures from rising more than 1.5°C (2.7°F) above the preindustrial age is out of the question, with 2.5°C (4.5°F) or even 3°C (5.4°F) possible by century’s end in the view of some. Either outcome would be catastrophic. Michael Greenstone, the director of the Energy Policy Institute at Chicago (EPIC), led the faculty committee that proposed the Climate Systems Engineering initiative and was instrumental in bringing Keith to Chicago. Greenstone described the academy’s indifference to geoengineering research as “malpractice.” “We’re going to wish we had effective carbon dioxide removal technologies operating at scale, or we’re going to wish we knew how to modulate temperatures with various forms of geoengineering to prevent human suffering,” Greenstone told the Bulletin. “But these ideas are not being stress-tested in a systematic way, and the University of Chicago’s tradition of bravery at pursing important ideas, no matter how controversial, make this the perfect place to create the field of climate systems engineering.”

How to Fix Electricity Bills in America by Robinson Meyer & Jesse D. Jenkins at HeatMap. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob (founding executive editor of Heatmap) and Jesse (a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University) talk about why power bills matter, how Jesse would design electricity rates if he were king of the world, and how to fix rooftop solar in America. This is the finale of our recent series of episodes on rooftop solar and rate design. If you’d like to catch up, you can listen to previous episodes featuring Sunrun CEO Mary Powell , the University of California, Berkeley’s Severin Borenstein , and Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo . Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.

The Oily Truth About This Supreme Court by Kate Aronoff at The New Republic. Sometime this month, the Supreme Court is likely to overturn something known as the Chevron deference, which grants federal agencies the authority to interpret the laws that Congress passes. The ruling, depending on its scope, could knee-cap the federal government’s ability to do its job. That would be a windfall not just for big business generally but fossil fuel interests, in particular, who would like it to be harder for regulators to limit emissions from power plants, cars, and other polluting goods. These same oil and gas executives may get another gift on top of the Supreme Court’s Chevron ruling too. [...] The justices who could decide this case have a number of indirect links to the oil and gas industry. Chevron itself is a top donor to the Supreme Court Historical Society. The SCHS was in the news most recently as the venue in which Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, as well as Alito’s wife, spouted off to an undercover reporter about pride flags and Christian values. Perhaps its greater significance, though, is as a convenient way for donors to buy a friendly audience with some of the country’s most powerful people. A 2022 New York Times investigation revealed that the society acts as “a vehicle for those seeking access to nine of the most reclusive and powerful people in the nation” through its solicitation of high-value donors.

Project 2025’ Would Be Disastrous for Our Nation and Our Climate by Rachel Cleetus at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In a blatant effort to politicize climate science, Project 2025 states that ‘The President should also issue an executive order to reshape the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and related climate change research programs… The next President should critically analyze and, if required, refuse to accept any USGCRP assessment prepared under the Biden Administration. Downsize the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research…’ And then it goes on to spread disinformation: ‘OAR is, however, the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism. The preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded.’ Here are the facts: The USGCRP is tasked by Congress (under the 1990 Global Change Research Act, passed under the Bush administration) to produce regular updates on the state of climate science via the National Climate Assessment (NCA), with the Fifth NCA being released last year. The NCA is produced through the work of hundreds of scientists, relying on research done by thousands more. It is not a political document. Suggesting that a new President “critically analyze” the work of scientists or reject their work just because it was done under a different administration is a blatant attempt to politicize science and would leave us all worse off.

Big Oil Wants to Expand Penalties for Pipeline Protesters by Emily Sanders at Jacobin. The federal penalty for damaging or destroying interstate pipelines is already a felony charge mandating up to twenty years in prison. But the industry’s proposed additions, described in executives’ congressional testimony and policy briefs posted online, would widen the definition of and punishment for “attacks” on pipelines using vague language that could implicate a far broader set of activities used to protest fossil fuel infrastructure. Such language has already begun to make its way into the legislative effort to reauthorize the pipeline safety administration as Congress decides the agency’s funding and legislative mandates for the next few years. According to a policy brief on “2023 Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Legislative Priorities” published last year by the American Petroleum Institute — a major trade group representing oil and gas companies — new pipeline safety legislation should “fill gaps in current law” with “additional measures covering disruption of service and attacks on construction sites.” The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s draft reauthorization bill, approved in March, would add “impairing the operation of” interstate pipelines, “damaging or destroying such a facility under construction,” and even “attempting or conspiring” to do so as felony activities punishable by up to twenty years in prison. It’s unclear what “impairing the operation of” a pipeline could entail. If interpreted broadly, climate advocates say such provisions could send activists to prison for exercising their free speech rights.

RESEARCH & reports

OTHER GREEN STUFF

This EV weighs 55,000 pounds and digs giant holes • Minnesota takes rare step to allow power lines alongside highways • Video: Three home electrification experts share their best advice • Zero-Waste Grocery Stores in Growth Mode as Consumers Seek to Ditch Plastic • ‘Dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico predicted to be bigger than average this summer • Sugarcane megaproject poses latest threat to Papua’s forests, communities • Biofuel Refineries Are Releasing Toxic Air Pollutants in Farm Communities Across the US • Climate Refugees Are Occupying Abandoned Buildings in Southern Brazil

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/6/23/2242394/-Earth-Matters-Inslee-still-battling-climate-action-foes-a-few-EVs-now-cheaper-than-average-new-car?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/