He was fined £840. The Environment Agency announced, “We hope this case will send a clear message”. It will, but not the one it intends.

It’s a familiar story: of almost total regulatory collapse. The failure of the Environment Agency’s waste register looks similar to the farce of company registration, devastatingly exposed by Oliver Bullough. This story reminds me both of the catastrophic failure to protect elderly and vulnerable people against fraud and of the dumping of raw sewage and farm manure into our rivers and seas.

All these failures are inevitable outcomes of 40 years of “cutting red tape”, of slashing the budgets of regulatory agencies, of outsourcing and self-reporting. We were promised freedom. But the people our governments have set free are criminals. Yet another filthy business is cleaning up.

Continue Reading

What we needed at the Cop26 climate conference was a decision to burn no more fossil fuels after 2030. Instead, powerful governments sought a compromise between our prospects of survival and the interests of the fossil fuel industry. But there was no room for compromise. Without massive and immediate change, we face the possibility of cascading environmental collapse, as Earth systems pass critical thresholds and flip into new and hostile states.

So does this mean we might as well give up? It does not. For just as the complex natural systems on which our lives depend can flip suddenly from one state to another, so can the systems that humans have created. Our social and economic structures share characteristics with the Earth systems on which we depend. They have self-reinforcing properties – that stabilise them within a particular range of stress, but destabilise them when external pressure becomes too great. Like natural systems, if they are driven past their tipping points, they can flip with astonishing speed. Our last, best hope is to use those dynamics to our advantage, triggering what scientists call “cascading regime shifts”.

Continue Reading

– The EPA has stated it believes estimates of methane emissions from landfills may be twice as high as models indicate. While the landfill industry might disagree, numerous field studies have found that methane emissions are actually much higher than estimated. A 2016 study by Germany’s Institute for Energy and Environmental Research identified that landfill operators’ claims of methane recovery left out substantial amounts of emissions.

-Waste management companies are no longer just local contractors and the largest landfill operators are now national publicly traded companies. Substantial sums have been spent at the federal and state level by the waste management industry to influence the development and implementation of regulations. It is clear that waste companies have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and are willing to spend to do so.

-As more and more people come to realize the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for real and significant action, the U.S. must follow suit. As European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said before the opening of the COP26 conference in Glasgow, now comes the “moment of truth” that will affect the “survival of mankind.”

Continue Reading

October 18th, 2021 Joe Manchin, the Democratic Senator from West Virginia, has found himself in a position of great influence, given the 50-50 split in the US Senate and the administration’s desire to pass a $3.5 trillion bill that includes a number of measures to combat global warming. Currently, the part of the bill that he opposes is the Clean Electricity Performance Program, or CEPP, which would reward utilities for increasing their production of clean energy, and penalize those that don’t. His argument is that companies should not be rewarded for something that they are already doing, but his real concern is that companies that don’t produce more clean energy should not be penalized. In the long-standing tradition of American politics, he’s taking care of his constituency at the expense of the country. Manchin, after all, represents West Virginia, the nation’s second largest coal producer and the fifth largest energy producer, according to the US Energy Information Administration. More than 90% of the energy produced there comes from coal-fired power plants, and Manchin, Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is very dedicated in his efforts to preserve that mix. Not surprisingly, energy companies have supported him, contributing nearly $500,000 to his campaign in the most recent election cycle, another long-standing tradition of American politics. Yet even with Manchin’s considerable assistance, the coal industry in West Virginia is fighting a rear-guard action. The state produced a total of 93 million tons in 2018, well down from peak production of 169 million tons in 1990. Employment in the mining industry has fallen by about a third over the past decade as well. More than one-third of the state’s production in recent years has been exported, chiefly to China, India, and South Korea. Renewable energy installations, although small, are increasing, with wind generation recently overtaking hydropower. The state suffers, however, from limited wind potential, and other forms of renewable energy, such as solar and biomass, account for less than 0.01% of utility-scale generation. This gives the coal and utility industries greater influence than one would expect. Manchin’s dilemma, therefore, is whether to continue protecting what most acknowledge is a dying industry, or to assist in the transition to a new paradigm, one that will provide jobs to a state with a 16% poverty rate and will help reduce the threat of global warming to the country and the world. Unfortunately, it appears that he has chosen to protect the special interests of his contributors over the well-being of the country. Energy and resource management

Continue Reading

An Interview with Philipp Schmidt-Pathmann  President and CEO of IeRM ((Note: We asked Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann for his views on climate change, global efforts to mitigate the problem, and what he thought would be most effective. This is the first segment of his remarks, which have been edited for continuity.)) Over the past summer, we’ve seen ample evidence of climate change: excessive heat and drought, wildfires out of control, tropical storms more powerful and more damaging than ever before, flooding, loss of beach front – the list goes on. And while people seem to be waking up to the problem, there are very few if any proposals for action now. Some want to switch to renewable energy – 50% by 2050. Some look around for someone or something to blame – big coal, big oil. And some just throw up their hands and say, “what can we do, when China and India won’t cooperate.” The honest and sad truth is that we’ve dug ourselves a pretty deep hole, and we can’t wait for the world’s leaders to get together at their next summit and argue about reduction targets and revised timetables. We also have to recognize that we, as individuals, need to accept some responsibility for both the problem and the solutions. That means, to put it bluntly, changing our behavior. One area where we, as individuals, can have an impact pretty quickly is waste management. But wait, you say, that’s a government function. I pay my fee, I put out my trash, and somebody takes it away. Well, that’s true, to an extent, but think about it. Where does waste management start? In the home! That’s why the first and most important element in the international waste control hierarchy is called “source reduction.” It means, don’t throw so much away. Americans generate a lot of trash – over 1,600 lbs per person per year. That’s more than three-quarters of a ton. Here’s just one example: according to the US Dept. of Agriculture, between 30% and 40% of our annual food supply is wasted – nearly 300 pounds of food per person per year. Think of all the energy it took to grow that food, to irrigate it, to harvest and package it, and to deliver it to your local grocery store or specialty shop. Now think about how much carbon dioxide all those activities generated. Finally, consider the amount of methane all that wasted food will generate when thrown in a landfill. Agricultural activities contribute 25-30% of greenhouse gas emissions. By reducing food waste by 50%, we could make a big reduction in carbon emissions. And it would save you money! ((In the coming weeks, we’ll provide more of Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann’s remarks, as well as interviews with policy-makers,environmentalists, and corporate leaders.))

Continue Reading

to top