Tag: climate

  • Member of Parliament Introduces Bold Legislation to Tackle Climate Crisis

    Member of Parliament Introduces Bold Legislation to Tackle Climate Crisis

    London, September 4, 2023 – In a move that promises to reshape the landscape of climate policy, Member of Parliament (MP) Sarah Mitchell introduced a comprehensive legislative proposal today aimed at addressing the pressing issue of climate change. The bill, titled the “Climate Action Act 2023,” outlines a series of ambitious measures designed to accelerate the transition to a sustainable and carbon-neutral society.

    The proposed legislation includes a range of key provisions, including:

    1. Aggressive Carbon Reduction Targets: The bill commits the government to achieve a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 and a net-zero emissions target by 2050. MP Mitchell stated, “We cannot afford to wait any longer; immediate action is needed to curb the devastating effects of climate change.”
    2. Renewable Energy Revolution: To drive the transition to cleaner energy sources, the proposal mandates a significant increase in investments in renewable energy projects. “Renewable energy is the future,” Mitchell emphasized. “This bill will ensure we harness the power of the sun, wind, and water to fuel our nation.”
    3. Sustainable Transportation: In a bid to transform the transportation sector, the bill calls for the expansion of public transportation, cycling infrastructure, and electric vehicle charging networks. “We aim to make greener choices the easier choices for our citizens,” said MP Mitchell.
    4. Environmental Accountability: The Climate Action Act 2023 establishes robust monitoring and reporting mechanisms to track progress towards climate goals. Independent panels will be responsible for evaluating government efforts and ensuring transparency.

    Environmental experts and climate activists have welcomed the proposal, considering it a significant step toward addressing the climate crisis. Dr. Emily Turner, a leading climate scientist, commented, “This legislation aligns with the urgency of the situation. It sends a clear message that governments must take bold actions to safeguard our planet.”

    Greenpeace UK’s Executive Director, Mark Jenkins, also praised the bill, stating, “We are thrilled to see a comprehensive climate action plan being put forth. It’s a testament to the growing public demand for real climate action.”

    The proposal is set to undergo parliamentary debate in the coming weeks, with MP Mitchell optimistic about its prospects. “This legislation represents our commitment to future generations,” she concluded. “It’s time to turn words into action and lead the way in the global fight against climate change.”

    The Climate Action Act 2023 could reshape the UK’s environmental landscape, ushering in a new era of sustainability and carbon reduction.

  • Y20 Consultation At KU A Historical Event, Youth Main Stakeholders In Fight Against Climate Crisis: KU VC

    [ad_1]

    SRINAGAR: Vice-Chancellor University of Kashmir Prof Nilofer Khan on Monday said that the upcoming Youth20 Consultation meet on climate change at the University of Kashmir on May 11 is a historical occassion and an event of global importance. She said it is a great opportunity to showcase our youth as active contributors in fight against climate change.

    Prof Nilofer made the remarks while addressing a pre-event press conference organised regarding the Youth20 Consultation being held on the theme “Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction: Making Sustainability A Way of Life”.

    “It is a historical occasion for the University of Kashmir to be organising this event under India’s G20 Presidency. The University considers it as an event of national and global importance and has put in place all necessary logistical and other arrangements well in advance. Our faculty members, officers, research scholars and students have been actively involved in making this event a great success,” she said.

    The event will be attended by dignitaries from the Central Government, J&K UT Administration, 17 international delegates, 4 international speakers, 12 national speakers and 26 national delegates, the Vice-Chancellor said.

    “To make the event more inclusive and result-oriented, we have invited participants from universities across the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh. We also have participation of students from the school education department and higher education department,” the VC said, adding that four panel discussions on important aspects of climate change will be held during the technical deliberations.

    Highlighting the importance of the theme, the VC said, “We have chosen this theme deliberately in view of its high importance for the country in general, and our youth in particular. Because this engagement and involvement of youth in the conversation and dialogue on climate change is one big intervention that India’s G20 Presidency has made. It is therefore an occasion for our youth to come forward and share their ideas on how they can contribute to addressing and mitigating the impacts of climate change.”.

    These ideas will eventually be taken to the G20 platform and shall contribute to policymaking in its critical areas, she said, adding: “We have also opted for this theme in view of enormous research work which our University has been Conducting in the area of climate change. The research work done In this University on climate change has been published and acknowledged globally”.

    Third important reason for choosing this theme is the fact that we live in the Himalayan region, Which is prone to various natural disasters like landslides, flooding and avalanches. The J&K UT also falls In Seismic Zone-V and is therefore vulnerable to earthquakes.

    “The Youth20 Consultation therefore offers Us an opportunity to deliberate upon these important aspects and see how best our youth can contribute to mitigating the climate change impacts in the region using ‘youth power’ as a means to achieve this goal,” the VC said.

    This mega event reflects our deep commitment to further tread the path of academic excellence with great determination and sustained focus, she said.

     

    [ad_2]
    #Y20 #Consultation #Historical #Event #Youth #Main #Stakeholders #Fight #Climate #Crisis

    ( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

  • Y20 Consultation at KU a historical event, youth main stakeholders in fight against climate crisis: KU VC

    Y20 Consultation at KU a historical event, youth main stakeholders in fight against climate crisis: KU VC

    [ad_1]

    Srinagar, May 8 (GNS): Vice-Chancellor University of Kashmir Prof Nilofer Khan on Monday said that the upcoming Youth20 Consultation meet on climate change at the University of Kashmir on May 11 is a historical occasion and an event of global importance. She said it is a great opportunity to showcase our youth as active contributors in the fight against climate change.

    Prof Nilofer made the remarks while addressing a pre-event press conference organised regarding the Youth20 Consultation being held on the theme “Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction: Making Sustainability A Way of Life”.

    “It is a historical occasion for the University of Kashmir to be organising this event under India’s G20 Presidency. The University considers it as an event of national and global importance and has put in place all necessary logistical and other arrangements well in advance. Our faculty members, officers, research scholars and students have been actively involved in making this event a great success,” she said as per GNS.

    The VC thanked the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Honourable Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports Anurag Thakur and Chancellor Manoj Sinha for choosing the University of Kashmir for the mega event.

    The event will be attended by dignitaries from the Central Government, J&K UT Administration, 17 international delegates, 4 international speakers, 12 national speakers and 26 national delegates, the Vice-Chancellor said.

    “To make the event more inclusive and result-oriented, we have invited participants from universities across the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh. We also have participation of students from the school education department and higher education department,” the VC said, adding that four panel discussions on important aspects of climate change will be held during the technical deliberations.

    Highlighting the importance of the theme, the VC said, “We have chosen this theme deliberately in view of its high importance for the country in general, and our youth in particular. Because this engagement and involvement of youth in the conversation and dialogue on climate change is one big intervention that India’s G20 Presidency has made. It is therefore an occasion for our youth to come forward and share their ideas on how they can contribute to addressing and mitigating the impacts of climate change.”

    These ideas will eventually be taken to the G20 platform and shall contribute to policy making in its critical areas, she said, adding: “We have also opted for this theme in view of enormous research work which our University has been conducting in the area of climate change. The research work done In this University on climate change has been published and acknowledged globally”.

    Third important reason for choosing this theme is the fact that we live in the Himalayan region, which is prone to various natural disasters like landslides, flooding and avalanches. The J&K UT also falls in Seismic Zone-V and is therefore vulnerable to earthquakes.

    “The Youth20 Consultation therefore offers Us an opportunity to deliberate upon these important aspects and see how best our youth can contribute to mitigating the climate change impacts in the region using ‘youth power’ as a means to achieve this goal,” the VC said.

    This mega event reflects our deep commitment to further tread the path of academic excellence with great determination and sustained focus, she said.

    “This event will further encourage our faculty, research scholars and students to pursue their academic goals with greater vigor. The University will also use this occasion to further collaborate in research with our sister universities in the UTs of J&K and Ladakh, and other institutions of national and international repute in the country.

    This is indeed a moment of great celebration for all of us, especially our young students,” the VC said, seeking cooperation of the media in amplifying the message of the Youth20 event. (GNS)

    [ad_2]
    #Y20 #Consultation #historical #event #youth #main #stakeholders #fight #climate #crisis

    ( With inputs from : thegnskashmir.com )

  • Biden judicial nominee helped free-market group that opposed administration on climate change

    Biden judicial nominee helped free-market group that opposed administration on climate change

    [ad_1]

    biden judge 70726

    Delaney’s relationship with the organization, which has not been reported in the media until now, is just one of several aspects of his resume that causes concern among some progressives. He has already faced questions about his work defending an elite boarding school that was sued over sexual assault, and for signing a brief defending a state abortion restriction.

    The White House continues to support Delaney, calling him “extraordinarily qualified” in a statement to POLITICO this week. The two senators from his home state of New Hampshire, both of whom are Democrats, are also standing behind him.

    Delaney did not respond to a request for comment on this reporting. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to review his nomination at a markup on Thursday.

    Delaney was New Hampshire’s attorney general from 2009 to 2013. He now heads the litigation department for McLane Middleton, a law firm with offices in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

    In 2018, Delaney joined the board of the New England Legal Foundation, according to his Senate questionnaire. He is also on the foundation’s legal review committee. Daniel Winslow, the president of the foundation, told POLITICO that the committee members vet the foundation’s amicus briefs before they are filed.

    Winslow added that he was not aware of Delaney weighing in on briefs since Winslow became the group’s head in October 2021, likely because he expected to be nominated to the bench. Biden tapped Delaney in January of this year, and the Senate Judiciary Committee held his nomination hearing in February.

    The New England Legal Foundation’s website touts its “vigorous advocacy of free market principles” and describes its mission as championing “individual economic liberties, traditional property rights, properly limited government, and inclusive economic growth.” Its “About” page features a quote from John W. Davis, the U.S. solicitor general under former President Woodrow Wilson: “Property rights and civil rights are not essentially in conflict; they are two sides of the same coin.” Late in his career, Davis defended school segregation and the “separate but equal” doctrine before the Supreme Court in a companion case to Brown v. Board of Education, representing the state of South Carolina for free.

    NELF’s June 2021 amicus brief in the climate change case urged the Supreme Court to take up the case and overrule a lower court that had sided with the EPA. After the justices agreed to hear the case, NELF filed another amicus brief in December 2021 opposing the administration’s position. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the EPA in a June 2022 opinion that Biden called a “devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards.” In the coming weeks, the EPA is expected to release a new climate change rule.

    Winslow said the group’s work on the case was of a piece with its mission: Advocating for free enterprise, property rights, limited government and inclusive economic growth.

    “Consistent with the rule of law, if you’re an agency, the boundaries of your conduct are set by the elected, accountable branch, Congress,” he said. “And when the administrative state goes beyond that boundary to the point of being unaccountable to the people directly — which Congress is — that violates our principle of rule of law, and that’s why we were involved in that case.”

    Delaney graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1994, according to his law firm bio. Five years later, he was heading the homicide prosecution unit in the New Hampshire attorney general’s office. He later served as counsel to the governor and then as the state’s attorney general before moving into private practice.

    During Delaney’s time on NELF’s board, the group has filed amicus briefs siding with the Chamber of Commerce and a host of powerful companies, including Facebook, Uber and Deutsche Bank.

    In the Uber case, NELF supported the company in a lawsuit brought by a blind man who alleged the rideshare app illegally discriminated against him by refusing to let him bring his guide dog on rides. Uber moved to force the resolution of the matter in arbitration rather than in court, citing its terms of service. NELF backed Uber, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court sided with the plaintiff.

    That was just one of multiple cases where NELF worked to shore up companies’ rights to resolve disputes through mandatory arbitration. In its 2019/2020 report, the group detailed its work successfully defending arbitration before the Supreme Court in one case — known as Lamps Plus v. Varela — but noted that its efforts on another arbitration-related case — New Prime v. Oliveira — didn’t prevail.

    Mandatory arbitration clauses have long drawn condemnation from progressives, who argue they result in customers and employees unwittingly ceding their rights to go to court, as the liberal advocacy group Public Citizen has detailed.

    Biden himself has also criticized mandatory arbitration. Last year, he signed legislation banning the requirement in cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment. At the signing ceremony, he assailed the practice more broadly.

    “Sixty million Americans are bound by forced arbitration clauses that were included in the fine print of their contracts,” he said. “And many don’t even know they exist. You might have signed one without knowing it. I strongly believe no worker should have to make such a commitment.”

    NELF also filed a brief in an important 2021 Supreme Court case involving a clash between union organizers and private property rights. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid involved a California regulation that gave labor organizers the right to enter the property of agricultural employers in order to speak with workers about joining a union. NELF sided with the companies challenging the regulation, and the high court ultimately found the regulation unconstitutional.

    The Biden administration defended the California regulation in the case. So did a group of Democratic lawmakers: Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)., Cory Booker (N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Alex Padilla (Calif.). In their brief, the senators listed NELF as one of several entities filing amicus briefs that are funded by “industry-tied foundations and anonymous money groups.”

    NELF’s most recent annual report listed dozens of corporations, law firms and individuals as contributors. The report said the group got 45 percent of its 2020 revenue from corporate sponsors.

    NELF also weighed in on a case related to a New Hampshire regulator’s effort to reduce dangerous PFAS contaminants — known as “forever chemicals” — in drinking water. NELF sided with 3M Company in its effort to block a rule reducing the presence of those contaminants. The group argued that New Hampshire’s Department of Environmental Services hadn’t done a proper cost-benefit analysis before tightening its regulations of the chemicals.

    “Our amicus brief said, ‘Hey judges, let the legislature have the first crack at this issue,’” Winslow, the group’s president, said. “No, we don’t favor PFAS.”

    PFAS contamination has been a major concern for the Biden administration, as the White House detailed in a fact sheet released this March.

    Some advocates for liberal causes voiced concerns about Delaney’s nomination after being informed by POLITICO of his connection to NELF.

    Jeff Hauser, the head of the progressive watchdog group Revolving Door Project, told POLITICO that he found Delaney’s nomination puzzling.

    “The Biden agenda on economic issues, such as protecting workers and the environment, faces a judicial headwind from the conservative legal movement of which NELF and Delaney is a part,” Hauser wrote in an email. “That tension between the Biden Administration’s legal interests and Delaney’s revealed preferences makes elevating Delaney to the bench a confoundingly counterproductive idea.”

    And Mike Kink, the head of the union-backed Strong Economy for All Coalition, said the Senate should seek more information about Delaney’s role at the group.

    “Anyone who’s concerned about economic justice should be concerned about this nominee’s connections” to the foundation, Kink said. “The group Delaney helped head has shielded corporate polluters and fraudsters while fighting eviction protections for tenants and fair taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations. The Senate must closely question this nominee and assure Americans he’ll work on the bench for regular people who need the law on their side, not just for the rich and powerful.”

    On the right, meanwhile, Delaney’s link to NELF is the opposite of a red flag.

    “If in fact he is conservative-leaning, then perhaps it was not the best move for Republicans to oppose his nomination,” said Josh Blackman, a conservative law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston.

    Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, said the president’s support for Delaney is unchanged. “We are unmoved by an affiliation the President’s extraordinarily qualified nominee disclosed to the public and the Senate months ago, in the most thorough and transparent way available,” Bates said. “This is also the first we have heard any concerns about this expressed at all; and we are skeptical of complaints that surface in the press before we have heard them privately.”

    At the Senate Judiciary Committee’s February nomination hearing, members pressed Delaney on his work for a boarding school that was sued over its handling of a sexual assault, as POLITICO has detailed.

    Delaney has also taken some heat from the left for signing a brief defending a New Hampshire abortion restriction when he worked in the New Hampshire attorney general’s office. The brief backed a New Hampshire law requiring minors to notify their parents before receiving abortions. The law has since been repealed.

    But Delaney has received broad support from a host of other groups, including numerous former state attorneys general and the head of New Hampshire’s Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children.

    His home state senators, Democrats Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan, both strongly supported his nomination. Their spokespersons told POLITICO they still firmly back him.

    “Before considering Michael Delaney’s nomination, Senator Shaheen reviewed his full record, which includes his fierce defense of LGBTQ rights, bringing criminals to justice and leading one of the most significant legal battles against a massive oil company in New Hampshire state history,” said Sarah Weinstein, a spokesperson for Shaheen. “Michael Delaney’s wide scope of supporters includes individuals in the advocacy and legal sectors, as well as judges on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which reaffirm his respected reputation as a public servant committed to seeking justice.”

    Laura Epstein, a spokesperson for Hassan, sent a similar statement. “His background has been thoroughly vetted, and throughout his career, he has shown a strong commitment to justice, including supporting civil rights and the environment,” Epstein said. “His strong, bipartisan support from a wide cross-section of leaders — from public defenders to Attorneys General from 20 states across the country to the CEO of New Hampshire’s Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) — underscores why he will make for an excellent First Circuit Judge.”

    [ad_2]
    #Biden #judicial #nominee #helped #freemarket #group #opposed #administration #climate #change
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Climate protesters disrupt BP’s shareholder meeting in London

    Climate protesters disrupt BP’s shareholder meeting in London

    [ad_1]

    Climate protesters have disrupted BP’s annual general meeting where the oil company faced a backlash from some shareholders over its decision to water down its climate commitments.

    At least four demonstrators were forcibly removed from inside the shareholder meeting within 10 minutes of BP chair, Helge Lund, beginning his opening remarks.

    The protesters, organised by the campaign group Fossil Free London, repeatedly interrupted Lund’s address by calling for the company to take responsibility for its role in the climate crisis.

    Lund also faced growing dissent from BP investors angered by the company’s decision to weaken its climate policies, with almost 10% of shareholders voting against his re-election as chair. That compares with just 3% who voted against him last year.

    “You need to be taking action right now, today,” said one female protester. “It’s not enough. It’s just not good enough. People are dying because of your operations now. Step up and take responsibility. Stop your drilling. Stop your lies.”

    The campaigners were warned by BP’s company secretary, Ben Mathews, to wait until the question and answer segment of the meeting, or risk being removed by security. The protesters were carried out – one still remaining in a chair – to a smattering of applause from some shareholders.

    “This is an emergency,” one woman shouted as she was removed. Another protester, dressed in a smart suit and tie with neatly combed grey hair, was carried out on his back by four security guards.

    Joanna Warrington, a spokesperson for Fossil Free London, said: “BP needs to stop drilling and pay up for the damage they’re doing globally. Big oil is making record-breaking billions off the back of people’s excruciating energy bills. Meanwhile, the oil and gas they sell fuels extreme weather and climate collapse.”

    The group said 25 protesters attempted to enter the central London meeting, which was only open to BP investors, after buying individual shares in the company. Many were barred from entering after being found with banners.

    The meeting was marked by a heavy security presence, including metal detectors and security searches, as the company prepared to face growing criticism of its plans to backtrack on its green pledges.

    BP was also challenged over its record on gas “flaring” in southern Iraq. The avoidable burning off of gas released from oilwells results in large plumes of fire and has led to dangerous levels of air pollution in the area.

    The father of Ali Hussein Jaloud, who died days before the meeting from a form of leukaemia that has been linked to chemicals released by flaring gas, asked BP why it could not use its profits to help save his son’s life.

    Its chief executive, Bernard Looney, expressed his condolences. He said the field was operated by Rumaila Operating Organisation and BP was part of a group of partners that were “making progress” on reducing the flaring and black smoke.

    skip past newsletter promotion

    BP won cautious praise from climate campaigners in 2020 after setting out a “net zero carbon” plan that included a goal to cut the company’s oil and gas production by 40%, compared with 2019, by the end of the decade. But it reset the target to 25% by 2030 after reporting the highest profits in its 114-year history thanks to soaring oil and gas prices linked to the Ukraine war.

    At least four large UK pension funds – the National Employment Savings Trust (Nest), which represents about 11m individual workplace pensions, the Universities Superannuation Scheme and the Border to Coast Pensions Partnership – voted against the re-election of Lund in protest against the strategy change.

    The funds also voted in favour of a resolution put forward by climate campaigners at the shareholder group Follow This, which called for BP to align its emissions reduction plans with the 2015 Paris agreement. In total, 16.75% of BP shareholders backed the resolution. This was higher than last year when 14.9% backed the resolution, but it fell short of the 20.6% garnered in 2021.

    Mark Van Baal, the founder of Follow This, addressed BP’s executives at the meeting, saying: “Science and responsible investors are clear: to achieve the goal of Paris to limit global warming to 1.5C, the world must almost halve emissions by 2030. BP has many aims, but none of these covers BP’s total emissions by 2030 in absolute terms.”

    He added: “Promises for 2050 are empty without meaningful interim targets. Therefore, BP’s overall aims are not Paris-aligned yet.”

    [ad_2]
    #Climate #protesters #disrupt #BPs #shareholder #meeting #London
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • German police call for crackdown on growing climate protests

    German police call for crackdown on growing climate protests

    [ad_1]

    Police representatives, members of the judiciary and politicians in Germany are calling for harsher penalties for climate activists, including preventive detention and longer prison terms, in an effort to halt their disruptive protests.

    This week has seen the most intense protests yet by the campaign group Letzte Generation (Last Generation), with hundreds of its members blocking scores of roads during rush hour in Berlin.

    Rainer Wendt, the head of Germany’s police trade union, led the calls for what he called the “Bavarian model” to be rolled out across the country. In the southern state, activists can be placed in preventive detention for up to 30 days in anticipation of their participation in a blockade.

    In Berlin, the maximum preventive detention is currently 48 hours. “It is no accident that activists have chosen to centre their protests on Berlin and not on Munich [the capital of Bavaria],” Wendt told the news network RND.

    He said the penalties in Berlin were too mild. “I consider this to be way too little … We will only get this situation under control if the punishments are harsher.”

    Benjamin Jendro, of the Berlin police, said that as the protests had increased in number, alternative ways of controlling them were necessary. “We don’t want Bavarian-type rules, but we would like to have more ability to get to grips with the protests,” he told Welt TV.

    Germany’s interior minister, Nancy Faeser, of the Social Democrats, has urged the 16 states to come together to create a unified stance on preventive detention.

    It has been more than a year since Letzte Generation started its protests, which have mainly involved sit-ins in front of traffic, and activists sticking themselves to the road. The actions have earned them the nickname Klimakleber or “climate stickers”.

    Other protests have included throwing mashed potato at works of art in galleries, lopping off the top of a municipal Christmas tree, turning off a gas pipeline, throwing fake oil at the German constitution, spraying paint on political party headquarters, and cutting through the perimeter fence of Berlin airport.

    Letzte Generation activist glued to a road in Berlin
    Letzte Generation activists who glue themselves to roads have been nicknamed ‘Klimakleber’ or ‘climate stickers’. Photograph: Markus Schreiber/AP

    The group has repeatedly said its main aim is to highlight how imminent a climate catastrophe is, and to press the government for more urgent action, in particular to stop the use of fossil fuels.

    It wants to see the establishment of a people’s council, made up of 150 Germans representing every level of society, who would create realistic ideas to tackle the emergency and present them to parliament. It also wants the government to introduce a 130kmh (80mph) speed limit on motorways.

    Letzte Generation points to recent surveys in which four-fifths of Germans have called for the government to take more and swifter action on the climate emergency.

    Initially, penalties against participants in the protests included cautions or fines. But German courts have started to raise the stakes in recent weeks, imposing prison sentences on some campaigners.

    On Wednesday, a woman identified as Maija W, who has been a participant in Letzte Generation actions for more than a year and who last August glued herself to the frame of an oil painting by Lucas Cranach in Berlin’s Gemäldegalerie, was sentenced to four months in prison without probation.

    The judge, Susanna Wortmann, said: “It is not acceptable that parts of society make reference to their objectives as the reason for breaking the law.” She said a suspended sentence was out of the question because the woman had shown “intransigence” and said she intended to take part in future protests, so that “there is no positive social prognosis”.

    The woman, a 24-year-old design graduate, told the court that her protest had been symbolic and she and her fellow protester knew the painting would not be damaged as it was protected behind glass. “My participation in these actions isn’t frivolous or impetuous,” she said, adding that it was meant to throw light on the threat posed by inaction on the climate.

    Earlier this month, three other protesters were sentenced to several months each in jail in Heilbronn for halting traffic. The judge, Julia Schmitt, accused the participants of coercion, for which she could have given a sentence of up to three years.

    skip past newsletter promotion

    Critics have drawn comparisons between the sentences handed down to Letzte Generation and myriad far milder penalties given for traffic accidents caused by careless driving in which people have died.

    A Letzte Generation march in Berlin on Wednesday
    A Letzte Generation march in Berlin on Wednesday. Photograph: Christian Mang/Reuters

    Members of the German government have been increasingly vocal in their criticism of the group’s actions. The Green party’s Katharina Dröge questioned how they wanted to achieve their goals, saying their main success had been to “get on the nerves of normal people going about their day-to-day lives”.

    The economy minister, Robert Habeck, of the Greens, told NTV he believed the actions were wrong. “This protest doesn’t win a majority for climate protection; instead it irritates people, divides society, and in that sense it’s not a helpful contribution to climate protection,” he said.

    Members of the government have compared the group to the Taliban, the Nazis and the RAF, a far-left guerrilla group that terrorised Germany in the 1970s and 80s and murdered 34 people.

    The head of Berlin’s Greens, Bettina Jarasch, who has just lost her position in the government, said that while she was keen to “keep a distance” from the group, she rejected the proposals to extend preventive detention.

    “Preventive detention means putting people in prison for crimes they have not yet committed,” she said in an interview with RBB Inforadio. “That is very questionable and must be strictly controlled.”

    In a recent survey, 86% of participants said they were against the methods of protest used by Letzte Generation.

    Anger has been heightened over accusations that the blockades hold up emergency vehicles. During this week’s Berlin protests, the fire brigade said 15 of its vehicles had been held up in one day, seven of them on their way to an emergency.

    Letzte Generation insists it always leaves space for emergency vehicles. It has said membership and general support for the group has only increased the longer it has been protesting.

    Carla Hindrichs, a spokesperson for the group, said: “I don’t want to stick myself to roads. I’m not doing it for fun but because we can see from examples in history that disruptive, nonviolent action can be the most effective type of action. We are like a fire alarm, which is annoying but necessary.”

    [ad_2]
    #German #police #call #crackdown #growing #climate #protests
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • GOP’s climate counter punch: pushing more fossil fuels

    GOP’s climate counter punch: pushing more fossil fuels

    [ad_1]

    house passes lower energy costs act 64517

    But so far, the voters they’re hoping to attract don’t seem to care.

    The party’s early messaging promoting the bill amplifies attacks that fell flat for Republicans in the 2022 midterms. And new polling shared with POLITICO shows that the GOP’s legislative achievements aren’t energizing voters in some key states on the 2024 map, threatening their ambitions once again to win the Senate and White House.

    Most Republicans and independents — 59 and 66 percent, respectively — in Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia had heard nothing or little about efforts to speed up federal permitting of energy infrastructure projects, a centerpiece of Republicans’ agenda, according to a Public Opinion Strategies survey of 1,200 registered voters.

    Building America’s Future, a lobbying effort that supports the permitting changes, paid for the polling. The group is backed by GOP operatives with ties to former Vice President Mike Pence and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    Republicans, however, have faith in the message, even as they acknowledge the difficulty in translating energy permitting into campaign trail slogans.

    “It’s resonating,” Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah) said of the Republican energy agenda. “You can’t take a subject as complex as energy and try to message every little nuance.”

    The GOP is using increasingly aggressive tactics to back up its bet that Americans will back its message. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy tied the fate of a debt limit increase to H.R. 1, raising the stakes of negotiations that Biden administration officials warn could lead to economic catastrophe.

    Democrats, however, were skeptical that the GOP plan would succeed.

    “I don’t think Republicans are going to get very far on this,” said Rep. Ro Khanna. “People want a government that works, they want to build things. That’s way down in the weeds.”

    The House energy bill, which the lower chamber passed last month with near-unanimous Republican support and votes from four Democrats, aims to expand oil and gas drilling and exports, ease the environmental permitting review process, and repeal many of the $369 billion of climate and clean energy incentives enacted in Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act.

    Targeting those IRA measures could present risks to the GOP, however: Companies have announced at least $243 billion in investments in battery plants, electric vehicles factories and other green energy projects since Biden signed the law in August. And the vast majority of those projects are set to be built in red districts, according to analyses by POLITICO and Climate Power, an environmental organization paid media operation.

    But when pollsters frame the GOP’s energy and permitting proposals as efforts to fight inflation, the ideas fared much better with voters, the survey showed. Seventy-one percent were more likely — including 38 percent who were “much more likely” — to back permitting changes when told they would lower grocery, gasoline and power bills.

    That gives Republicans hope that their broader strategy might gain traction.

    “It’s impossible to make permitting a relevant issue unless you’re focused on how does it impact American families directly,” said Ron Bonjean, a GOP strategist and co-founder and partner of bipartisan public affairs and communications firm ROKK Solutions. “This is not just placing a gambling bet on whether energy prices will be higher or lower at the time of the election … This is showing a solution.”

    It’s not hard to see why Republicans would want to focus on energy. The party’s unity on the issue stands in contrast to other flashpoints like abortion, where Republicans have struggled to align on navigating a debate that has energized Democratic voters. And while inflation has moderated in the past few months, it remains a top worry for voters.

    “Would you rather pay more at the pump or less at the pump? Would you rather have a lower utility bill or a higher utility bill? Would you rather pay more for heating oil or less for heating oil?” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said of Republicans’ credo. “I don’t know how to wordsmith that, but it’s something along those lines.”

    The National Republican Congressional Committee plans to use Democrats’ votes against H.R. 1 as a primary line of attack in frontline House districts where voters might lean more moderately and be open to Republicans’ focus on inflation.

    On April 17, the NRCC sent out a memo hitting Democratic Reps. Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, Mary Peltola of Alaska and Yadira Caraveo of Colorado for voting against the bill, calling their opposition “likely the beginning of the end of their reelection campaign” given the size of their states’ oil and gas industries.

    The NRCC slammed 12 House Democrats when the bill passed in March, saying they “chose the extreme left” in opposing the legislation while citing how much energy and gas costs had risen under Biden.

    Outside groups aligned with Republicans are pouring money into efforts to turn energy policy into a national campaign liability for Democrats. American Action Network, a 501(c)(4) group that is allowed to promote issues without disclosing donors, ran advertisements in Democratic swing districts urging them to vote for H.R. 1. Two such Democrats — Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez of Washington and Jared Golden of Maine — backed the bill.

    Republicans believe their energy message answers voters’ kitchen table concerns and will appeal to the independents and moderates they will need to win the White House and Senate. Relaxing permitting rules will help both clean energy and fossil fuels, they contend, and they say their legislation will ease pressure on global oil and gas markets while thwarting rivals like China and Russia.

    “Whether it wins elections or not, this is something that we truly need to focus on for our constituencies,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said.

    Still, even though the House passed the H.R. 1, dubbed the Lower Energy Costs Act, Republicans are a long way from enacting the measures, which need to pass in the Democratically controlled Senate.

    And a focus on energy prices didn’t fare well in the 2022 midterm elections, even in a year when gasoline prices hit all-time highs and home heating costs surged. Those early year price spikes had moderated by the time voters went to the polls, and are even lower now.

    That pullback in prices may have helped turn the anticipated red wave at the ballot box into a red ripple, giving the Republicans a thin majority in the House and keeping the Senate in Democrats’ hands.

    Ernst defended the focus on energy prices last year, and blamed the poor Republican election result instead on weak candidates, many of whom embraced former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims about the 2020 election.

    Democrats maintain that Republicans are presenting a feeble and incoherent agenda, not least because GOP lawmakers have championed various portions of their package. Some have touted the permitting aspect, which they note would help speed development of all types of energy sources — both fossil fuel projects as well as the clean energy projects that Democrats prefer.

    Others, such as House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, have focused on their bill’s goal to spur more oil and gas production — enabling Democrats to make the case that the GOP plan benefits a fossil fuel industry that overwhelmingly donates to Republican candidates.

    “That bill is fundamentally a message bill they are trying to use to set up this fake argument that the reason energy prices are going up is because of something that we’ve done,” Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said in an interview. She added, “In fact, the reason energy prices have gone up is because the big oil companies don’t want to invest like they used to want to invest because they know the tide has turned when it comes to investors.”

    Republicans contend the wide array of policy issues in the 207-page bill benefits their members, allowing them to tailor its message to their own districts.

    “You can argue, ‘Y’all need to be more concise.’ But because energy is so pervasive, it does affect inflation — this helps those families who’ve been pushed into poverty,” Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) said.

    “It does affect grocery prices,” he said. “This does create better job opportunities in the United States. This does resist China and helps to put us in a stronger position. So it does solve a lot of different things.”

    And if gasoline prices shoot up again, that could make voters more receptive to Republicans’ call to increase oil and gas production. An April Gallup survey showed a 14-percentage-point jump since 2018 in the number of Americans who believe that national policies should encourage more oil and gas drilling. Thirty-five percent supported that position this time.

    Even that, though, doesn’t represent a clear win for Republicans: A majority of Americans — 59 percent — still believe national policies should place a priority on alternative energy instead of oil and gas, according to the Gallup poll.

    That included 62 percent of independents, the type of voters Republicans want to pull to win the White House and pivotal congressional races. And fewer Americans said they see the energy situation as “very serious” than one year ago — 44 percent then versus 34 percent now.

    Brittany Gibson contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #GOPs #climate #counter #punch #pushing #fossil #fuels
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Carbon dioxide removal: the tech that is polarising climate science

    Carbon dioxide removal: the tech that is polarising climate science

    [ad_1]

    For some scientists, they are the inevitable next stage of staving off the existential threat of climate chaos. For others, they should not even be talked about.

    Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, which provide a means of sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, are one of the hottest areas of climate research, but also the most controversial.

    The debate over whether and how to develop CDR has been ignited by the release last month of the final section of the comprehensive review of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report found that ways of capturing and storing carbon dioxide, though expensive, might play a role in trying to keep global temperatures within safe bounds.

    But scientists and policymakers are divided. Some say the technology must be the immediate priority for research. Others urge caution, and warn against putting faith in untested technology before we have even fully deployed the reliable low-carbon technologies, such as renewable energy, that we already have.

    icebergs
    David King is working with Cambridge University’s department of engineering to try to find ways of refreezing the Arctic Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images

    John Kerry, the US special presidential envoy for climate, talked of his concerns. “Some scientists suggest that it’s possible there could be an overshoot [of global temperatures, beyond the limit of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels that governments are targeting] and you could clawback, so to speak; you have technologies and other things that allow you to come back.

    “The danger with that, which alarms me the most and motivates me the most, is that according to the science, and the best scientists in the world, we may be at or past several tipping points that they have been warning us about for some time,” he said. “That’s the danger, the irreversibility.”

    The former UK government chief scientific adviser Sir David King strenuously disagrees. He believes CDR of many kinds will be needed, along with the means to “repair” the climate, such as by refreezing the ice caps, because the world is almost certain to overshoot the global target limit of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

    “We are already at 1.35C above pre-industrial levels today,” he said. “We are already experiencing massive warming in the Arctic, where it’s more than 3C above the pre-industrial average.”

    A rash of new technology startups bears witness to the potential business opportunity that many companies and investors see in CDR. These fledgling companies are exploring everything from “scrubbers” that chemically remove carbon dioxide from the air, to “biochar”, which creates fertiliser from burning wood waste without oxygen, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) by which carbon dioxide is liquefied and pumped into underground geological formations. They have taken the IPCC report as a spur to investment, and a stamp of approval.

    “Growing carbon removal to be in line with the IPCC requires a massive scale-up in the next decade. Startups are meeting this climate challenge by developing a suite of approaches that can make a gigaton impact,” said Tania Timmermann, the chief technology officer of Andes, a company that plans to use micro-organisms to sequester carbon in soil.

    Ben Rubin, the executive director of the Carbon Business Council, which represents several CDR specialists, said: “The IPCC report makes clear that the window of opportunity is closing quickly, highlighting the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing emissions is crucial but not enough: the report affirms that gigatonnes of carbon removal are required to help restore the climate,” he said. “Innovators are actively working to meet this climate challenge, by finding cost-effective and responsible ways to deploy carbon removal.”

    But the key section of the IPCC report, which ignited the controversy, was fiercely fought over by scientists and governments up until the last moments before the document was finalised. The handful of mentions of CDR in the final 36-page summary for policymakers – which distils the key messages and is compiled by scientists alongside government representatives from any UN member that wants to take part – were only inserted after hours of desperate wrangling.

    Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries were most insistent that CDR and CCS should be included and emphasised. In the end, nine references to CDR were left in the summary, and several more to CCS.

    “Saudi Arabia brought 10 very experienced negotiators,” said one person. “They tried to take out references to renewable energy and tried to insist that references to carbon capture should be in there instead of, or at least as well as, renewables.”

    skip past newsletter promotion

    A CCS facility in Alberta, Canada
    A CCS facility in Alberta, Canada. Photograph: Todd Korol/Reuters

    But many scientists, campaigners and green experts are unhappy with the references. They fear that giving the impression there are viable options for removing carbon dioxide might engender a false sense of security. Most CDR technologies are unproven, are likely to be limited in scope, take years to develop and will cost large amounts of money.

    Lili Fuhr, the director of the climate and energy programme at the Center for International Environmental Law, said: “We need to challenge the idea that we have to do less now, because we can do more later, with technofixes. This is a dangerous idea.”

    Friederike Otto, a lead author of the IPCC, and senior lecturer at the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London, said: “My feeling about CDR is that we should pretend it is not an option. We should act as if CDR will never be achievable. We do not have a technology at the moment that works at scale … so we should make our policies as if CDR is not an option.”

    She said pursuing CDR could be a dangerous distraction, and questioned whether it was a good idea to spend money on technologies that offered highly uncertain future benefits, when viable ways of reducing emissions now were not being deployed fast enough. “CDR has already been used as an excuse to dither and delay,” she said.

    Otto said: “It’s very important to highlight that we still can keep to 1.5C – we have the knowledge and the tools to do it. But what we do not have is a sense of urgency and political will.”

    King acknowledges that some scientists have concerns about CDR, but he believes it is needed because of the failure to act before now. “[Those who object] are taking the exact position I took in 2015, when I was leading global negotiations for the UK,” he said. “But there is no time for messing about now.”

    King, who is working with Cambridge University’s department of engineering to try to find ways of refreezing the Arctic, points out that the IPCC report found only a narrow opportunity for the world to limit heating to 1.5C, that relies on massive reductions in greenhouse gases in the next few years, which is unlikely to happen.

    “The IPCC does not go nearly far enough on CDR,” he said. “I believe it is more than likely we will hit 1.5C by the end of the decade. It’s false thinking, that the IPCC is saying we can manage [to stay below that level] with reducing emissions. The carbon we have put up [in the atmosphere] will have to be removed. It may cost a fortune, but we have to recognise that the alternative is to lose our civilisation.”

    [ad_2]
    #Carbon #dioxide #removal #tech #polarising #climate #science
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • ‘Like a dam breaking’: experts hail decision to let US climate lawsuits advance

    ‘Like a dam breaking’: experts hail decision to let US climate lawsuits advance

    [ad_1]

    The decision, climate experts and advocates said, felt “like a dam breaking” after years of legal delays to the growing wave of climate lawsuits facing major oil companies.

    Without weighing in on the merits of the cases, the supreme court on Monday rebuffed an appeal by major oil companies that want to face the litigation in federal courts, rather than in state courts, which are seen as more favorable to plaintiffs.

    ExxonMobil Corp, Suncor Energy Inc and Chevron Corp had asked for the change of venue in lawsuits by the state of Rhode Island and municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California and Hawaii.

    Six years have passed since the first climate cases were filed in the US, and courts have not yet heard the merits of the cases as fossil fuel companies have succeeded in delaying them. In March, the Biden administration had argued that the cases belonged in state court, marking a reversal of the position taken by the Trump administration when the supreme court last considered the issue.

    The Rhode Island attorney general, Peter Neronha, said his state was now finally preparing for trial after “nearly half a decade of delay tactics” by the industry. A joint statement from the California cities of Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Richmond and Marin county said the oil companies knew the dangers of fossil fuels but “deceived and failed to warn consumers about it even as they carried on pocketing trillions of dollars in profits”.

    The cases have been compared to tobacco lawsuits in the 1990s that resulted in a settlement of more than $200bn and changed how cigarettes are advertised and sold in the US.

    “It was a really amazing feeling to see that the supreme court was ruling in a very logical way by continuing with the unanimous decisions that have been made in the previous courts to not [grant petitions for review] and to allow these cases to move forward,” said Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation.

    “It removes this dam that industry has been building to prevent these cases from being heard on their merits,” she said. “We can finally have the real conversations about what the industry knew and what their actions were despite that knowledge.”

    She hopes communities will have the chance to speak in court about the climate emergencies they are experiencing as a result of the industry’s actions.

    As jurisdictional battles have dragged on, climate emergencies have added up.

    The Suncor oil refinery in Commerce City, Colorado.
    The Suncor oil refinery in Commerce City, Colorado. Photograph: Ted Wood/The Guardian

    The Colorado case was filed in 2018. In 2021, the state saw the Marshall fire, the most destructive wildfire in its history, which killed two people, destroyed nearly 1,000 homes and businesses, contaminated drinking water and amounted to billions in damages.

    “There’s real impacts that are happening now, and that’s why it’s so important for these cases to have the opportunity to be heard, and have a chance for justice,” Merner said.

    The cases allege fossil fuel companies exacerbated climate change by concealing and misrepresenting the dangers associated with burning fossil fuels. The lawsuits say the companies created a public and private nuisance and violated state consumer protection laws by producing and selling fossil fuels despite knowing the products would cause devastating climate emergencies, including melting ice caps, dramatic sea level rise, and extreme precipitation and drought. Local governments are seeking damages for the billions of dollars they have paid for climate mitigation and adaptation.

    The oil companies have denied the allegations.

    Financial accountability

    “We were all pretty excited. It feels like justice might be possible,” Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said after reading the decision on Monday.

    “There’s clearly trillions of dollars of damages in the US alone from climate change that has to be dealt with.”

    skip past newsletter promotion

    The plaintiffs aren’t suing the companies to put them out of business, but the cases could ultimately affect the industry’s bottom line.

    If the lawsuits are successful, they could limit the fossil fuel industry’s ability to greenwash and lie to consumers, Merner said. Rulings against the companies could also reinforce banking industry concerns that fossil fuels are a risky investment.

    In state court, fossil fuel companies will attempt to have the cases dismissed.

    The Chevron attorney Theodore Boutrous said in a statement he was confident the cases would be dismissed, arguing that climate change requires a coordinated federal response, “not a disjointed patchwork” of actions from numerous state courts. “These wasteful lawsuits in state courts will do nothing to advance global climate solutions, nothing to reduce emissions and nothing to address climate-related impacts,” he said.

    “I don’t think there’s any reason for that confidence yet,” said Korey Silverman-Roati, climate law fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, in response to Boutrous.

    It’s unclear what will happen in state courts, but Silverman-Roati pointed to the Hawaii case, in which a state court denied the industry’s motion to dismiss.

    If plaintiffs clear motions to dismiss, the cases move to discovery. The plaintiffs will use the process to try to gather more evidence of what the companies knew and when they knew it. Internal company documents will probably become public when the trials get under way.

    Recent studies have shown that Exxon accurately predicted that its products would cause climate change.

    Attribution science will play a key role in connecting local climate disasters to the industry’s responsibility. “Studies can explain how much hotter a heatwave is, or how much greater the intensity of a downpour is during a hurricane event due to climate change. And they can look to see where those emissions came from, and what percentage of those emissions tie into those direct climate impacts,” Merner said.

    With each decision in favor of plaintiffs, the cases are snowballing and more local governments are filing new cases. “There’s a growing number of lawsuits. And I imagine after today, that will continue,” Merner said.

    [ad_2]
    #dam #breaking #experts #hail #decision #climate #lawsuits #advance
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • House GOP’s debt-limit plan seeks to repeal major parts of Democrats’ climate law

    House GOP’s debt-limit plan seeks to repeal major parts of Democrats’ climate law

    [ad_1]

    congress debt 31032

    McCarthy is eyeing to pass his plan in the House next week, setting up a showdown with Democrats amid worries that the U.S. could default on its debt as early as June.

    The Republicans’ 300-page-plus bill amounts to a legislative wish list of measures that have no future in the Senate, whose Democratic leaders have joined Biden in refusing to negotiate policy changes as part of the debt ceiling. They argue that lawmakers should raise the borrowing cap — and avert global economic havoc — without conditions, as Congress repeatedly did under former President Donald Trump.

    Biden derided McCarthy’s plan during an appearance Wednesday in Maryland, and vowed to reject GOP demands that he roll back his administration’s accomplishments.

    “They’re in Congress threatening to undo all the stuff that you helped me get done,” Biden said during an appearance at a Maryland union hall. “You and the American people should know about the competing economic visions of the country that are at stake right now.”

    Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) likewise dismissed the Republican proposal. “It’s pathetic,” he said.

    The GOP bill would enact the party’s marquee energy bill, H.R.1 (218), which the House already passed last month. That bill includes an easing of permitting rules for new energy infrastructure and mining projects that Republicans say would promote economic growth, and which might find some appeal among Democrats.

    The Republican proposal also includes more partisan elements of their energy bill, which would mandate more oil and gas lease sales on federal lands, ease restrictions on natural gas exports, and repeal a fee that the IRA imposed on methane emissions from oil and gas operations.

    Republicans have lambasted the IRA’s clean energy incentives, saying they’re wasteful and distort markets.

    “These spending limits are not draconian,” McCarthy said in a Wednesday floor speech ahead of the bill release. “They are responsible. We’re going to save taxpayers money. It will end the green giveaways for companies that distort the market and waste taxpayers’ money.”

    Republicans are seeking to repeal the IRA’s zero-emission nuclear power production, clean hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel tax credits. Their bill would also eliminate the law’s bonus provisions aimed at placing solar and wind facilities in low-income communities and that allow some entities to receive direct payments of the credits.

    “We have to create situations where traditional, reliable, resilient energy can compete in the marketplace,” Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) told POLITICO. “If that’s getting rid of some of the crazy renewable tax credits in the IRA, I am all for it.”

    Republicans are also proposing to modify several other existing tax credits under the law, including by reestablishing the previous investment and production tax credits for solar and wind that the IRA had extended and increased. The GOP would nix both the production and investments tax credits for green sources after 2024, as well as incentives for paying prevailing wage, using domestic content and placing facilities in communities historically dependent on fossil fuels.

    The proposal would eliminate changes to some tax credits that existed before Democrats’ IRA was enacted, including for carbon sequestration.

    And it would make major changes in the IRA’s electric vehicle tax credit, whose implementation by the Biden administration has taken bipartisan criticism. The GOP proposal would revive a prior $7,500 tax credit for qualifying electric vehicles, but would restore that tax break’s per-manufacturer limit of 200,000 vehicles. It would entirely repeal the IRA’s new incentives for critical battery minerals that are extracted from the U.S. or a close trading partner, and for batteries manufactured or assembled in North America.

    While some moderate Republicans called for party leaders to place a priority on policy measures that could draw bipartisan support — such as overhaul permitting rules — as part of the debt ceiling package, conservatives pushed for more partisan measures targeting Democrats’ climate law.

    But that could put some Republicans in a tricky spot, because many projects that could receive the IRA’s tax credits are set to be built in congressional districts represented by GOP lawmakers. Recent analysis from the American Clean Power Association found that there have been $150 billion in new clean power capital investments since the law’s August passage, including 46 utility-scale solar, battery and wind manufacturing facilities or facility expansions.

    Of the manufacturing announcements tracked by ACP where a congressional district was known, the majority of those facilities were in red districts.

    “There is a lot of stuff in the Inflation Reduction Act that should be repealed,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) told POLITICO. “But there is some common sense stuff that was in there as well.”

    [ad_2]
    #House #GOPs #debtlimit #plan #seeks #repeal #major #parts #Democrats #climate #law
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )