Clean Cities Campaign

without an ambitious and robust climate action plan

Last year the NI Assembly passed its first Climate Change Act, and now the NI Assembly and government departments must create an ambitious Climate Action Plan to implement the legislation.

The Northern Ireland Climate Action Plan will set out the policies and programmes necessary to deliver net zero by 2050 in Northern Ireland. RSPB NI has laid out 4 key tests that must be met as government prepares to publish its first Climate Action Plan for Northern Ireland later this year.

The policies and programmes in the CAP should:

1. Ensure that NI remains on course to meet net zero by 2050 and realise the economic opportunities of investing in nature and climate.

a. Deliver net zero by 2050 in line with the latest science to limit temperature rises to 1.5

b. Embrace the transition to net zero as a huge investment opportunity as highlighted by the Independent Review on Net Zero & the US’s landmark climate legislation.

c. Recognise that there is overwhelming evidence showing that the costs of inaction dwarf the costs of action.

2.  Embed nature-based solutions at the heart of climate action (fulfilling clause 34 of the Climate Change Act (NI) 2022)

a. Deliver large scale nature-based projects on land and at sea to mitigate climate change, enhance resilience, support biodiversity, create jobs and improve health and well-being.

b. Deploy nature-based solutions as a cost-effective way to deliver multiple benefits to society.

c.  Establish a Nature for Climate fund combining public & private sector investment.

3. Support a just transition to nature & climate friendly farming.

a.  Reform agriculture policy to ensure that nature and climate friendly farming becomes the central plank of agricultural policy with payments to farmers based on public money for delivery of public goods.

b.  Empower farmers to be part of the solution and realise the opportunities of a just transition.

c.  Ensure the Just Transition Fund supports fundamental change to agricultural practices in a way that supports farmers, climate and nature.

4.  Ensure renewables are delivered in a nature positive way on and offshore.

a. Ensure that a rapid phase out of fossil fuels is delivered in line with the urgency required by climate science.

b. Deliver greater energy efficiency and demand management measures to reduce energy use, minimise impacts on nature and lower the cost of living.

c.  Take a strategic spatial approach to steer renewable energy developments away from ecologically sensitive sites.

Originally published by Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Northern Ireland, at bit.ly/3NkJ32v

People’s right to compensation against illegal pollution

When people stand up to industry the battle often resembles a David and Goliath fight. Under current EU rules, people cannot claim compensation for damages to their health that result from illegal pollution. As a result, illnesses caused by pollution, such as cancer and heart disease, and even premature death are going unaddressed. But the EU has an opportunity to ensure people’s rights against illegal pollution.         Maria Luís Fernandes and Olatz Fínez report for EEB

The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) is the main EU instrument regulating the environmental and human health impact of industry pollution. As it is currently under revision, there is a unique window to ensure the protection of fundamental rights. A proposal to include an EU-wide right to compensation is on the table but in practice the legal fight might reveal itself as uneven. A fairer footing for those claiming compensation would help balance the scales of justice. But will the IED lend a hand to David?

Illegal pollution Goliath 

Up to 70% of EU soil is unhealthy, 60% of European waters have bad chemical status and air pollution leads to 400,000 premature deaths per year – industry pollution has harmful consequences. While we might wish for an end to pollution altogether, industry is actually allowed to pollute within a certain range, taking into account the Best Available Techniques of pollution prevention. Within that range, each installation has a specific limit that determines how much pollution it can emit. This does not mean, however, that such rules are always respected. Illegal emissions are not uncommon and lead to even more damaging pollution levels.

The price for illegal pollution is often paid by people, and with their health. Meanwhile, the sanctions or suspensions that might be imposed on polluters do not help people affected to get reparation for the damage they suffer. To address this issue, the EU law for industrial emissions could provide a legal route to obtain compensation from industry that pollutes illegally. Such a crucial provision would allow for individuals to claim compensation from polluters that emit over their established limits.

“Innocent people and the environment are paying the price of industry pollution with their health. An Italian town has been suffering the consequences of an environmental crisis for decades. A Bulgarian plant is allowed to pollute by obscuring information. Romanian coal plants benefit from working outside the law. Will EU policymakers ensure protection for people, not polluters? Maria Luís Fernandes reports. The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), the key EU-level legislation to protect communities from pollution, is currently under revision. To protect people …” See Maria Luis Fernnandes, “The Struggle to Survive Industry,” EEB META (1 March 2023).  bit.ly/3TR6IZW

The IED does not cover compensation for health damages and only some Member States address it in their national law. Currently, even if people can claim this compensation, it is dependent on proving the causal link between the pollution and the health damage suffered. However, this proof is often virtually impossible to acquire – for example, due to an extremely limited access to information on pollution levels of installations. This results in a significant imbalance of power and obstacles for individuals to act. So, can the revised IED balance the scales?

A fighting chance for David 

It’s important to strengthen the rights of people affected by pollution. An adaptation of the burden of proof can be the solution: rather than people having to establish the causal link between health damage and illegal pollution, it would be presumed. This means that people would only have to provide enough evidence that of pollution beyond legal limits – not the causality. Instead of burdening David with unreasonable requirements, the new IED could make it the polluters’ responsibility to show their activities were respecting the law.

This would be easy for this story’s Goliath. Compensation would only be granted if operators are not complying with their legal pollution limits – if industry activities prove they are compliant, there is no compensation to fear. In fact, an individual claim for compensation does not oblige industry to suspend their activities. Installations can continue business while they are given the chance to rebut the claims. A tour of EU rules finds similar principles in other regulations that influence industrial activities, such as the Employment Equality Directive or the Antitrust Damages Directive. Should EU law protection of human health not be equal?

“Two myths, one truth – what is the reality of rules for industry? EU decisionmakers reviewing key pollution prevention rules have an opportunity to enact pollution prevention that works for people and the environment. Let’s play – and win – the game of industry rules. We have all been there. You are new and need to get to know the people around you – what better way than a game? You give a couple of statements about yourself, and others need to … “  See Maria Luis Fernnandes, “Two Myths, One Truth – The Game of Industry Rules,” EEB META (8 Feb 2023).   bit.ly/40HGgnp

The revision of the EU law for emissions can give people a fighting chance. It is only just and reasonable to expect that people can hold polluters operating above the legal levels accountable for the damages stemming from their unlawful emissions. Moreover, the right to an effective compensation can be a tool for ensuring compliance as it acts as a deterrent for illegal emissions.

Ensuring a fairer fight for David against illegal pollution can help balance the scales of justice for people and environment. A revised power balance for compensation rights would finally acknowledge the link between environmental pollution and human health damages, as well as offer a stronger legal basis for the protection of people’s fundamental rights. As it stands, it runs the risk of missing its chance.

Balancing the scales of justice 

Laws exist for people – the IED exists to protect people from pollution. It has the potential to become one of the legislative flagships translating the European Green Deal into tangible legal obligations, including the protection of human health. A new compensation right in the IED is a key opportunity to protect fundamental rights by providing a stronger protection for people harmed by pollution.

Originally published by European Environmental Bureau (EEB), META at   bit.ly/3FXaiMl  (15 March 2023).

Take a look at cotton and perfume

Floods, heat waves, droughts:  these extreme weather events announce a dramatic shift in what our lives will be like as a result of climate change.  The destructive impacts are typically sudden and clear.  Floods usually pass in a short time; heat waves and droughts can last for extended periods — months to years.

Other impacts from climate change affect our day-to-day lives with less drama.

Take, for example, the effects of climate change on cotton and perfumes.

Cotton

Upland cotton is short and coarser than Pima cotton and it is the main ingredient of cheap clothing, including denim jeans, and basic hygiene products, like gauze pads, cloth diapers and tampons.   In the US, upland cotton is grown predominately in Texas so whatever happens to Texas weather has significant impacts on upland cotton markets.

Recent reports on that market in 2022 reveal a disaster unfolding with the biggest loss of cotton on record.  Farmers in Texas had to abandon 74% of their planted crops because of heat and parched soil, and resulting megadrought worsened by climate change.  Prices increased accordingly.  In the US, cloth diapers rose by 21%, cotton balls by 9%, and tampons by 13%.  Since Texas is the main source of upland cotton in the US, and third biggest producer in the world, those price increases were felt across the globe. At the same time,  severe flooding, exacerbated by climate change, destroyed half of the cotton crop in Pakistan, the 6th largest producer in  the world.

The future for upland cotton is not bright.  It is projected that heat and drought, thanks in large part to climate change, will continue to impact the crop, and its prices.  That prognosis turns in part on the diminishing supply of water in the southwest from the Ogallala Aquifer that stretches across eight western states, from Wyoming to Texas.  The Aquifer is being dried up, like the Colorado River, so much that the Ogallala Aquifer is now being considered a non-renewable resource.  That is remarkable .

Disturbingly, this same region was the site of the infamous 1930s Dust Bowl where more than two million farmers had to abandon their land because of severe drought and destructive farming practices.

Cotton

Just as the Aquifer is drying up, so too may be the extensive government subsidies provided cotton farmers since the 1930s.   Over the past five years, cotton farmers have been paid annually on average about $1 billion dollars in crop insurance subsidies.  The cotton farmers argue that more government relief is necessary to soften the conditions generated by climate change.  But others question whether it makes economic sense to continue to grow cotton in Texas when the climate is making it too difficult.   Instead we may all be wearing polyester instead of cotton.

Unfortunately polyester is a petroleum based synthetic fiber with its own adverse environmental impacts.

Perfume

As an example of a less functional product we have perfume which is also subject to significant impacts from climate change.  Flagrant flowers, which are harvested to make perfume, grow in Grasse, France, the perfume capital of the world.  While the fields around Grasse have been filled since the 17th century with may rose, tuberose, lavender and jasmine, climate change is transforming those fields.

Much like wine, the quality and specific fragrance of a perfume depends on its soil, sun, geographic location and/or harvesting technique.  Alter those conditions and you lose the unique ingredients of Grasse perfumes.  And climate change is indeed altering those conditions.

Jasmine

Droughts, heat waves and excessive rainfall have created havoc with the Grasse perfume crops.  Extreme weather events that used to be experienced every 50 to 100 years are now occurring every two years.  Last summer, for example, as a result of an extreme drought, perfume producers lost about half of their harvest.  Winters are now warmer, and springs colder.

With increases in extreme weather events expected to continue, the very culture and way of life in Grasse is under threat.  Families have been harvesting the flowers for hundreds of years and in 2018 Unesco entered the perfume region as an Intangible Cultural Heritage.  Losing their crops would be earth shattering for the people of Grasse.

Conclusions

There is a growing recognition that we all have some responsibility to help solve the challenges facing coal mining communities as the world withdraws from burning coal in order to save the planet.  The growing  challenge will be: What do we do to help those communities that will lose their livelihood because the weather has changed, in fundamental, irretrievable  ways.

What’s to come of the cotton farmers in Texas and the perfume producers in Grasse?

Sources:

Coral Davenport, “Climate Change Withers Cotton, And Prices Soar,” The New York Times (19 Feb 2023).  nyti.ms/3krDMuc

Mélissa Godwin, “Climate crisis brings whiff of danger to French perfume capital,” The Guardian (18 Feb 2023). bit.ly/3XWcPwj

“The Sustainability of Polyester Vs. Down & Feather,” DOWN (April 2020).  bit.ly/3ZfdtG7

Eleanor Beardsley, “In France’s Perfume Capital Of The World, There’s A World Of Beautiful Fragrance,” NPR (25 Sept 2021).  n.pr/41n2rk8

Or both, at the same time

Over the past several decades we have become accustomed to extreme weather events that are often, if not almost always, intensified by climate breakdown.  Most common are flooding events, with too much rain, or drought, with too little rain.  With hotter temperatures, the atmosphere holds more moisture, leading to storms and heavy rains, and water evaporates from the land, leading to intense dry spells.  The rainfall saturates soils and overloads streams, limiting their ability to hold more water in the next rain event.  Dry conditions stress vegetation and supplemental water reserves so those resources do not have a chance to recover before the next dry spell.

Studies from the US reflect the increases in extreme weather events.  From 1958 to 2016 NASA reports that they have increased by 55% in the northeastern states, 42% in the midwestern states, and 27% in the southeastern states.  Interestingly the western states, collectively considered, have shown modest increases, yet they have overwhelmed local watersheds.

What’s new is that we are increasingly seeing events with both flooding and drought, sometimes around the same time.  Rather than treating such events as independent, they are being seen as “inextricably linked.”  The efforts to manage such “hyro-climatic risks” are getting more complicated.

California reflects some of these complications.  Recent “atmospheric rivers” (See iePEDIA in current issue of www.irishenvironment.com) have caused over $1 billion in property damage and at least 17 deaths.  Despite this rainfall, 46% of the state is still experiencing “extreme drought” and 49% is in “moderate drought.”

Managing water resources in California has gotten more challenging.  In the past droughts have been managed by using snowpack in the winter as frozen reservoirs that store water as snow.  The snowpack  melts gradually in the spring and summer and feeds streams and rivers and other parts of the state’s water supply infrastructure.  But when the precipitation in the winter is heavy rain, especially in the mountains, and the storms come quickly, the water flows directly to streams and rivers and directly into the sea, and creates havoc on the way.

At the same time, land is so saturated that heavy rain flows overland and does not infiltrate the groundwater acquifers, which also serve as storage for water.  Rain that falls on concertized urban areas is also lost to storage and much of it runs off to seas.

During floods it is hard to encourage people to conserve water since the immediate problem is to get rid of the floodwaters as soon and as directly as possible.  And it is hard to be concerned about flooding in the midst of a drought.

Policy and practices in distributing water will need to account for the complex set of conditions caused by too much and too little rain at the same time or place.