The increasing use of wind and solar energy in the US is driving massive economic benefits and emission reductions in the US, according to a new study.

Lower emissions, better air quality, and greater health benefits – these are the headline gains from the rise of renewable power in the US. Between 2010 and 2020, the country’s wind and solar generation capacity quadrupled from 40 gigawatts to 166 gigawatts – and for the first five months of last year, these sources generated more electricity than coal, following a trend from 2022.

This has driven significant climate benefits, according to a new study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and green energy consulting firm Clean Kilowatts. Published in the Cell Reports Sustainability journal, the research focuses on wind and solar energy from 2019 and 2022, and the accompanying impact on carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

“From 2019 through 2022, wind and solar generation increased by about 55%,” LBNL scientist Dev Millstein told the Guardian. “By 2022, wind and solar provided roughly 14% of total electricity needs for the US.”

The study estimates that by reducing the need for fossil fuel electricity generation, the US avoided 915 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, which is equivalent to taking over 217 million gas-powered vehicles off the road for a year. Additionally, wind and solar energy use also removed 525,000 of SO2 and 468,000 tonnes of NOx from the atmosphere – both of which are produced during fossil fuel combustion and linked to greater asthma risk and a host of other conditions.

Wind and solar energy are saving lives

The researchers calculated economic benefits based on three factors: the change in gas or coal generation, the emissions rate of the generator type, and the damage caused by emissions changes. Over the four-year period, the hike in renewable energy brought about $249B in climate and health benefits to the US.

In 2022 alone, wind and solar energy provided $62B and $12B, respectively, in combined climate and air quality benefits. This is equivalent to $143 per MWh of wind energy, and $100 per MWh of solar power. When accounting solely for air quality, wind and solar energy provided $16B and $2.2B worth of health gains.

The latter figures are derived almost entirely from a reduced risk of premature deaths across the US. In 2022, the increased solar and wind capacity led to 1,200 to 1,600 fewer deaths, thanks to the removal of over 250 million tonnes of CO2 (a number that steadily increased over the period covered in the study).

To contextualise this, the authors point to research suggesting that improvements in the prevention and treatment of heart disease and cancer can reduce 21,000 premature deaths per year in the US until 2030. While wind and solar benefits are comparatively small, but “not negligible”. It also tackles a highly concerning trend – each year, the premature deaths of 350,000 Americans are attributed to fossil fuel pollution.

“These findings can help us target future wind and solar development to provide the greatest climate and health benefits,” said Johnson.

US investment in renewable energy at all-time high

There is a major disparity between the benefits of wind and solar energy – the former is responsible for much greater emission cuts and economic potential. But this gap makes sense when you consider that wind power has penetrated the US energy mix much more than solar installations. In 2023, wind energy generated 430 billion kWh of electricity in the country, versus 163 billion kWh from solar power.

The report also outlines how many areas that rely more heavily on wind are also more dependent on coal. So greater wind power use leads to a higher level of coal pollution being avoided.

Differences in the location of renewable energy plants also highlight the contrast in impact. For example, solar power primarily benefitted Western US, Texas, the Southeast, and the Carolinas, while wind energy aided Texas, Central US, and the Midwest. The latter two have a relatively higher amount of coal generation, and vice versa for the Western US region. This is consistent with the fact that most wind emission benefits come from offsetting coal power, and solar benefits are derived from offsetting gas generation.

Johnson said he hoped the research would help showcase the already-tangible advantages of solar and wind energy. “It is also important to recognise when something is working,” he said, particularly since people are “often focused on the challenges we face” with the climate crisis.

The US has been bolstering its clean energy investments in recent years, with financing from private and government sources reaching a record $239B in 2023, a 38% rise from the year before. These have been supported by legislations like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which provide R&D grants and tax incentives for clean energy. The latter made up the vast majority of federal renewable power investment last year (which reached $34B).

The focus on renewable energy is in line with a recent report that suggests governments stop issuing new oil, gas and coal licences, since there are enough fossil fuel projects planned to meet global energy demand forecasts for 2050. A transition away from fossil fuels was the major talking point of the UN’s flagship climate conference in Dubai last year, though the final text avoided the mention of a ‘phaseout’. But COP28 did call on governments to speed up the transition to renewable energy in their next round of climate commitments (or nationally determined contributions) due next year.

The post In 4 Years, Renewable Energy Has Yielded $250B in Health & Climate Benefits in the US appeared first on Green Queen.

The crown prince of Abu Dhabi has approved a new economic cluster for novel foods and alternative proteins to tackle food insecurity and water shortages.

Abu Dhabi has launched the AgriFood Growth and Water Abundance (AGWA) hub, an economic cluster built to advance the production of novel food and ingredients, and technologies that increase access to and better utilise water resources.

Announced by the Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the crown prince of the Emirati capital, the food security cluster will aim to meet increasing global demand for food and water, alleviate pressures on agricultural systems, address shifting dietary patterns, and capitalise on technological advancements to ensure a reliable and resilient supply chain.

It will be led by the Abu Dhabi Department of Economic Development (ADDED) and the Abu Dhabi Investment Office (ADIO), which will support both local suppliers and exporters to help maximise commercial opportunities.

“The launch of AgriFood Growth and Water Abundance cluster is a game changer in our efforts to further diversify the economy, enhance innovation, and achieve objectives of the UAE food security strategy 2051,” said ADDED chairman Ahmed Jasim Al Zaabi.

Alternative proteins to help create 60,000 jobs and $25B in GDP

AGWA will help food and water industry players leverage innovations in alternative proteins, algae and reverse osmosis technologies, and enhance traditional food and water production and supply. Sheikh Khaled underlined food and water security as a national priority, stating that “smart solutions” and research and innovation projects for modern agriculture are crucial for both the local economy as well as sustainable development.

The AGWA is said to be tapping into an AED77.4 trillion ($21T) industry, and is expected to contribute AED90 billion ($24.5B) in additional GDP to the city’s economy by 2045. The cluster will also create 60,000 new jobs by this time, with an anticipated investment of AED128 billion ($34.8B).

“Abu Dhabi has been exploring sustainable solutions to food production challenges since [the] late 1960s,” said Al Zaabi. In 1969, UAE founder Sheikh Zayed set up the first network of greenhouses on Abu Dhabhi’s Saadiyat Island, which featured “advanced technologies of that era” for more sustainable food production.

“Our recent initiatives continue this legacy of long-term vision and commitment to innovation, sustainability, and inclusive socio-economic development,” he added.

The development follows the UAE’s announcement of its latest food and agriculture strategy last September, which aimed to boost the industry’s value to $10B and create 20,000 jobs by 2025. A few months earlier, Abu Dhabi also witnessed the opening of its first exclusively plant-based meat production plant by Switch Foods.

‘Non-oil’ expansion mustn’t distract from need for fossil fuel phaseout

As a country with vast swathes of desert and limited arable land, the UAE relies heavily on food imports to meet 90% of its population’s needs, totalling $14B in 2020, according to the USDA. But as Al Zaabi alluded to, the country’s current National Food Security Strategy aims to make it the world’s most food-secure country by 2051.

While its position on the Global Food Security Index has risen from 35th to 23rd (and it tops the MENA region), the original strategy was to break into the top 10 by 2021. Nearly a fifth of its population lives below the poverty line, and according to the World Bank, 6% of its citizens are undernourished.

“Abu Dhabi’s new food and water economic cluster addresses sustainability, critical global challenges, and new investment opportunities,” said Badr Al-Olama, director-general at the ADIO. “This is the next step in achieving Abu Dhabi’s economic diversification strategy by accelerating non-oil sectors.”

Speaking of which, the UAE is heavily reliant on oil and gas, which contribute to 30% of its GDP and 13% of its exports. And while it has laid out a plan to diversify its economy away from fossil fuels and support the growth of various industries, it’s currently in the middle of a five-year, $130B plan to double its refining capacity and triple petroleum production.

Despite hosting COP28, the UAE didn’t back the fossil fuel phaseout demanded by climate scientists globally. In fact, Sultan Al Jaber – the summit’s president and the head of the UAE’s national oil company, Adnoc – went so far as to claim that there was “no science” behind the environmental efficacies of a fossil fuel phaseout, adding that it would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves”.

The UAE also has the world’s third-largest net-zero-busting plans for oil and gas expansion, and many of its new fossil fuel developments are incompatible with the 2050 net-zero goals. And Adnoc – which is based in Abu Dhabi – hasn’t disclosed its emissions since 2016.

So it’s not just the expansion of non-oil sectors that will help the UAE reach its climate goals – the country also must simultaneously divest and scale back its fossil fuel operations. The preceding economic cluster, which was the first announced, focused on just that. Titled Smart and Autonomous Vehicle Industries, it is designed to make the nation a leader in “future mobility solutions” across air, land and sea transport.

The post Abu Dhabi Announces Alternative Protein Economic Cluster to Boost Food Security appeared first on Green Queen.

A group of healthcare organisations are asking the UK government to withdraw a campaign that they say spreads misinformation about the benefits of eating meat and dairy.

As restaurants, retailers and consumers prepared for Veganuary last December, a livestock farming group was working on its own campaign in response.

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) – which is funded by farmers and food suppliers – launched a drive to promote beef, lamb and dairy consumption in the UK, which included three TV commercials as well as magazine and online ads.

A meat industry backlash to a campaign promoting alternatives to its products isn’t anything new – but what set this one apart was that it was backed by the UK government. AHDB falls under the wing of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The Let’s Eat Balanced campaign launched in January was part of its annual efforts targeting people attempting to reduce their meat and dairy intake.

The messaging contained nuggets proclaiming that British meat and dairy are “amongst the most sustainable in the world” and that it was helping consumers “adopt a sustainable, healthy and nutritiously balanced diet”. On its website, one line reads: “Did you know that beef, pork, lamb and dairy are natural sources of vitamin B12, an essential vitamin not naturally present in a vegan diet?”

But now, doctors’ associations from across the UK are hitting back at these claims, warning that these are “disingenuous” and “at odds with established scientific evidence on healthy and sustainable diets”.

In an open letter penned by Dr Matthew Lee, sustainability lead at Doctors Association UK, and Dr Shireen Kassam, co-founder of Plant-Based Health Professionals UK, the group is asking the UK government to retract the campaign. The effort is endorsed by organisations like the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, the BDA Renal Nutrition Specialist Group, and Green at Barts Health, among others.

“We call on the AHDB to wholeheartedly embrace this difficult, but necessary step, by retracting the campaign to promote increased consumption of meat and dairy using misleading and un-evidenced marketing,” the letter states.

Suggestive ‘health benefits’ ignore meat reduction guidance

To the AHDB’s point, the letter acknowledges that meat is a source of protein, zinc, iron and vitamin B12, but adds that these can also be obtained by a well-planned plant-based diet. Similarly, dairy is a source of calcium, but this is a mineral in the soil and can also be obtained from beans, green vegetables, and fortified dairy analogues and tofu.

Illustrating this point, the medical experts point out how vitamin B12 is made by microorganisms and that cows are supplemented with cobalt to support sufficient production by gut bacteria. “Many farm animals are also supplemented directly with vitamin B12. Given that fortification of either animal or human food is required for B12 intake, direct fortification of human food or supplementation would be a more efficient use of resources,” it reads.

On the contrary, it points to the cancer risk presented by processed and red meats, which have been classified as class one and two carcinogens, respectively, by the World Health Organization. Moreover, it cites studies that have shown strong links between red meat and type 2 diabetes. Plant-based diets, however, are “not only nutritionally adequate”, but also present better health outcomes, the doctors argue.

“Encouraging a higher consumption of fruit, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds whilst limiting or avoiding animal-sourced foods reduces the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, obesity and certain cancers. Replacing animal protein with plant sources of protein is associated with significant improvement in health outcomes, including reduced risk of premature death,” the letter reads.

“Yet the Let’s Eat Balanced campaign has links to suggestive ‘health benefits’ whilst ignoring the guidance to limit meat intake, particularly red and processed meat.”

Meat is not sustainable

The AHDB’s campaign had stated that “sustainability isn’t just about carbon”, and there are “many other things to consider”. It mentioned data showing that transport and energy emissions are higher than livestock in the UK, while the animal agriculture industry accounts for 7% of national GHG emissions.

However, the livestock group left out methane in all of its communications, which is a shorter-lived gas, but 80 times more potent than carbon. The same government report it cited for carbon emissions revealed that agriculture accounted for 48% of the UK’s methane emissions – and while that figure has fallen by 16% from a 1990 baseline, it has largely been at the same level since 2009.

The AHDB is also a supporter of GWP* (global warming potential star), a new metric to measure methane emissions proposed by meat and dairy producers and certain governments. The idea is to replace the current GWP100 system to measure the warming potential of total GHG emissions over a 100-year period with a focus on changes in the rate of emissions between two points in time (usually over a decadal timescale). Critics argue that this is nothing more than a greenwashing tool to allow the industry to understate its impact and avoid climate action

The UK has been heavily hit by climate-change-induced extreme weather, with the recent record amounts of rain leaving the agricultural industry “on the brink”, according to the AHDB itself. It has left many farmers considering quitting the profession altogether, with their confidence at a 14-year low.

Currently, 85% of farmland in the UK is used for animal agriculture, but these foods only provide 48% of the country’s protein and 32% of its calories. “The latest UK-specific research makes it clear that a diet containing animal products is significantly more harmful to the environment than one that does not, with plant-based diets having approximately 25% of the environmental impact of a diet with a high meat intake,” the doctors write.

“In the UK, 70% of our total food-related emissions come from red meat and dairy production. Methane emissions from cows alone will prevent us from limiting global warming to safe levels. Excess consumption of red meat and dairy is leading to 42,000 deaths in the UK annually.”

The financial drawbacks of animal agriculture

The letter highlights a modelling study that shows a ‘plant-based by default’ approach could save the UK’s economically strained and labour-stretched National Health Service (NHS) £74M annually, with significant household savings too if patients are supported in making dietary shifts.

Similar research by the Office of Health Economics estimated that if England were to adopt a completely plant-based diet, the NHS would see a net benefit of up to £18.8B a year. “No other intervention can deliver such significant health benefits alongside cost savings and environmental benefits,” the letter reads.

“As health professionals, we recognise the importance of farmers and the key role they play in the production of healthy and nutritious food whilst being stewards of our land. The countryside will always require farmers, and they need support from their governing bodies to adapt their industry in a way that allows for the restoration of nature and acceleration of carbon sequestration, whilst continuing to provide locally produced plant-based foods,” it continues.

“We encourage AHDB and Defra to engage with healthcare professionals in developing policies and campaigns to support the future of the farming industry that encourages the increased consumption of locally grown fruit, vegetables, beans and pulses, alongside a significant reduction in production and consumption of meat and dairy produce.”

In response, an AHDB representative told the Independent: “Let’s Eat Balanced is a fully evidence-based campaign communicating the nutritional and sustainability benefits of British red meat and dairy in a manner that aligns with the government’s dietary guidelines, as outlined in the Eatwell Guide… Anyone advocating a totally global plant-based diet as a panacea to climate change ignores the fact the realities are far more complex. Solutions lie in a balance of sustainable plant and sustainable meat and sustainable fish production along with a balanced plate approach to diets and portion sizes.”

But the AHDB’s campaign doesn’t make room for much plant-based eating at all – it isn’t encouraging a balance, it is pushing people to eat more meat. As for “sustainable meat”, this really isn’t a thing. Analysis by Our World in Data shows that buying imported beef from Central America in the UK versus buying locally barely makes a difference. What farmers really need to do is reduce meat and dairy production by a third if the UK is to meet its climate goals, according to the WWF.

The UK has been criticised for not centring climate change in its election campaigns this year, but if it is to reach its net zero goal by 2050, a food system transformation is necessary. “This would be invaluable to the health of the environment, the UK public, and to safeguard all our futures,” the letter concludes.

The post Doctors Urge UK Government to Retract ‘Misleading’ Campaign Asking Brits to Eat Meat & Dairy appeared first on Green Queen.

The first large-scale study to analyse the effects of the Planetary Health Diet has found a lower risk of premature death and a lighter impact on the climate.

Eating a primarily whole-food plant-based diet has tremendous benefits for humans and the environment, according to a new study led by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health.

Published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the research was inspired by the EAT-Lancet Commission’s Planetary Health Diet, which was designed in 2019 as a way to feed 10 billion people and keep the planet healthy by 2050. The diet advocates for more plants and whole foods, and less meat and dairy, with ample room for flexibility for different cultural and culinary preferences.

Ideally, the diet should comprise half a plate of fruits and vegetables, and the other half should contain mainly whole grains and plant protein sources, with optional modest amounts of animal protein.

The Harvard study is the first large-scale assessment of the impacts of the Planetary Health Diet, using the health data of 206,604 Americans over a period of 20 to 34 years. Participants were free of major chronic diseases at the start of the study, and completed questionnaires every four years.

The researchers found that the top 10% of people most closely adhering to the Planetary Health Diet represented a 30% lower risk of premature death than the bottom 10%. Meanwhile, those with the highest adherence also had significantly lower climate footprints, with a 29% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

“The findings show just how linked human and planetary health are. Eating healthfully boosts environmental sustainability – which in turn is essential for the health and wellbeing of every person on Earth,” said senior author Walter Willett.

Plant-forward diets lower risk of all causes of death

The participants were enrolled in long-term government studies, namely the Nurses’ Health Study I and II and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. The researchers scored their diets based on the intake of 15 food groups. Planet-friendly and resource-light foods included whole grains, tubers, vegetables, whole fruits, legumes, soy-based products, and unsaturated plant oils (like olive oil).

Meanwhile, foods that require much more land, like those derived from cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry, were also assessed, as was the intake of added sugar.

The researchers suggested that, while other studies have also reported plant-based diets’ human and planetary benefits over animal foods, most have used one-time dietary assessments, which produce weaker results than when you look at diets over a longer period, which is what the team at Harvard did.

People following the Planetary Health Diet were found to have a lower risk of death from every major cause, including cancer (10% lower), cardiovascular diseases (14%), lung disease (47%), and Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative disorders (28%). Additionally, women who closely adhered to the diet had a 38% lower risk of death from infectious diseases.

Essentially, participants who followed the diet closely ate larger amounts of fruits and vegetables, nuts, legumes, whole grains, unsaturated fats and poultry, while reducing their intake of red and processed meats, eggs, soft drinks and fruit juices, as well as sugary processed foods like candy, cakes, breakfast cereals, and desserts.

In terms of animal foods, this diet recommends up to two servings per day. This could mean a typical week would entail a daily serving of a dairy product, a weekly serving of red meat as well as eggs, plus two weekly servings each of poultry and fish. This is much lower than the current consumption levels in the US – according to the USDA, Americans eat nearly 102kg of meat annually (excluding seafood), 6.5 times higher than the EAT-Lancet Commission’s recommendations.

USDA dietary recommendations ‘refuse to consider’ climate change

In terms of the environmental gains, the study revealed that the Planetary Health Diet requires 21% fewer fertilisers, 51% less cropland, and 13% less water and irrigation. Land use reduction is particularly vital to facilitate reforestation, which the authors said is “seen as an effective way” to reduce greenhouse gases – although the efficacy of reforesting programmes to offset emissions is sketchy at best.

That said, the results chime with existing literature about the climate impacts of animal-derived and plant-based foods. Livestock farming is responsible for up to 20% of all emissions – and, within the food system, meat accounts for 60% of emissions. Meat and dairy, meanwhile, emit twice as much CO2e as plant-based foods.

A previous study has similarly shown that swapping half of our meat and dairy consumption with plant-based analogues can reduce agricultural and land use emissions by 31%, lower water use by 10%, and effectively halt forest and natural land degradation.

“Climate change has our planet on track for ecological disaster, and our food system plays a major role,” said Willett. “Shifting how we eat can help slow the process of climate change. And what’s healthiest for the planet is also healthiest for humans.”

The Harvard study was observational, which meant its findings were based on correlations between people’s consumption habits and the risk of major diseases, instead of a cause-and-effect relationship. But the research did factor in the intake of alcohol, smoking, exercise, as well as family histories with medical conditions.

“What this study shows is that we can both shift our diets to be far healthier than the average American diet and also at the same time have a substantial impact on slowing down climate change,” Willett told the Washington Post. “We don’t have to trade off planetary health for human health. We can have both – it’s a double win.”

Willett went on to take aim at the USDA for its ignorance of climate change in its dietary recommendations, which are due to be updated next year. “Our study is noteworthy given that the US Department of Agriculture has refused to consider the environmental impacts of dietary choices, and any reference to the environmental effects of diet will not be allowed in the upcoming revision of the US Dietary Guidelines,” said Willett.

It must be noted that the current guidelines do urge Americans to avoid saturated fat, cholesterol, and red and processed meat, and focus on carbohydrate-rich plant-based foods. The document also mentions fortified soy-based dairy and meat products. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an independent non-profit organisation, has criticised the inclusion of animal-based dairy, recommending water instead.

The post Planetary Health Diet Linked to 30% Lower Risk of Premature Death & 29% Fewer Emissions appeared first on Green Queen.

Agri-fintech platform AgriG8 has received financing from Better Bite Ventures and The Trendlines Group to help rice farmers in Asia reduce methane emissions by up to 55%.

Singaporean VC firm Better Bite Ventures and Israel’s The Trendlines Group have invested an undisclosed sum in AgriG8, a startup that supports Asian rice farmers in decarbonising their production methods.

Some estimates suggest rice’s greenhouse gas emissions are nearly on par with the global aviation industry (around 2% of the global total). It also accounts for 10% of anthropogenic methane emissions, which is a shorter-lived, yet much more potent gas.

So, reducing the climate footprint of rice is essential for governments and food companies in Asia to meet their net-zero targets. It’s because more than 90% of the world’s rice, meanwhile, is grown in Asia, but increasing temperatures could shrink yields of the crop by 40% by the end of the century.

In China, extreme rainfall has reduced rice yields over the last 20 years. And in Vietnam, where rice generates more emissions than the entire transportation sector, almost 250,000 acres of land in the Mekong Delta – its rice bowl – is being taken out of production, partly due to climate change.

“Decarbonising rice production is one of the focus areas for Better Bite’s investments,” said Michal Klar, founding partner at Better Bite Ventures. “Rice is one of the top sources of food and agricultural emissions in Asia-Pacific. We believe AgriG8 will help to accelerate deployment of methane-reducing farming practices, using their unique set of tech and finance tools.”

A gamified platform to incentive farmers

Founded in 2021 by David Chen and Joshua Tan, AgriG8 works with “local farmer aggregators such as cooperatives and NGOs” to help farmers reduce emissions. It has built a gamified digital platform, CropPal, to receive data from producers, as well as finance and incentive methane-cutting agricultural practices.

“[The] CropPal platform consists of three components: the farmer-facing app, a dashboard for lenders and farm managers, and a background validation framework backed by machine learning,” Chen, who is the CEO of AgriG8, told Green Queen. “The app is deliberately gamified to reduce onboarding friction and to cater to a wider audience including farmers’ family members.”

Gamifying the design offers a “fun and easy onboarding experience”, he explained. “Farmers could report their seeding approach, water management and nutrient management via CropPal,” said Chen. “By submitting quality data, farmers unlock real-world rewards like loan rebates. For instance, optimising water usage and verifying it through CropPal can directly translate into financial savings.”

“We are thrilled to welcome Better Bite as our latest investor. Better Bite’s focus on decarbonising food and agriculture in Asia-Pacific is aligned with our mission. This investment will fuel our regional pilots of an inclusive financing solution that encourages sustainable practices among rice farmers and improves their livelihoods.”

Asked what caught Better Bite’s eye, Klar said: “David Chen has deep knowledge about the rice ecosystem in the region, with over 15 years of hands-on experience across the rice value chain. Supporting rice farmers in Southeast Asia to introduce better practices and offer better livelihoods has been his life’s work.”

Rice production is one of the five focus areas of Better Bite’s latest round of its First Bite funding scheme for food startups targeting climate solutions. “What we can do is provide that very first catalytic capital to amazing founders, who will go on and raise more funding to build impactful, transformative companies,” Klar told Green Queen in February.

How Asian rice farmers can reduce methane

One of the proven practices being advocated by AgriG8 is alternate wetting and drying (AWD). The water management system entails farmers going through several wet and dry cycles, rather than keeping the paddy flooded the whole time.

Farmers dig a measuring pipe in a corner and allow the water level to drop to 15cm below the soil’s surface, a level at which the roots are still submerged. The field is then flooded again at around 5cm level, and this cycle is repeated several times during the vegetative state of rice production.

Paddies can create ideal conditions for methane-producing bacteria, but drying the field at regular intervals can suppress their activity and significantly lower emissions, while also saving water. Most importantly for farmers, AWD maintains yields, so they don’t need to be worried about productivity.

This practice, combined with other solutions, can lead to a 55% reduction in methane emissions. AgriG8 has completed a pilot of its technology in central Thailand, with more trials to be held in Tra Vinh, Vietnam and Battambang, Cambodia during the next planting season.

“The first pilot successfully demonstrated farmer adoption of CropPal, with 80% of participants averaging 21 entries per season,” said Chen. “This data will enable AgriG8 to model farmer behaviour and inform the next pilot in September, which will test a digital plus commercial incentive approach to drive climate impact.”

AgriG8 is now also in discussions with several leading climate, food and agritech investors in the Asia-Pacific regions. Other startups innovating with future-friendly rice include Indian-American firm MittiLabs and France’s CarbonFarm, both of which use AI and satellite tech for carbon credits, though the efficacy of the voluntary carbon market has been called into question multiple times. Singapore-based Rize, meanwhile, buys seeds, fertilisers, and other inputs in bulk and sells them to farmers who implement AWD.

Disclaimer: Green Queen founder and editor-in-chief Sonalie Figueiras is a Venture Partner at Better Bite Ventures.

The post AgriG8 Bags Investment to Decarbonise Rice Production in Asia with Gamified Platform appeared first on Green Queen.

Some of the world’s richest and most polluting companies have been investing in carbon offsets that are “likely junk”, according to a new analysis.

In 2023, non-profit Corporate Accountability and the Guardian undertook a joint investigation analysing the top 50 carbon emissions projects globally, based on the number of credits sold. They found that 39 of these 50 (78%) were “likely junk” or worthless, owing to failures that undermine the promised emissions cuts.

Now, an update of the database has shown that, despite multiple reforms and updated initiatives, things have regressed further. Carbon offset projects with one or more fundamental failings were classified as likely or potentially junk, depending on the number and gravity of the failings, with strong evidence of even one failing meaning promised emissions can’t be guaranteed. These failings include whether emissions cuts would have happened anyway, or if the emissions were just shifted elsewhere.

These top 50 projects represent nearly a third of all the credits retired in offset schemes globally. They include forestry schemes, hydroelectric dams, solar and wind farms, waste disposal and greener household appliances schemes across 20 nations – most of which are developing countries – according to data from emissions trading database AlliedOffsets.

The investigation has found that, now, 42 of the 50 projects (84%) are likely junk, and seven (14%) potentially junk – the latter means there’s at least some evidence of a failing. These carbon credits were purchased by some of the largest companies in the world, including Disney, Nestlé, Gucci, Volkswagen, Delta Air Lines, easyJet, and ExxonMobil.

“These findings shed further light on the dangerous distraction that the voluntary carbon market remains, despite multiple reforms, new initiative launches, and rolling out of updated principles,” said Rachel Rose Jackson, Corporate Accountability’s director of climate research and policy.

“What the evidence increasingly points to is that this scheme effectively operates to evade, not guarantee, meaningful climate action, and to greenwash further fossil fuel use and pollution. We shouldn’t be plugging holes in a sinking ship, not when millions of lives are at stake.”

Fossil fuel and travel industry lead junk carbon credit purchases

The database shows that, for 33 of the top 50 corporate buyers, a third of their offset portfolios are likely junk. The fossil fuel industry is the largest investor in these schemes, with 43% of the 81 million carbon credits purchased by these companies found to be probably junk.

ExxoMobil, for example, bought 3.7 million credits, of which 49% were for two projects classified as worthless. “Carbon offsets are a viable way to [reduce emissions and reach net zero], which is why we continue to evaluate them. We’re working to verify the claims cited in this analysis,” the company told the Guardian.

Meanwhile, the transport industry is also relying on dubious carbon offsetting projects to curb their climate impact, which accounts for a fifth of all emissions. But over 42% of the credits bought by airlines and 38% by automotive companies for the analysed projects were likely junk.

Outside fossil fuels, Delta has purchased more carbon credits than anybody else, but 35% of these were from 11 projects deemed worthless or junk by the analysis. The carrier is in the middle of a lawsuit that alleges it misrepresented itself as carbon-neutral, though it has rejected the allegations and filed to dismiss.

Meanwhile, 72% of all the credits purchased by easyJet in its history were for projects classed as likely worthless. The airline announced plans to transition away from offsetting in 2022 for its net zero goal for 2050, suggesting it would work on more fuel-efficient aircraft, carbon capture and storage, and so-called sustainable aviation fuels – but these practices aren’t necessarily climate-friendly, and could even exacerbate the crisis.

“In the short period we did offset customer emissions, we had robust due diligence processes in place, with all projects recommended by expert partners and all required to meet the highest standards available,” easyJet said.

Both easyJet and Delta have previously been found to use ‘phantom’ carbon credits to claim carbon neutrality.

“These findings add to the mounting evidence that peels back the greenwashed facade of the voluntary carbon market and lays bare the ways it dangerously distracts from the real, lasting action the world’s largest corporations and polluters need to be taking,” said Jackson.

Food industry a major investor in worthless carbon credits

The food and beverage industry is a major polluter, too – agriculture is responsible for a third of all emissions. But 37% of the credits purchased by this sector are likely junk, according to Carbon Accountability.

Similarly, 36% of carbon credits bought by Nestlé – the world’s largest food company – came from five projects deemed likely junk. Nestlé claimed it had stopped purchasing carbon credits from these projects in 2021/22. “Reaching net zero emissions at Nestlé does not involve using offsetting: we focus on GHG emissions reductions and removals within our value chain to reach our net zero ambition,” the company said.

In the entertainment world, nearly 62% of Disney’s retired credits are from two ‘likely junk’ projects. And fashion giant Gucci has an even higher proportion of worthless carbon credit investments (75%) – it has now dropped its carbon neutrality claim and is finalising new commitments.

Such moves are part of a larger shift from companies that are realising the inefficacy of carbon offsetting projects. This is why the voluntary carbon market, which was valued at nearly $2B in 2022, fell to $723M last year (a 61% drop).

Last week, the Biden-Harris administration in the US published new guidelines on responsible carbon offsets, which the government says would drive credible climate action – but experts have criticised the move. However, not all policy interventions have been bleak: last year, the state of California passed climate laws designed to curb greenwashing from the voluntary carbon market.

“Research demonstrates over and over that carbon markets are fraudulent, prolong the fossil fuel industries, accelerate climate chaos and violate the rights of Indigenous Peoples,” said Tamra Gilbertson of the Indigenous Environmental Network. “Keeping fossil fuels in the ground stops climate change, not incentivising pollution.”

The post Disney, Nestlé, easyJet Among Corporations That Invested in ‘Likely Junk’ Carbon Offsets appeared first on Green Queen.

India’s dramatic election results have confirmed a third term for Narendra Modi, but with a much-weakened mandate – is climate change to blame (or thank) for that?

India stands third in the world for the number of billionaires and the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and that perhaps sums up the paradoxical nature of the nation’s latest election.

As Narendra Modi was sworn in for a third term as prime minister, he did so much later and in much different circumstances than his party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), expected. Before the election – where 642 million Indians, or 8% of the world’s population, voted – the narrative was one of a third-consecutive landslide victory for the right-wing party.

With a mandate built on Hindu nationalism, the slogan ‘Ab ki baar, 400 paar’ (This time, past 400) – a redux of the 2015 campaign slogan ‘Ab ki baar, Modi sarkar’ (This time, a Modi government) – was all over the BJP’s communications, referring to a parliamentary supermajority that would allow the party to amend the constitution.

Things, however, didn’t pan out the way Modi wanted. The BJP didn’t even obtain the simple majority of 272, let alone 400, instead having to rely on alliances to form a coalition government with the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). It was a victory that felt like defeat, and vice-versa for the now-strong opposition INDIA coalition, led by Congress member and political dynast Rahul Gandhi.

The shock result of the world’s largest election was a rejection of the BJP’s religious persecution, and was ascribed – by Gandhi no less – to India’s poorest. In the last decade, the country has become the fifth-largest economy in the world, but the wealth gap has never been more stark.

The disparity can also be found when you look at who feels the worst effects of climate change. While Modi may have built an us-versus-them mentality using the historical emissions of the “hypocritical West”, the climate crisis was notably absent from his entire electoral campaign, despite India being amongst the 40 nations most vulnerable to global warming.

Climate change drove farmers away from the BJP

The sheer size of India’s elections makes for complex logistics – this year, the entire exercise ran six weeks. And while the length of the election isn’t anything new, it was a much larger focus because of the extreme heatwaves sweeping through the nation.

In the northern states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha, at least 33 people – including election officials on duty – died of suspected heatstroke in a single day in May. This followed reports that parts of New Delhi almost breached the 53°C barrier, the highest-ever temperature recorded in India, prompting the High Court to warn that the capital could soon turn into “a barren desert”.

But despite the Election Commission setting up a task force to monitor weather conditions (only after voting was underway) and sending a heat precaution list to poll workers, party campaigners were told not to do anything differently in the face of the heat.

This encapsulates the attitude towards the climate crisis by India’s lawmakers. While people suffer fatally from extreme weather, the BJP promised more temples and a better economy. But at what – and whose – cost? Unemployment and cost of living have been pinpointed as two key reasons that voters turned sour on the incumbent government.

In his second term, Modi faced one of the most powerful backlashes of his political career. While India and the world went in and out of lockdowns, hundreds of thousands of farmers poured into New Delhi to protest against his moves to open up more private investment in agriculture. The farmers believed this would make them vulnerable to low prices.

Agriculture is the biggest source of income in India, with 70% of rural households dependent on farming, and 82% being small or marginal farmers. But as climate change worsens, so does its impact on the sector. Extreme heat and droughts are decimating crops, while groundwater is already in short supply. Farmers are facing crippling debt – since Modi first took office in 2014, estimates suggest 100,000 farmers have taken their lives.

These are all climate issues. Ignoring them has swayed many former BJP voters, who are rightfully dismayed by the lack of jobs outside agriculture for India’s youth, many of whom grow up in farming families riddled with debt for their entire lives.

India’s inadequate climate goals need a revamp

Modi’s first speech after it became apparent that his coalition would gain the majority represented some marked shifts from his previous rhetoric. ‘Jai Shree Ram’ became ‘Jai Jagannath’ (after Ayodhya voted out the BJP despite the building of a divisive temple on the site of a destroyed mosque), the Modi government was now the NDA government, and climate change was suddenly an issue.

The prime minister took note of the election workers who toiled away in the sweltering heat for weeks, and, while there was no mention of the failure of reaching the 400-seat target, read between the lines and you could sense relief, and worry.

India’s emissions are off the charts, thanks in part to its agricultural practices, and in even larger part to its fossil fuel industry. Coal, specifically, is the biggest source of electricity across the country, and its use actually grew this year. And, despite being the third-largest solar power generator in the world, the overall share of clean energy has subsequently decreased, making up just around 22% of the total.

At COP26, Modi set out a pledge to reach net zero by 2070, but more than half of India’s electricity will still be sourced from coal by the end of the decade. And its climate target (or nationally determined contribution) has been deemed “highly insufficient” by the Climate Action Tracker, with current policies and action rated as “insufficient” as well.

This makes it all the more infuriating that climate change was just not on the ballot in India this year. It mirrors the larger political landscape: only 0.3% of the questions asked in the parliament are about climate change, and just one of the country’s 700-plus parties is focused on the environment.

But per capita emissions have risen by 93% since 2001, and heat-related deaths increased by 55% from 2000-2004 to 2017-2021. Climate change needs to be on the parliamentary agenda – especially since neither the BJP nor the INDIA coalition made any clear campaign commitments for the climate crisis, with just a handful of eco targets intertwined with promises to grow infrastructure.

For climate activists, the concern starts at the top, with Modi. This is a man who has infamously compared the changing climate to people’s heightened sensitivity to cold when they age. He has also proclaimed that the “climate has not changed”, but people and their habits have spoiled and destroyed the environment (identifying the very reason that the climate has, in fact, changed).

As a country, India proved that democracy is still important and alive, and secularism is part of its social fabric. In a climate election year, its voting surprised everybody – but now, its farmers, islanders, and climate-vulnerable citizens are hoping that the government springs a surprise too. It’s imperative that it does.

The post Was the World’s Largest Election Decided By the Climate Crisis? appeared first on Green Queen.

German national rail company Deutsche Bahn has partnered with Planet A Foods to offer cocoa-free chocolate shortbreads during the Euro 2024 football championship and beyond.

As fans travel to Euro 2024 stadiums across Germany, those taking Deutsche Bahn (DB) trains will now be treated to free chocolate shortbreads, but with a twist. The cookies will feature cocoa-free chocolate from ChoViva, the sub-brand of German food tech startup Planet A Foods.

First-class passengers aboard DB’s Intercity Express (ICE) and Intercity (IC) trains will be offered the heart-shaped shortbreads as part of a multi-year collaboration between the two companies, but starts with a Euro 2024-centric version.

Germany is hosting UEFA’s inter-Europe football championship this summer (June 14 to July 14), and, to mark the occasion, the shortbread will be called Lieblingsfan (favourite fan) for the duration of the tournament. The initiative is designed to raise awareness among millions of football fans about chocolate’s impact on deforestation and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

“Deutsche Bahn is the perfect match for us as a partner. We both pursue the same mission: to save several million tons of CO2 per year,” says Planet A Foods CEO Maximilian Marquart, who co-founded the brand with his sister Sara in 2021. “One by offering sustainable mobility solutions, and one by producing sustainable food ingredients that are decoupled from limited resources. It only makes sense that together we can achieve even more.”

Climate-friendly chocolate goes beyond Euro 2024

The collaboration is a summer version of the Lieblingsgast (favourite guest), a small chocolate handed to DB passengers, which is made from fairly traded cocoa and wrapped in FSC-certified recyclable paper. Part of the rail operator’s climate commitments, the initiative has been ongoing since March 2023.

“The goal is to show appreciation, with sustainability being a central focus for both DB and us,” says Maximilian, whose startup participated in a bidding process to win the DB contract. He cites the brand’s taste and sustainability credentials as the reasons why it was selected.

It means the ChoViva chocolate alternative – made from a base of fermented oats and sunflower seeds – will be part of DB’s lineup on the long-distance trains over the next two summers.

“The cookie is a specific development for the German Railway together with one of our partners,” says Sara, the company’s CTO. “We chose a cookie instead of a chocolate bar as they are distributed over the summer months. The idea was to avoid any problems that might occur with melting and distribution.”

So what’s the difference between the Euro and post-Euro versions? “The cookie itself stays the same,” she says. “What changes is that after the European Football Championship is over, we’ll switch to the Lieblingsgast version again with a new branding in terms of packaging design.”

Maximilian adds that ChoViva is already working on a second iteration of the cookie to further its planet-friendliness. He remains tight-lipped on the details, but says the team is “working on improving different areas even further”.

DB’s track record of climate-friendly food

This is far from the only planet-friendly food offering at DB. The railway company has partnered with multiple companies over the years to cater to consumers’ growing demand for more sustainable catering options.

In fact, since March 2022, more than half of the food offered at its onboard eateries has been meatless, featuring vegan meat analogues, vegetarian snacks and seasonal produce. A few months before that, DB introduced Oatly’s barista oat milk for coffee orders.

Over the last few months, it teamed up with two local vegan seafood brands. The first entailed a chilli-cheese-style baguette with BettaF!sh’s tuna, and the other a noodle stir-fry with Happy Ocean Foods’ soy-based shrimp. The latter was introduced during Veganuary, and featured prominently at the beginning of the menu, which extolled the benefits of a plant-based diet.

Cocoa’s climate impact is a problem

But, while meat is the most destructive food for the planet – releasing twice as many greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere than plant-based foods – chocolate itself has a sizeable footprint. Dark chocolate, for example, is the second most polluting food, second only to beef. Intensive deforestation plays a big part here, and the countereffects of climate change mean a third of all cocoa trees could die out by 2050.

By using traditional fermentation and roasting methods – but eschewing the cocoa bean – ChoViva (formerly NoCoa/QOA) manages to bring down carbon emissions by 90% per kg of chocolate. This has been recognised by CPG behemoths like Lindt, Kölln, Rewe, and Griesson de Beukelaer, which have released various products using the cocoa-free chocolate.

However, ChoViva’s chocolate for the DB cookies does still use palm oil, though this is RSPO-certified, which suggests it’s sourced from certified production units and is produced according to strict ecological and social criteria. In an interview with Green Queen last year, Maximilian explained that palm oil can become essential for some of its collaborations. “If we [use it], we support sustainable palm oil cultivation and work with partners who do the same,” he explained.

“For some special applications, we couldn’t yet get rid of palm oil due to technical reasons. We try to limit those applications,” added Sara. She had revealed that the company was working on its own alternatives to palm oil and other cocoa fats.

Asked about progress on this front, she now says: “We put a lot of effort and budget into our cocoa fat alternative. We’re progressing according to our time plan right now, in terms of development.”

The post Euro 2024: Deutsche Bahn Passengers to Get Free ChoViva Cocoa-Free Chocolate Cookies appeared first on Green Queen.

The 50 countries most vulnerable to climate change are paying back 15.5% of their government revenues as debt to external creditors, the highest rate since 1990.

Debt payments by the 50 countries facing the worst impacts of the climate crisis have doubled since the Covid-19 pandemic, reaching their highest levels in 34 years, according to research by UK charity Debt Justice.

Using data from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the report suggests that climate-vulnerable countries are now paying 15.5% of their revenue to external creditors, up from 7.7% pre-pandemic and 3.7% in 2010 (the lowest level in recent history).

“Record levels of debt are crushing the ability of the most vulnerable countries to tackle the climate emergency. We need a rapid and effective debt relief scheme to cancel debts down to a sustainable level,” said Heidi Chow, executive director of Debt Justice.

Zambia’s uneven debt restructuring deal

The charity found that Chad – the country most vulnerable to climate change – will pay 19.4% of its revenues to creditors this year. This is followed by four other African countries: Niger (10.4%), Guinea-Bissau (20.6%), Tonga (8.8%), and Sudan (16.6%).

But the climate-vulnerable nation that will see the highest share of its revenues end up as debt payments is Angola, which will give back a whopping 59.8% of its revenues to external creditors. But this isn’t a one-off, last year, this actually amounted to 60.2% of what the country made.

Sri Lanka and Zambia are joint second at 43.5%. The former actually had the highest percentage of debt payments last year (86.4%). Zambia, meanwhile, has declared a national emergency due to the ongoing drought, considered its worst in two decades. After three-and-a-half years of negotiations, its government has just sealed a debt restructuring deal with some (not all) of its private lenders.

This means that banks and asset managers will be repaid 13% more than governments, despite lending at higher interest rates. But while the deal allows for large increases in debt payments if the economy does better than expected, there’s no equivalent clause to decrease payments if a shock (like another drought) occurs.

Under the debt deal, Zambia will have to pay bondholders like BlackRock $450M this year. “It is outrageous that Zambia’s creditors have demanded a deal where they get huge increases in debt payments if things go well, but no losses if Zambia is hit by disasters such as droughts,” said Tim Jones, head of policy at Debt Justice. “The $450M going to bondholders this year is money which could have been used to respond to the national disaster.”

Rich countries must cancel debts to help climate-vulnerable nations

For 49 countries in the report, 38% of the external interest payments between 2023 and 2030 are earmarked for private lenders, totalling $50.9B. Debt Justice excluded India from this calculation because its large size skews the results, and its external debt payments are relatively low.

Of the remaining interest payments, 35% go to multilateral institutions, 14% goes to China, and 13% to other governments.

And, when you factor in principal payments – the amount originally borrowed – as well, multilaterals will receive 38% of the share ($208.8B), while private lenders will get 30% ($166.6M). This illustrates the high interest rates charged by the latter.

Debt Justice said its new report explains the urgent need for comprehensive debt relief, so low-income countries can invest in climate change adaptation measures. While two rounds of comprehensive debt relief in the late 90s and mid-00s led to a sharp decline in debt burdens, repayments rose in 2010 and have been soaring since 2020.

This is because the debt suspension scheme agreed by creditors at the start of Covid-19 has now ended, which means debts are now due to be repaid again. Countries borrowing the capital have also been hit by rising interest rates, compared to rock-bottom levels in the early 2010s. Plus, most debt payments are owed in US dollars, the value of which has increased the size of the debt.

World leaders are in the middle of a 10-day climate conference in Bonn, Switzerland, which focuses on countries’ ability to finance climate action. And, last month, an investigation by Reuters found that rich countries have been funnelling money back into their economies through climate finance programmes – primarily loans and grants with strings attached – putting the Global South in a “new wave of debt”.

With policymakers discussing climate finance and unsustainable debt levels in Bonn, Jones added: “As well as debt cancellation, rich countries urgently need to pay their climate debt by delivering grant-based, adequate climate finance.”

The post ‘Outrageous’: Debt Payments for Climate-Vulnerable Nations Reach 34-Year-High appeared first on Green Queen.

Eight US lawmakers explain how states can support climate change education in their schools.

By Glenn Branch

So you want to help to improve climate change education. Good for you!

Climate change education is a critical component of any plan for responding to the disruptions caused by a warming climate. Today’s students will spend the rest of their lives on a hotter planet, mainly owing to the actions — and inactions — of their elders, and they need to be prepared with appropriate knowledge and know-how. And yet climate change education in the United States is often far from adequate.

If you think that suitable legislation might be the remedy, you’re not alone. In the last five years, by my count, no fewer than 90 measures aimed at supporting climate change education have been introduced in the legislatures of 21 states across the country. I interviewed eight of their sponsors by phone or email, and here’s what I learned that might help you, as a citizen concerned about the climate crisis, to support the introduction, passage, and enactment of such legislation in your state.

Seek sponsors who recognise the importance of the issue

Two of the legislators, James Talarico in Texas and Christine Palm in Connecticut, are former teachers themselves, so they didn’t have to be convinced of the importance of preparing students.

“Education is the first step in helping create the leaders of tomorrow who will need to tackle this issue head-on,” Talarico told me. “The first step to solving a crisis as complex and existential as climate change is through education.”

Harness the energy and enthusiasm of youth activists

Wendy Thomas in New Hampshire was already concerned about climate change, but it was youth activists from 350nh who convinced her to introduce her resolution supporting climate change education. Youth-led and youth-oriented climate activist groups, including Ten Strands in California, Green Eco Warriors in Connecticut, and Climate Generation in Minnesota, led the support for the measures in their states. 

Emphasise the injustice of not providing climate change education

“Disadvantaged communities throughout the state … are likely to experience the first and worst climate impacts,” even while they have benefited the least from the activities that cause climate change, Andrew Gounardes in New York told me. “We have an obligation to ensure our youngest and most vulnerable community members gain the knowledge and skills to adapt to a rapidly changing world.” 

Remember that politics is the art of the possible

Luz Rivas’s bill, which was enacted in 2023, mandated the teaching of climate change in California’s public schools, but a previous version would also have required climate change to be a mandatory topic of study in high school. Why the retreat from the previous version? Rivas explained that California’s schools were under so much stress owing to the COVID-19 pandemic that she decided not to insist on the more ambitious provision.

Expect political partisanship to be a barrier

Juan Mendez in New Mexico noted, “Political partisanship overrides what needs to be done” to improve climate change education.

Chris Larson in Wisconsin similarly reported, “Even critical issues that should be bipartisan are halted due to partisanship.”

Larson added that he wished that he had worked more with the business community, which might have enabled his climate change education bill “to garner Republican legislative support.”

Communicate with your legislators

All the legislators I interviewed agreed that people who want to support measures like theirs can do a lot to help. Palm in Connecticut emphasised that state government is “the sweet spot” for action on climate change: big enough to make a difference but small enough to be approachable. Simply letting your legislators know that you support climate change education, or a particular measure intended to improve it, can go a long way in motivating them.

Make your support for climate change education visible

Testifying in legislative committee hearings can make a huge difference; even attending hearings without testifying to show your support can be helpful, Nicole Mitchell in Minnesota told me. Mendez in New Mexico stressed the importance of storytelling in any communication with legislators in order to capture their attention and their emotion.

“I can be ignored,” he acknowledged, “but real people who tell their stories are harder to ignore.”

Be persistent

Only two of the legislators I interviewed — Rivas in California and Palm in Connecticut — have enjoyed success with their measures so far, and neither of them succeeded on their first try. Indeed, it took four years and two legislative sessions for Palm’s proposed statutory requirement to teach climate change in Connecticut’s public schools to pass. Talarico in Texas expressed his resolve: “Despite our climate education bill not passing, I’m not giving up — and neither should you.”

Climate change education is popular: about 75% of Americans agree that schools should teach about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to global warming. The challenge is to channel the public’s abstract support for climate change education into specific and implementable legislation that will make a real difference in the classroom. That’s how legislators and their constituents can help to equip today’s students to cope with the challenges of the warmer world they will inherit.

This article by Glenn Branch was originally published on Yale Climate Communications. It is republished here as part of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.

The post How US States Can Support Climate Change Education in Schools appeared first on Green Queen.