06 May 21
Ratio of Readers to Donors: 1000 to 1
That is abusive of everything and everyone RSN stands for. If you are looking to be entertained, look elsewhere.
For the serious.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
06 May 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Dan Rather and Steady Team | Maybe Not Your Average Joe
Dan Rather and Steady Team, Steady
Excerpt: "We are living through a time that is unprecedented in more ways than we can fully fathom. It is human nature to focus on the extremes, the dangers lurking on the horizons of our mental vision."
t took me a while to figure out what to write for this week’s Sunday essay. To be sure, there was no shortage of worthy topics clamoring for attention. And as I sorted through them, I felt confident there was one topic that would be crossed off the list —President Biden’s address to Congress. For starters, I had already written a long piece that was sent out to all of you on the night of the speech. What more was there to say? Furthermore, by the end of the week, you’d be hard pressed to find coverage of the event anywhere near the top of the headlines. It is, as the saying goes, “old news.”
And yet the more the days passed, the more I found myself thinking about Wednesday night. It wasn’t so much recollecting memorable lines, specific proposals, or even the general topics covered, although there was plenty of note in all those categories. What gnawed at me was something less tangible, a feeling of some bigger whole that was more than the sum of its parts. As I tried to give my thoughts a more concrete form, I realized it was Joe Biden himself that struck me, the man up there at the podium making a forceful case for one of the most transformational agendas any President has made in my lifetime. And I have seen a lot of presidents and a lot of addresses to Congress.
We are living through a time that is unprecedented in more ways than we can fully fathom. It is human nature to focus on the extremes, the dangers lurking on the horizons of our mental vision. The pandemic naturally looms large, and so does the January 6 insurrection, with all that it reflects about the very real threats to our democratic order. We are still trying to assess the damage wrought by the previous administration and its twice-impeached leader. The news on climate change grows increasingly dire. And our fitful confrontations with racial injustice are powered by deep social, economic, and political currents that stretch back to before the founding of our nation. There is so much that we need to rebuild and rethink.
With all that is going on in our minds, our society, and our body politic, with the deep shadows of corruption, cruelty, and incompetence still being cast by the previous administration, it can sometimes be easy to lose President Biden in his own narrative. To be sure, just being president means you will be mentioned in many leading news reports, your movements noted, your words parsed. And that is certainly true for Biden as well. But the presidency has its own wattage and most who inhabit the role seek, in their particular manner, to turn up the spotlight on their own presence and accomplishments. With Biden I get the impression that he is perfectly happy if the presidential spotlight also includes a dimmer.
I am not saying that the speech itself was unimpressive. It was a fine feat of oratory, delivered in an effective tone of approachability and common sense. It was full of big ideas, expressed with passion and heart. But when it came to highlighting what Biden has already accomplished, or the scale and impact of his jaw-dropping legislative and administrative proposals, the president and his message crafters are consciously downplaying both their achievements and their ambitions. Make no mistake, if Biden gets even half of what he is seeking he would be one of this country’s truly transformational leaders. But Biden knows that big change provokes backlash and unease. He saw that firsthand watching the response to the first Black president. What if you wrap up a revolution, however, in the rhetoric of a return to basic American values? Biden seems to be betting that this approach can perhaps get a lot more done than anyone would have expected. Thus far, that bet seems to be paying off.
The man who spoke on Wednesday is a man of fierce ambition. His long political career and previous runs for the presidency prove that. However he has also become a man of age and experience in a culture that often prizes youth and potential. Many others have noted that the Biden we are seeing as president differs from the younger version of the man. He was known over his career for being long-winded and sometimes a bit of a loose cannon in his public proclamations. But Biden as president has been disciplined and seems to be listening as much as he is talking.
We live in an age of “celebrity,” a word broadly and unevenly defined and sometimes even devoid of any clear ties to significant accomplishment. Both of our previous presidents were celebrities, although ones of diametrically different embodiments of term. Say what you may wish about each of those men, but neither of them would be construed as boring. Biden, on the other hand, seems to be wielding “boring” as a potent political tool. He and his administration are busy at work. The output, from the White House to throughout the federal agencies, is focused, integrated, and once again hugely ambitious. Yet the marking of this output to the press and public is done in ways that highlight the substance and seek to downplay the flash.
It wasn’t only the substance of what Biden is trying to accomplish that kept me thinking long after Wednesday night. It was also the journey of the man himself. His personal narrative, replete with multiple tragedies, is well known and doesn’t need recounting. But the political trek that led to the stage he now occupies does not get enough note even though it is shaping his governance. There was a time when Biden was a young man on the move. Those years are long gone.
Even twelve years ago, when he was chosen by Barack Obama to be his running mate, Biden was seen as a safe option. He was a longtime Washington insider with a respected record on foreign affairs and military issues, two places where the young Obama seemed to be weak in experience.
This is what the New York Times reported on the day of the decision:
“It reflected a critical strategic choice by Mr. Obama: To go with a running mate who could reassure voters about gaps in his résumé, rather than to pick someone who could deliver a state or reinforce Mr. Obama’s message of change.”
Here we can see the equation —“reassure voters” versus “message of change.” And it worked. Throughout the Obama administration, Biden took on the role of a lovable old uncle. He never overshadowed Obama, but then again who could have? When 2016 rolled around, no one really thought he was the heir apparent. And he decided not to run. He was considered pretty old at the time. We all know what happened next.
With how the last five years have played out, it may be hard to remember Biden’s own journey through that time. He wasn’t one of the louder or most quotable voices. Many other political leaders dominated the spotlight. And when the election season started heating up for 2020, it took Biden a while to figure out whether and how he would run. He stumbled badly in the early primaries and many thought his political career, which already had seemed to end once before, was finally over. It was South Carolina specifically, and the pragmatism and insight of Black voters more generally, that rescued Biden as he suddenly and improbably roared to the nomination, and then the presidency.
As Biden assumed the office, no one knew quite what to expect. Part of that was the unpredictability of the times, particularly the impact of the pandemic. But it was also the sense that Biden had long projected the image of a centrist in the middle of his party’s political spectrum. Would that still be true when he was leading the show? And if so, where did that center lie? Someone who has been in elected office for as long as he has is bound to have drifted some in his beliefs. Where would he moor himself now?
Wednesday night was an exclamation point on what we have seen since January. Biden means business across an expanse of issues. He is weaving a narrative where dramatic action on racial justice, economic inequality, education, immigration, infrastructure, the social safety net and climate change are all interconnected and, as he would like to argue it, self-evident common sense. Here I want to return to that calculation the New York Times laid out when Biden became Obama’s running mate: “reassure voters” versus “message of change.” The Biden of 2020 and 2021 has made the calculation that if you reassure voters you could be an agent of change. And not just modest change. But epochal change.
To lay all this out is not to endorse all of the president’s approaches or to predict his ultimate success in achieving his goals. We can all see the structural and political impediments that are arrayed against him. But as we try to assess the probability of his success, let us think back to Wednesday night. After the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, how likely was it that Biden would be the one addressing the nation? After all that we have seen of him over the course of his career, who would have predicted the boldness of his initiatives?
Many hoped that Biden would be a breath of fresh air after what we had experienced during the previous administration. He was someone who could right our ship of state, return some sanity to our political discourse, and start putting back the guardrails to our democracy. He was a safe choice, maybe for many a hopeful choice. Some of all of that was on display Wednesday night. But so was a president channeling an ambition to reshape the destiny of this country that one found in presidents like Roosevelt, Johnson, and Reagan. Biden was saying, in his own understated way, that a new definition of the American experiment can and should begin now.
It is, in a phrase, a remarkable journey. And it’s a journey that the chief protagonist clearly is determined to continue. His speech, what was said and left unsaid, made that abundantly clear. Now we are all left to wonder whether he will be granted enough time and help to turn his understated vision into reality.
—Dan
President Biden on Wednesday came out in favor of the World Trade Organization's proposed waiver of patent protections for COVID-19 vaccines. (photo: AP)
Biden Backs Waiving International Patent Protections for COVID-19 Vaccines
Emma Bowman and Ashish Valentine, NPR
Excerpt: "President Biden threw his support behind a World Trade Organization proposal on Wednesday to waive intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines, clearing a hurdle for vaccine-strapped countries to manufacture their own vaccines even though the patents are privately held."
"This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures," U.S. trade representative Katherine Tai said in a statement. "The Administration believes strongly in intellectual property protections, but in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for COVID-19 vaccines."
The pace of vaccinating against COVID-19 in the U.S. is slowing down. In some places, there are more vaccine doses than people who want them.
Meanwhile, India is now the epicenter of the pandemic, and just 2% of its population is fully vaccinated.
The WTO is considering a proposal to address that inequity, as India, South Africa and over 100 other nations advocate to waive IP rights for COVID-19 vaccines and medications, which could let manufacturers in other countries make their own.
The consequences of not passing the waiver are "staggering," Mustaqeem de Gama, South Africa's World Trade Organization counselor, told NPR — "not only on the level of the loss of human lives but also on the economic level."
"We believe that intellectual property rights constitute a very substantial barrier to ensure equitable access," he said. "We believe that if we could have a limited, targeted waiver to ensure that we can ramp up production in various parts of the world, we would go a long way to ensure that we address not only the prevention but also the treatment of COVID-19."
Previous to Wednesday's announcement, the U.S. was among several other wealthy nations — including the U.K., Canada and Japan — that resisted WTO negotiations about the proposal.
In response to the administration's support, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a drug industry trade group, expressed strong opposition and argued that the move represents a break in long-standing U.S. policy over medical patents amid global inequities.
"In the midst of a deadly pandemic, the Biden Administration has taken an unprecedented step that will undermine our global response to the pandemic and compromise safety," a statement from PhRMA reads. "This decision will sow confusion between public and private partners, further weaken already strained supply chains and foster the proliferation of counterfeit vaccines."
The trade group added that the decision will compromise U.S. job creation and the country's place as a leader in biomedical innovation.
The battle mirrors the one during the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1990s, when drug companies warred with global health officials who sought to produce generic treatments. Drugmakers eventually retreated after former South African President Nelson Mandela accused the companies of using patents to profit from his country's health crisis.
The HIV crisis gave way to a precedent in relaxing patent restrictions: In 2001, the WTO added the Doha Declaration to its Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement to allow low-income nations to import and develop generic versions of patented medicines.
The head of the World Health Organization praised the Biden administration's intent to lift the proprietary limits on COVID-19 vaccines.
"This is a monumental moment in the fight against #COVID19," Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Twitter. "The commitment by @POTUS Joe Biden & @USTradeRep @AmbassadorTai to support the waiver of IP protections on vaccines is a powerful example of leadership to address global health challenges."
Protesters call for stronger eviction protections in January in Sacramento, Calif. (photo: Rich Pedroncelli/Ap)
Judge Strikes Down Federal Eviction Moratorium, Setting Up High-Stakes Appeal
Chris Arnold, NPR
Arnold writes: "A federal judge has issued a sweeping ruling that would revoke a pandemic eviction moratorium put in place by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
But the Justice Department is appealing on behalf of the CDC.
The case was brought by the Alabama Association of Realtors, which argued that the CDC doesn't have the power to tell landlords they can't evict people during a pandemic. The judge agreed.
"It is the role of the political branches, and not the courts, to assess the merits of policy measures designed to combat the spread of disease, even during a global pandemic," Judge Dabney Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in her ruling.
"The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not."
That act empowers the CDC to make and enforce regulations that it judges are necessary to prevent "the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases." But the judge said in this case the CDC overreached.
There have been several rulings on the matter with conflicting decisions. This latest one goes further than any of them by moving to strike down the eviction moratorium nationwide.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could now issue a stay, which would keep the CDC's eviction protections in place, for now.
"My hope is that the D.C. Circuit Court will quickly issue a stay, and this ruling will not have effect," said Shamus Roller, executive director of the National Housing Law Project.
"The underlying ruling in this case is pretty weak, in my opinion," Roller said. "Congress in December extended the CDC order. So clearly Congress thinks that the CDC has this authority."
But Roller said it's unclear whether the appeals court will issue a stay and which way the appellate decision may go. He said the Trump administration appointed many conservative federal judges who he suspects could rule against the government exerting this kind of power — telling landlords not to evict tenants during a public health emergency.
"It'll be a three judge panel that will review this," Roller says. "It will depend greatly on which three judges get selected."
Meanwhile, the plaintiff in this latest case, the Alabama Association of Realtors, said it's pleased by the ruling.
The group's CEO, Jeremy Walker, said, "The ruling will bring much needed relief to struggling mom-and-pop housing providers across the country." He said the economy is growing again and getting back on its feet. "Our focus is now on the implementation of emergency rental assistance to support tenants who continue to suffer from the effects of the pandemic as soon as possible."
The U.S. Census Bureau says nearly 7 million Americans are still behind on rent. And while Congress has authorized about $50 billion in rental assistance money, the vast majority of it hasn't reached the people who need it yet.
So housing groups say that without the CDC order in place, many families will get evicted who might otherwise have avoided it. They worry these families could wind up homeless, just because they lost work during the worst pandemic in a century.
'Gig economy' worker calls for end to rule listing them as independent contractors. (photo: Mario Tama/Getty)
Biden's Labor Department Reverses Trump-Era Gig Worker Rule
Andrew J. Hawkins, The Verge
Hawkins writes: "The US Department of Labor withdrew a Trump-era rule that would have made it easier for 'gig economy' companies like Uber and Lyft to classify their workers as independent contractors."
The rule made it easier for companies like Uber and Lyft to classify workers as independent contractors
he US Department of Labor withdrew a Trump-era rule that would have made it easier for “gig economy” companies like Uber and Lyft to classify their workers as independent contractors. The reversal doesn’t change any gig workers’ current employment status, but it does signal that the Biden administration is taking a less friendly stance toward this sector of the economy.
The rule was finalized in early January, before Biden took office, and would have made it more difficult for gig workers to be reclassified as employees under federal law. Over the years, some gig workers have fought to be classified as employees so they could qualify for benefits like paid sick leave, health insurance, and minimum wage.
Among the reasons cited for reversing the rule, the labor department said it was “in tension” with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and would have “undermined” current jurisprudence on gig work in the US.
“By withdrawing the Independent Contractor Rule, we will help preserve essential worker rights and stop the erosion of worker protections that would have occurred had the rule gone into effect,” said Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh in a statement.
Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other companies won a huge victory last November with the passage of Prop 22 in California. The ballot measure would exempt those companies from a state law that would have required them to classify their workers as employees. The companies aggressively opposed the law, arguing it would eliminate worker flexibility, while also increasing consumer prices and wait times.
Biden opposed Prop 22, arguing it was an attempt by gig economy companies to “gut” California’s AB5 law. “It’s unacceptable,” he tweeted on May 26th, 2020.
Among the gig economy companies, Uber has been the most forceful about taking its vision for the future of work to the national stage. The company has long advocated for a “third way” to classify its drivers. Last spring, in the midst of rising COVID-19 infections, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi penned a letter to President Trump advocating for federal legislation that would provide drivers with certain financial benefits while still classifying them as independent contractors. And the company has been lobbying for Prop 22-like legislative action in multiple states across the country.
But that could be tough to accomplish with Democrats in control of the government. Last September, a coalition of top Democratic officials introduced a bill that would tighten the federal test for classifying workers as independent contractors.
The Grand Canyon national park has approved a plan to reduce the bison herd near the north rim. (photo: Russ Jacoby/AP)
More Than 45,000 Vie for One of 12 Spots to Kill Grand Canyon Bison
Associated Press
Excerpt: "More than 45,000 people are vying for one of a dozen spots to help thin a herd of bison at Grand Canyon national park."
Skilled shooters are needed to kill the 2,000-pound animals that have been trampling archaeological and other resources
The odds aren’t as good as drawing a state tag to hunt the massive animals beyond the boundaries of the Grand Canyon, but they’re far better than getting struck by lightning or winning the Powerball.
“Just keeping my fingers crossed that I’m one out of 12,” said Rich Dawley Jr a 29-year-old farmer outside of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania who applied. “You can’t win unless you play.”
The National Park Service opened a rare opportunity for skilled shooters to kill bison at the Grand Canyon’s north rim where officials say they’ve been trampling on archaeological and other resources, and spoiling the water.
Potential volunteers had 48 hours – until midnight Tuesday – to apply. The opportunity drew 45,040 applicants, about 15% of which were Arizona residents. About one-third of the applicants were from Texas, California, Colorado and Utah, said Larry Phoenix, a regional supervisor for the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
The department will select 25 names through a lottery, vet them and forward finalists to the park service. The first 12 who to submit a packet of information requested by the park service will be part of the volunteer program in the fall, said Kaitlyn Thomas, Grand Canyon spokeswoman, on Wednesday. The volunteers who are selected will find out by 17 May.
The work is expected to be grueling, done on foot at elevations of 8,000 feet (2,438 meters) or higher at the Grand Canyon’s north rim. Volunteers can’t use motorized transportation or stock animals to retrieve the bison that can weigh up to 2,000 pounds (907 kilograms) and will have to field dress them with help from a support crew. Snow could also be a factor.
None of that deterred James Vasko from applying. He joked that he had great odds and already planned to bring the best man from his wedding along for the trip.
“I just thought it would be a cool experience,” said Vasko, a 27-year-old who works in real estate and farms in Omaha, Nebraska. “I’m an avid fisher, hunter. Going to Grand Canyon to hunt bison would be absolutely awesome.”
Park officials are clear that it’s not a hunt because it doesn’t involve fair chase. Hunting is prohibited within national parks, but the agency has authority to kill animals that harm resources, using park staff or volunteers.
Matt Mallery, an archaeologist in Flagstaff who applied, said using volunteers is cost-effective, logical and provides an opportunity to harvest organic meat that can be cost-prohibitive through the state hunt. Removing bison also helps keep the ecosystem in check, he said.
“It needs to happen for management purposes,” said Mallery. “And if it’s going to be somebody, it may as well be me.”
The park released a plan in September 2017 after an environmental review that called for a mix of corralling the animals near the highway that leads to the north rim and relocating them, and for skilled volunteers to shoot. The park has removed about 90 animals so far and transported them to Native American tribal lands.
Killing bison won’t decrease the herd by much. Each volunteer can take one animal out of the 300-500 estimated to be roaming the far northern reaches of Arizona. The goal population is 200.
In this textbook, a Black child is described as having 'dark chocolate skin.' (photo: Stefania D'Ignoti/Al Jazeera)
In Italy, Some School Textbooks Reinforce Racist Stereotypes
Stefania D'Ignoti, Al Jazeera
D'Ignoti writes: "In March, while schools in the southern Campania region were closed as part of another coronavirus lockdown, Xiaomo Ma was working from home when she overheard her nine-year-old son's online class in the next room."
A book which showed an Italian boy asking a Black girl, ‘Are you Black or are you dirty?’ caused so much backlash that it was removed.
n March, while schools in the southern Campania region were closed as part of another coronavirus lockdown, Xiaomo Ma was working from home when she overheard her nine-year-old son’s online class in the next room.
The teacher on screen was reading a story about a Chinese girl in an Italian primary school, from a textbook edited by the Italian publishing house, Del Borgo.
“As the teacher kept reading, I felt uncomfortable, for myself and my child,” Ma told Al Jazeera.
“The story was full of simplistic stereotypes on Asian people that can limit children’s, and adults’, understanding or acceptance of an entire culture.”
The Chinese child in the text was mocked for her appearance and accent, and praised for “not minding or responding to the insults”.
Ma, who teaches Chinese at the Oriental University of Naples and has lived in Italy for 15 years, went on social media to share her experience.
There, she found solidarity.
Members of other expatriate communities also had concerns about the messages in many primary school textbooks.
Recently, another publisher was criticised for an illustration in one of its books that depicted a group of children thoughtfully expressing their goals for the new year, while the only Black child spoke in broken Italian, with phrases such as: “Me wanting to learn Italian good.”
For years, academics and rights groups have pushed for Italian school textbooks to be updated to reflect the country’s changing demographics, and diversity.
“Italians have a handful of unresolved cultural and gender stereotypes, and the classroom is often the first place where those are built,” Giulia Selmi, vice-president of Educare Alle Differenze, which advocates for inclusivity in school materials, told Al Jazeera.
“Primary education is a critical phase of human development. Portraying a non-white child in a textbook as illiterate or unable to speak Italian properly sends a certain message that, if learnt at such a young age, can translate into prejudice and discrimination in adulthood.”
In Italy, primary school textbooks are not monitored by a government body.
Publishing houses have been self-regulating through a code designed to ensure equal opportunities.
“But judging the many racist and sexist blunders popping up from time to time among textbooks, self-regulation seems to not be enough,” said Gianluca Gabrielli, a primary school teacher and expert on the history of racism in Italian school books.
“If Italian textbooks still present several anachronistic scenarios, that is mainly due to a lack of historical introspection,” he added, highlighting how Italian colonialism and its faults are not taught at school.
While the country’s curriculum tackles Italian fascism and anti-Semitism, the school system skips other racist episodes throughout history against people of colour.
Meanwhile, according to 2019 data from the Italian Ministry of Education, there are about 320,000 children without Italian citizenship enrolled in primary schools.
The current Italian citizenship law makes it hard for children of immigrants to acquire Italian nationality, despite being born and raised in the country.
This has contributed to a lack of diversity in various fields, including publishing.
“We must point out, however, that this kind of racism is often largely unaware, born with the intent of motivating, rather than discouraging, an inclusive mindset,” Selmi said, referring to characters of colour in books who are depicted as slow or different.
A 2015 text by Ardea Publishing portrayed an Italian, white boy asking a Black girl with “funny Afro-pigtails”: “Are you Black or are you dirty?”
He later declares that she is, indeed, Black.
In the homework section, children are asked to write down the name of a classmate who looks like the Black girl, and describe her appearance.
After a significant backlash, the book was removed from the market.
“Our original intention was to stimulate children’s integration skills through this text, and teach them to accept physical differences,” Antonio Riccio, editor of Ardea, told Al Jazeera.
“But we realised, thanks to our readers, that it was a clumsy attempt, and from then on, we’ve been meticulously reviewing our texts. It was an opportunity to improve our vision on matters of diversity and inclusion.”
Stefano Cassanelli, editor of the Del Borgo Edizioni publishing house behind the book depicting the Chinese girl, told the Italian daily Il Fatto Quotidiano: “We paid close attention to texts that could generate concerns on matters of gender and race stereotypes, and it wasn’t our intention to disrespect anyone.”
Looking ahead, however, many see reason for hope.
Currently, parliament is reviewing a draft bill which aims to support the fair representation of women and minorities in school textbooks.
“There’s still a long path ahead but I’m beginning to witness a timid will from Italian publishers to open up to writers from diverse backgrounds,” said Igiaba Scego, a prominent Italian author of Somali background. “Perhaps, in a few years, we’ll be able to spot these positive signals in youth literature.”
A firefighter battles a wildfire in Contra Costa County, Calif. (photo: Étienne Laurent/EPA)
Climate Change Will Be Disastrous Even After Latest World Pledges, Report Finds
David Knowles, Yahoo! News
Knowles writes: "The recent pledges made by world governments to limit carbon emissions will not be sufficient to meet the goal of keeping global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, a new report concluded."
he recent pledges made by world governments to limit carbon emissions will not be sufficient to meet the goal of keeping global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, a new report concluded. Instead, those nonbinding commitments will result in a rise in the average global temperature to a potentially catastrophic 2.4 degrees Celsius.
The Climate Action Tracker, an independent network of scientists that tracks the commitments made on cutting emissions, released its findings Monday, just weeks after President Biden convened a climate summit with world leaders. The report notes that more robust targets made at the summit “have improved the Climate Action Tracker’s warming estimate by 0.2°C,” but that the net result would still mean the world is poised to blow past the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold set in 2018 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“While all of these developments are welcome, warming based on the targets and pledges, even under the most optimistic assumptions, is still well above the Paris Agreement’s 1.5˚C temperature limit,” the report states.
Despite the initial commitments made by world leaders in the Paris climate accord, temperatures have already risen by more than 1.2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, according to a report released last month by the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, a finding that led U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres to declare, “We are on the verge of the abyss.”
While keeping the average rise of surface temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius is still possible, the Climate Action Tracker said doing so will require a massive, unified effort from world governments that would transform life as we know it.
“Of great concern are the persisting plans of some governments to build new infrastructure not compatible with Paris goals, such as new coal-fired power plants, increasing uptake of natural gas as a source of electricity and that there are large inefficient personal vehicles in some countries,” the report states.
Rising temperatures have already had a profound impact on life on Earth, scientists say, increasing the severity of drought, weather events and wildfire destruction. With climate change continuing apace, the future looks even more bleak. A 2020 study conducted by the University of Arizona, for instance, found that at the current rate of temperature rise, one-third of all plants and animals on the planet will be at risk of mass extinction in the next 50 years.
In its 2018 report, the IPCC warned that global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius would result in drastic sea-level rise, threatening coastlines and island nations, and an increase in the number of deadly heat waves. At 2 degrees of Celsius warming, 99 percent of the world’s coral reefs would die off, an estimated 13 percent of ecosystems on land would be imperiled and an ice-free Arctic would become a reality within two decades.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.