Ed note, Indigenous people manage around 80% of the world’s biodiversity on 20% of the world’s lands. From Science Daily: In the past, when protected areas were established, Indigenous peoples were sometimes excluded from using land they had previously relied on for food and materials. This was harmful to many Indigenous communities and did not necessarily achieve the original goals of conservation. Indigenous-managed lands represent an important repository of biodiversity in three of the largest countries on Earth, and Indigenous peoples currently manage or have tenure to roughly one-quarter of the planet’s land area,” said co-author Nick Reo, an associate professor of environmental studies and Native American studies at Dartmouth College and a citizen of the Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario tribe of Chippewa Indians. In light of this, collaborating with Indigenous governments, communities and organizations can help to conserve biodiversity as well as support Indigenous rights to land, sustainable resource use and well-being. University of British Columbia. “Biodiversity highest on Indigenous-managed lands.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 31 July 2019. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190731102157.htm>
By SAMMY ROTH LA Times, MAY 21, 2020
Sammy Roth here, returning to your inbox with this week’s climate change and environment newsletter. Let’s get started. One of the things I miss most about Life Before the Pandemic is getting out into nature. Even as Southern California parks and trails have started to reopen — Joshua Tree National Park is now welcoming visitors — I’ve hesitated to return. What if there are huge crowds, like those first few shelter-in-place weekends? And do I really want to hit the trail without my hiking buddies? But it’s been comforting to know that pristine wilderness still exists. I can pull up photos of my favorite spots — Death Valley, the Grand Canyon, the Mecca Hills — and feel confident that these landscapes will be here long after the coronavirus goes away.
That’s what was on my mind when I learned about the “30 by 30″ concept, a fascinating idea to save the natural world.
An international team of scientists first proposed protecting 30% of Earth’s lands and waters by 2030 — hence “30 by 30″ — in the journal Science Advances last year. Calling their plan the “Global Deal for Nature,” they wrote that setting aside nearly one-third of the planet from human development could avert “points of no return” for many species and ecosystems. The idea has taken on a life of its own.
The Convention on Biological Diversity — a global treaty that has been ratified by every United Nations member country, except the United States — is expected to adopt the 30 by 30 framework next year. U.S. Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) kicked off a virtual “Road to 30″ tour with conservationists this week, promoting his legislation that would set a national 30 by 30 target.
In California, the Assembly’s natural resources committee approved similar legislation, cleverly designated AB 3030, last week.
About 12% of U.S. lands are currently protected, according to a report from the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. The figure is higher in the nation’s coastal waters, with 26% designated as marine protected areas.
In California, 22% of the state’s land area and 16% of its coastal waters are protected.That doesn’t mean humans have developed the rest of America’s natural spaces — just that there’s nothing to stop us from doing so, legally speaking. You may have heard the statistic that the U.S. loses a football field’s worth of nature every 30 seconds. The data point can start to sound meaningless if you hear it too often, but stop and think about it. Every 30 seconds? That’s astounding.
Speaking during the “Road to 30″ kickoff call, Enric Sala, an ocean scientist and one of the authors of the Global Deal for Nature, described some of the many ways that people have come to depend on intact natural ecosystems.
Healthy wetlands provide an important buffer against storm surges during hurricanes — but sprawling cities have paved over them to build subdivisions. Gray wolves provide a check on the deer and mice that help spread Lyme disease from ticks to humans — but humans hunted wolves nearly to extinction, an extermination that, some scientists say, has allowed Lyme disease to become common in the United States.
The COVID-19 pandemic, Sala said, “is the loudest wake-up call we’ve had in recent history.” Researchers have found that habitat destruction and biodiversity loss are making it easier for this kind of virus to spread from animals to humans.
“We have become totally out of balance with nature. And unless we get our balance back, our society as we knew it is going to be a thing of the past,” Sala said.The “30 by 30″ concept is no panacea.
As long as fossil fuels power the world economy, Earth will continue to heat up at an unnaturally fast pace, threatening all species and ecosystems, people included. And there’s no special magic by which 29.9% leads to total destruction, and 30.1% to salvation. In fact, the authors of the Global Deal for Nature see 30% by 2030 as a steppingstone on the road to 50% by 2050.
I called Ash Kalra, the San Jose assemblyman who introduced AB 3030, to ask him why his legislation doesn’t define “protected” with much precision, and doesn’t provide a mechanism to enforce the 30% target. He told me he’s trying to set a goal rather than create a mandate. He wants to give regulators and the public a chance to figure out together how 30 by 30 can be achieved.
“At the end of the day, we’re creating the world that we choose to live in,” Kalra said.
Here’s what else is happening this week:
Even in California, environmental protection is taking a backseat during the pandemic. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s updated budget proposal increases funding for fighting wildfires, per my colleagues Phil Willon and John Myers. But other environmental priorities would take a hit under Newsom’s budget. CalMatters notes that the state’s oil and gas regulator would not gain 120 new positions to help with oilfield inspections, and that a $1-billion loan program for local climate projects would also be shelved.
Major industries, meanwhile, are pushing state officials to ease pollution rules. The California Air Resources Board says it’s not slowing down its efforts to develop new regulations, although Southern California officials have postponed consideration of more than 10 air-quality rules, citing COVID-19, as Tony Barboza reports for The Times. In related news, California and eight other states are suing the federal government over its decision to relax pollution enforcement, per the Desert Sun’s Mark Olalde.
In a reminder of the dangers posed by climate change, thousands of Michigan residents were forced to evacuate after heavy rains overwhelmed two dams, threatening downstream towns with catastrophic flooding. Although it’s tough to pin any one extreme weather event on climate change, scientists have found that rising temperatures are upping the odds of devastating rains and floods. A similar dynamic was at play when the spillway at California’s Oroville Dam partially collapsed three years ago.
POWER STRUGGLES
It’s not often I get to write stories about NASA “plasma torches,” unwanted recyclables and Republican politicians focused on climate change. So I enjoyed reporting on this first-of-its-kind green hydrogen production facility planned for Southern California, which could go a long way toward boosting hydrogen’s potential as a climate-friendly fuel — if it’s successful. I’m sure Los Angeles officials will be watching closely, considering their plan to build the world’s first hydrogen-fueled power plant.
It’s still not clear how COVID-19 will affect renewable energy’s long-term prospects. Reporting for the San Diego Union-Tribune, Rob Nikolewski quotes a professor who explains that making energy predictions during a pandemic is difficult because “in the dark, all swans are black.” At least one short-term impact is clear, though: With energy use down, the U.S. is likely to produce more electricity from renewables than from coal this year for the first time, as the New York Times’ Brad Plumer reports.
Sometimes you have to read a headline twice to make sure you’re seeing it right. That was my reaction when I read that U.S. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette, in an interview with Axios reporter Amy Harder, compared banks refusing to finance oil and gas exploration in the Arctic to the long-banned practice of redlining, in which mortgage lenders systematically discriminated against black communities. “I do not think banks should be redlining our oil and gas investment across the country,” Brouillette said.
Forty years after its famed eruption, Mt. St. Helens looms as a marvel and a threat. Our Seattle bureau chief, Richard Read, wrote a fascinating retrospective on the May 1980 earthquake and debris avalanche that caused a Washington state volcano to erupt, killing 57 people. The consequences are still playing out today; federal officials need to do some work at the site for public safety purposes, but scientists worry that building a road to bring in workers would threaten the area’s ecological recovery.I’m still not sure when I’ll be ready to tiptoe back into the outdoors. But if you’re itching to get outside, you have options. Jeanette Marantos writes that botanic gardens across Southern California are starting to reopen, with physical-distancing rules in place. The Times has also been keeping track of which beaches, parks and trails are open; here’s a rundown. (But seriously, please be safe: You do not want to be one of the thousands of visitors crowding into Yellowstone National Park without a mask.)
If you’re not ready to venture into nature, you can also watch live video of outdoor spaces and try to spot fires. I’m not kidding; Southern California Edison has installed 161 cameras across its service territory as part of its state-mandated wildfire plan, and you can watch the feeds and report signs of trouble if you feel so inclined, as Joseph Serna writes for The Times.
The wildest story I’ve read about this week is playing out in Montana, where the state’s Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities, is suing several news organizations — including the Billings Gazette, Yellowstone Public Radio and the Great Falls Tribune, owned by my former employer, Gannett — over public records requests seeking to scrutinize the agency’s actions.
The controversy stems from a bizarre “spying” scandal in which a commissioner’s emails were leaked to a right-wing website amid rising animosity between him and his colleagues. The commissioner in question has been the lone voice of dissent on several controversial decisions, including a recent vote that could pave the way for Montana’s largest utility to buy more coal-fired power.
My take? Government officials should turn over public records when asked, and not force journalists to fight them in court.
CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT Want jobs and clean energy? This overlooked technology could deliver both
By SAMMY ROTHSTAFF WRITER JULY 1, 20204 AM
Sunrise Powerlink carves a twisting path through the deserts and mountains of Southern California, skirting the U.S.-Mexico border and cutting through a national forest on its 117-mile path from the rural Imperial Valley to urban San Diego County.
Critics fought hard to stop Sunrise Powerlink from getting built. They said the $1.9-billion transmission line would saddle energy consumers with unnecessary costs, degrade sensitive wildlife habitat and interrupt a series of gorgeous landscapes.
But a decade later, the project is serving its intended purpose: bringing solar and wind power to city dwellers.
“You could have all the renewable energy in the world. But if you don’t have the transmission lines, you have nothing,” then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said at the groundbreaking ceremony for Sunrise Powerlink in 2010.
Today, the United States is buckling under the weight of a worsening pandemic that has claimed more than 127,000 lives and put an estimated 30 million Americans out of work.
Building more power lines wouldn’t stop the spread of COVID-19. But energy experts say investing in transmission would put people back to work and help urban areas across the country ditch fossil fuels. The burning of those fuels not only drives the climate crisis, but generates lung-damaging air pollution that has been linked to greater likelihood of death from the coronavirus.
What makes transmission so useful?
It’s a matter of geography: Rural areas with powerful winds or abundant sunshine — such as California’s Imperial Valley — are the easiest places for companies to build facilities that generate lots of cheap, clean electricity. But those places are typically far from the population centers that use the most energy — hence the need for giant power cords that connect supply with demand.
Removing regulatory obstacles to transmission would fuel economic growth, supporters say. New power lines would facilitate the construction of solar and wind farms, creating high-paying jobs. And private investors would do the financial heavy lifting.
“If you’re looking at infrastructure spending, the electric grid is the most fundamental infrastructure there is,” said Cheryl LaFleur, who served nine years on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission after being appointed by President Obama.
The American Council on Renewable Energy and Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, both industry groups, in June launched the Macro Grid Initiative, a public relations campaign to promote the benefits of transmission, funded in part by Bill Gates.
A few weeks later, House Democrats unveiled a climate policy plan that recommends building more transmission, with a goal of “modernizing and expanding the electric grid [to] allow more Americans to benefit from low-cost, zero-emission electricity.”
The U.S. electricity supply has gotten cleaner over the last decade as solar and wind energy costs have plummeted, prompting utilities to shut down coal plants. But efforts to accelerate the transition by building power lines have been stifled by opposition from landowners who don’t want lattice towers and wires interrupting their views, and by state and local officials who want to know how proposed transmission corridors will benefit their constituents — and not just the cities at the end of the line.
Conservationists have also worked to block some projects, arguing that poorly sited transmission lines and renewable energy facilities can do serious ecological damage, even as they help to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions fueling the climate crisis.
Dustin Mulvaney, an environmental studies professor at San Jose State University, sees both sides of the conservation argument.
“There’s obviously really compelling arguments,” he said, for an expanded power grid. But all infrastructure projects — including renewable energy — can take an ecological toll, especially when they’re built on undisturbed public lands in the American West.
As one example, Mulvaney pointed out that ravens, which prey on baby desert tortoises, often nest in transmission towers.ADVERTISEMENT
“Whenever you see public lands versus infrastructure, you almost inevitably get these kinds of conflicts,” he said.
Transmission projects are slow by nature. Even with regulatory support, they wouldn’t provide an immediate economic kick-start.
But scientists say humanity must slash fossil fuel emissions quickly and dramatically to limit the damage from worsening heat waves, droughts, fires and other consequences of climate change. And as COVID-19 hobbles global economies, organizations as diverse as the International Monetary Fund and the Sunrise Movement have called for stimulus plans that accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels and create jobs in the clean energy industry, which before the pandemic employed 3.4 million Americans.
Most Republican politicians in Washington, D.C., continue to oppose anything resembling a comprehensive climate plan, even as polls show voters overwhelmingly favor more aggressive federal action. But power grid investments might be different.
“Transmission’s one of those issues that I think there’s broad consensus on. I don’t think it’s a controversial issue,” Neil Chatterjee, a former advisor to Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell who was tapped by President Trump to lead the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said in a recent interview. “We’ve got to have transmission in place to ensure that the grid of the future is there.”
An ‘embarrassing’ history on grid infrastructure
Transmission proponents have been making the same arguments for years, with little to show for it.
During the early years of the Obama administration, the U.S. Department of Energy pledged to “accelerate the permitting and construction” of seven projects that would cross federal lands. The list included a 730-mile power line designed to bring wind energy from the Wyoming plains to cities such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and a 290-mile line connecting Idaho and Oregon.
Nearly a decade later, only two of the seven projects have been built.
In “Superpower,” a book published last year, Wall Street Journal reporter Russell Gold chronicled the developer Michael Skelly’s unsuccessful effort to string more than 700 miles of electric wiring from the Oklahoma Panhandle to Tennessee, and bring wind power from the Great Plains to the Southeast. The project was stymied by lawsuits from Arkansas landowners along the proposed route, tepid support from federal agencies and fierce opposition from U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican.
“It’s increasingly embarrassing to see how we’ve dealt with infrastructure investments in the United States,” Skelly said in a recent webinar organized by Americans for a Clean Energy Grid. “All we can seem to figure out how to do is build more highways.”
America’s power grid is aging and fragmented. Much of it was built a half-century ago or more, with many lines designed to carry electrons from coal-fired power plants or hydroelectric dams. The western and eastern parts of the country operate on largely separate networks, each of them divided into dozens of smaller jurisdictions. Texas has its own, largely disconnected grid.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a federal research institute, reported in 2018 that building lines across the “seams” of those grids, to better connect different parts of the country, could create as much as $3.30 in benefits for every dollar invested.
Similarly, a 2016 study from researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that a national network of high-voltage, direct-current power lines could reduce planet-warming emissions from the power sector 80% below 1990 levels by 2030, while saving consumers $47.2 billion a year — almost three times as much as the cost of the new transmission.
Why the huge cost savings? In part because it’s cheaper to generate solar energy in sunnier places and wind energy in windier places — and in part because the sun shines and the wind blows at different times of day in different parts of the country.
Interior western states, for instance, could import solar power in the evening from California, where the sun sets an hour later. Or California could tap Wyoming’s powerful wind resource as a cheaper, cleaner alternative to firing up gas plants after sundown.
Wyoming wind is the impetus for one of the Obama administration’s long-delayed priority transmission lines that may yet get built.
The conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz — whose holdings include L.A.’s Staples Center and the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival — has been developing the $3-billion TransWest Express power line since 2008. It would originate at a massive wind farm Anschutz is building in Wyoming and extend 730 miles to Southern Nevada, where it would connect to the California grid.
Asked why the transmission project has taken so long, Anschutz Corp. executive Bill Miller pointed to a federal environmental review that took about six years; the need to secure permits from two states and 14 counties; and the difficulty of negotiating rights of way with some 450 private landowners along the route. Even now, negotiations continue with a few landowners.
Most developers don’t have the money or the patience for a project like that. Anschutz has already spent more than $400 million developing the transmission line and wind farm, with Miller hopeful construction on TransWest Express will begin next year.
Miller is confident there will be demand for the wind power the company plans to generate. California law calls for 100% climate-friendly electricity by 2045, and other southwestern states are upping their ambition, with Nevada and New Mexico also targeting 100% clean power. Across the country, city and state governments, electric utilities and private companies are setting similar goals.
“In spite of COVID-19 and everything else, we see the whole country leaning in on what’s happening with renewables,” Miller said.
‘It’s not going to be pretty’
In 2011, the Federal Energy Regulation Commission issued rules designed to improve regional transmission planning, spread the costs of new power lines more broadly and open the marketplace to competitive bidders, not just monopoly utility companies.
Those steps were supposed to unleash a wave of transmission development. But they didn’t work.
Answers to what went wrong depend on whom you ask. But there are plenty of ideas for what the federal government might try next, including nine pages of recommendations in the House Democrats’ newly released climate plan. The ideas include funding and technical assistance for states to conduct faster environmental reviews; a dedicated tax credit for transmission investments, such as the one the solar industry enjoys; and building power lines alongside existing railroads and highways, where possible.
The conversation usually comes around to an issue at the heart of American democracy: state versus federal authority.
Unlike natural gas pipelines, whose approval falls solely to the federal government, electric lines can be vetoed by any state along their route. State officials have played a role in derailing major projects, including the Northern Pass transmission line, which would have brought Canadian hydropower to New England but was blocked by New Hampshire regulators.
“NIMBYism is not irrational for many people. They could be bearing the costs, and not getting the benefits,” said David Spence, an energy law professor at University of Texas at Austin.
CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT Should we spend billions on clean energy? It worked during the last crisis April 10, 2020
Even without a full federal takeover, clean energy advocates say there may be ways to shift some decision-making away from local officials. The House Democrats’ climate plan suggests allowing federal regulators to authorize any clean energy-oriented power lines that were already approved by one or more states, even if other states have rejected the project or withheld approval.
“If we really want to meet our low-carbon future, what has to change, and who has to do what to get there?” asked Julia Prochnik, an energy consultant who previously served as director of western renewable grid planning at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s not going to be pretty. It’s not going to be what everyone wants. But we’re all going to gain something.”
Not everyone is embracing transmission.
Some climate advocates would rather see policymakers focus on smaller, more local forms of clean power, such as rooftop solar, batteries housed in garages and community microgrids. Energy economists tend to be less enamored with these “distributed” clean power technologies, arguing they produce more expensive electricity than large-scale solar and wind power plants.
As for big solar and wind farms, Mulvaney thinks they ought to be built on previously disturbed lands. At times, he’s felt frustrated by companies that use climate change to push projects that could harm species such as sage grouse and desert tortoises.
Energy developers, Mulvaney said, “are somewhat taking advantage of people who want to solve the climate crisis.”
“It’s either the tortoise gets it from the land-use change, or it gets it from climate change,” he said. “But I think there are so many more possibilities, and we should be open to what these possibilities are.”
CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT Boiling Point: The ’30 by 30′ plan to save nature May 21, 2020
One possibility is to use existing power lines. Especially in the West, coal-plant retirements are opening up long-distance wires that could be used to bring clean energy to cities. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, for instance, is planning to import large amounts of solar and wind energy through a transmission line that currently carries coal-fired electricity from Utah.ADVERTISEMENT
Los Angeles is also exploring a partnership with the Navajo Nation to develop solar power on tribal lands, utilizing long-distance wires that previously connected the city with the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station in Arizona, which closed last year.
But reducing emissions fast enough to meet global climate targets is unlikely without at least some additions to the power grid.
“There are those who say we can get there without transmission. Our view is that’s not true,” said Larry Gasteiger, executive director of Wires, an energy industry trade group. “You’re going to need transmission to be part of the solution.”
Boiling Point: The ’30 by 30′ plan to save the natural world
Arroyo lupine flowers bloom alongside the mountains at Malibu Creek State Park in the Santa Monica Mountains near Los Angeles.
By SAMMY ROTH LA Times, MAY 21, 2020
Sammy Roth here, returning to your inbox with this week’s climate change and environment newsletter. Let’s get started. One of the things I miss most about Life Before the Pandemic is getting out into nature. Even as Southern California parks and trails have started to reopen — Joshua Tree National Park is now welcoming visitors — I’ve hesitated to return. What if there are huge crowds, like those first few shelter-in-place weekends? And do I really want to hit the trail without my hiking buddies? But it’s been comforting to know that pristine wilderness still exists. I can pull up photos of my favorite spots — Death Valley, the Grand Canyon, the Mecca Hills — and feel confident that these landscapes will be here long after the coronavirus goes away.
That’s what was on my mind when I learned about the “30 by 30″ concept, a fascinating idea to save the natural world.
An international team of scientists first proposed protecting 30% of Earth’s lands and waters by 2030 — hence “30 by 30″ — in the journal Science Advances last year. Calling their plan the “Global Deal for Nature,” they wrote that setting aside nearly one-third of the planet from human development could avert “points of no return” for many species and ecosystems. The idea has taken on a life of its own.
The Convention on Biological Diversity — a global treaty that has been ratified by every United Nations member country, except the United States — is expected to adopt the 30 by 30 framework next year. U.S. Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) kicked off a virtual “Road to 30″ tour with conservationists this week, promoting his legislation that would set a national 30 by 30 target.
In California, the Assembly’s natural resources committee approved similar legislation, cleverly designated AB 3030, last week.
About 12% of U.S. lands are currently protected, according to a report from the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. The figure is higher in the nation’s coastal waters, with 26% designated as marine protected areas.
In California, 22% of the state’s land area and 16% of its coastal waters are protected.That doesn’t mean humans have developed the rest of America’s natural spaces — just that there’s nothing to stop us from doing so, legally speaking. You may have heard the statistic that the U.S. loses a football field’s worth of nature every 30 seconds. The data point can start to sound meaningless if you hear it too often, but stop and think about it. Every 30 seconds? That’s astounding.
Speaking during the “Road to 30″ kickoff call, Enric Sala, an ocean scientist and one of the authors of the Global Deal for Nature, described some of the many ways that people have come to depend on intact natural ecosystems.
Healthy wetlands provide an important buffer against storm surges during hurricanes — but sprawling cities have paved over them to build subdivisions. Gray wolves provide a check on the deer and mice that help spread Lyme disease from ticks to humans — but humans hunted wolves nearly to extinction, an extermination that, some scientists say, has allowed Lyme disease to become common in the United States.
The COVID-19 pandemic, Sala said, “is the loudest wake-up call we’ve had in recent history.” Researchers have found that habitat destruction and biodiversity loss are making it easier for this kind of virus to spread from animals to humans.
“We have become totally out of balance with nature. And unless we get our balance back, our society as we knew it is going to be a thing of the past,” Sala said.The “30 by 30″ concept is no panacea.
As long as fossil fuels power the world economy, Earth will continue to heat up at an unnaturally fast pace, threatening all species and ecosystems, people included. And there’s no special magic by which 29.9% leads to total destruction, and 30.1% to salvation. In fact, the authors of the Global Deal for Nature see 30% by 2030 as a steppingstone on the road to 50% by 2050.
I called Ash Kalra, the San Jose assemblyman who introduced AB 3030, to ask him why his legislation doesn’t define “protected” with much precision, and doesn’t provide a mechanism to enforce the 30% target. He told me he’s trying to set a goal rather than create a mandate. He wants to give regulators and the public a chance to figure out together how 30 by 30 can be achieved.
“At the end of the day, we’re creating the world that we choose to live in,” Kalra said.
Here’s what else is happening this week:
Even in California, environmental protection is taking a backseat during the pandemic. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s updated budget proposal increases funding for fighting wildfires, per my colleagues Phil Willon and John Myers. But other environmental priorities would take a hit under Newsom’s budget. CalMatters notes that the state’s oil and gas regulator would not gain 120 new positions to help with oilfield inspections, and that a $1-billion loan program for local climate projects would also be shelved.
Major industries, meanwhile, are pushing state officials to ease pollution rules. The California Air Resources Board says it’s not slowing down its efforts to develop new regulations, although Southern California officials have postponed consideration of more than 10 air-quality rules, citing COVID-19, as Tony Barboza reports for The Times. In related news, California and eight other states are suing the federal government over its decision to relax pollution enforcement, per the Desert Sun’s Mark Olalde.
In a reminder of the dangers posed by climate change, thousands of Michigan residents were forced to evacuate after heavy rains overwhelmed two dams, threatening downstream towns with catastrophic flooding. Although it’s tough to pin any one extreme weather event on climate change, scientists have found that rising temperatures are upping the odds of devastating rains and floods. A similar dynamic was at play when the spillway at California’s Oroville Dam partially collapsed three years ago.
POWER STRUGGLES
It’s not often I get to write stories about NASA “plasma torches,” unwanted recyclables and Republican politicians focused on climate change. So I enjoyed reporting on this first-of-its-kind green hydrogen production facility planned for Southern California, which could go a long way toward boosting hydrogen’s potential as a climate-friendly fuel — if it’s successful. I’m sure Los Angeles officials will be watching closely, considering their plan to build the world’s first hydrogen-fueled power plant.
It’s still not clear how COVID-19 will affect renewable energy’s long-term prospects. Reporting for the San Diego Union-Tribune, Rob Nikolewski quotes a professor who explains that making energy predictions during a pandemic is difficult because “in the dark, all swans are black.” At least one short-term impact is clear, though: With energy use down, the U.S. is likely to produce more electricity from renewables than from coal this year for the first time, as the New York Times’ Brad Plumer reports.
Sometimes you have to read a headline twice to make sure you’re seeing it right. That was my reaction when I read that U.S. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette, in an interview with Axios reporter Amy Harder, compared banks refusing to finance oil and gas exploration in the Arctic to the long-banned practice of redlining, in which mortgage lenders systematically discriminated against black communities. “I do not think banks should be redlining our oil and gas investment across the country,” Brouillette said.
Forty years after its famed eruption, Mt. St. Helens looms as a marvel and a threat. Our Seattle bureau chief, Richard Read, wrote a fascinating retrospective on the May 1980 earthquake and debris avalanche that caused a Washington state volcano to erupt, killing 57 people. The consequences are still playing out today; federal officials need to do some work at the site for public safety purposes, but scientists worry that building a road to bring in workers would threaten the area’s ecological recovery.I’m still not sure when I’ll be ready to tiptoe back into the outdoors. But if you’re itching to get outside, you have options. Jeanette Marantos writes that botanic gardens across Southern California are starting to reopen, with physical-distancing rules in place. The Times has also been keeping track of which beaches, parks and trails are open; here’s a rundown. (But seriously, please be safe: You do not want to be one of the thousands of visitors crowding into Yellowstone National Park without a mask.)
If you’re not ready to venture into nature, you can also watch live video of outdoor spaces and try to spot fires. I’m not kidding; Southern California Edison has installed 161 cameras across its service territory as part of its state-mandated wildfire plan, and you can watch the feeds and report signs of trouble if you feel so inclined, as Joseph Serna writes for The Times.
The wildest story I’ve read about this week is playing out in Montana, where the state’s Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities, is suing several news organizations — including the Billings Gazette, Yellowstone Public Radio and the Great Falls Tribune, owned by my former employer, Gannett — over public records requests seeking to scrutinize the agency’s actions.
The controversy stems from a bizarre “spying” scandal in which a commissioner’s emails were leaked to a right-wing website amid rising animosity between him and his colleagues. The commissioner in question has been the lone voice of dissent on several controversial decisions, including a recent vote that could pave the way for Montana’s largest utility to buy more coal-fired power.
My take? Government officials should turn over public records when asked, and not force journalists to fight them in court.
