Joseph J. Romm's Blog, page 131

Nutella Sparks War Of Words Between European Environmental Ministers

There’s a storm brewing in Europe over a chocolate breakfast spread.

The French minister of ecology has Italy up in arms over comments she made about deforestation on French television Monday, during which she encouraged people to stop eating Nutella, an Italian-made chocolate hazelnut spread.

“We have to replant a lot of trees because there is massive deforestation that also leads to global warming. We should stop eating Nutella, for example, because it’s made with palm oil,” Ségolène Royal said. “Oil palms have replaced trees, and therefore caused considerable damage to the environment,” she added.

Italian politicians shot back Tuesday, with the Italian minister of the environment telling Royal to “leave Italian products alone.”

Another politician tweeted that Royal should apologize, calling her comments a “grave and ugly” insult.

Cutting down on palm oil use is seen as a key part of curbing deforestation — and carbon emissions. Palm oil is one of the most widely used ingredients in food, as well as health and beauty products.

Worldwide, oil palm plantations cover 40.6 million acres — an area larger than the entire state of Georgia, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Emissions due just to oil palm cultivation in Indonesia accounted for an estimated 2 to 9 percent of all tropical land use emissions from 2000 to 2010, the group found.

This is not the first time France has gone on the offensive against palm oil, or Nutella. A “Nutella Tax” was proposed in 2012 that would have quadrupled the tax on palm oil. That effort was driven largely by public health advocates.

In the meantime, Ferrero, the company that makes Nutella, has taken action to improve its environmental processes. In January, the company announced in a statement that 100 percent of its palm oil was certified as sustainable and segregated according to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), a 2,000-member, not-for-profit organization that monitors the supply chain of sustainable palm oil.

In that same statement, the World Wildlife Fund applauded Ferrero for its efforts.

“In achieving 100 percent segregated certified sustainable palm oil within the context of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, Ferrero has demonstrated that it is tackling tropical deforestation in a credible way,” said Richard Holland, director of the World Wildlife Fund’s Market Transformation Initiative.

Ironically, while Nutella has been criticized for contributing to climate change, it could also be the victim. Ferrero buys about a quarter of the world’s hazelnuts, most of which is grown in Turkey. But last year, unseasonable storms there crippled hazelnut supply — pushing prices up 60 percent. While it is difficult to attribute specific weather events to climate change, changing weather patterns and increased severe weather due to global warming is putting many kinds of agriculture at risk. Sadly, that includes hazelnuts.

Tags

DeforestationFerreroFranceItalyNutellaPalm Oil

The post Nutella Sparks War Of Words Between European Environmental Ministers appeared first on ThinkProgress.

India Just Upped Its Solar Target Five-Fold, Will Install More Solar This Year Than Germany

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Indian Cabinet approved increasing the country’s solar target five times to a goal of reaching 100 gigawatts, up from 20 GW, by 2022.

The new solar capacity will be nearly split between residential and large-scale solar projects, with some 40 GW expected to be generated from rooftop installations and the remaining 60 GW coming from larger, grid-connected projects, such as solar farms.

“With this ambitious target, India will become one of the largest green energy producers in the world, surpassing several developed countries,” reads the announcement. “Solar power can contribute to the long term energy security of India, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels that put a strain on foreign reserves and the ecology as well.”

The announcement ups the stakes significantly for the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission, launched in 2010 by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which aims to help the country achieve success with solar energy deployment.

In 2013 India added just over one GW of solar capacity to its grid, which at the time nearly doubled the country’s cumulative solar capacity to 2.18 GWs. In the ensuing year and a half, Indian leadership has become more focused on securing financing to ramp up its solar program as part of a stated goal of bringing power to the 400 million Indians currently getting by without it. The current power deficiencies, combined with the rising costs of fossil fuel-generated power, make solar and other renewables an even more attractive option.

In a sprawling, diverse country of more than 1.2 billion residents, this task is tantamount to a second green revolution, the first being agricultural advances that relieved famine across the subcontinent in the middle of the 20th century.

Indian cities also have some of the worst air pollution in the world, and as the public becomes more engaged with these issues the government will be forced to incorporate demand for cleaner and healthier living conditions. The country has also recently been rocked by a prolonged heat wave, a tragedy that cost thousands of lives. This type of incident will become exacerbated by climate change.

According to the latest announcement, achieving the 100 GW target will require around 600,000 crore, or approximately $100 billion.

Though it’s been a critical year for international climate negotiations, India has been less focused on carbon reductions and more intent on securing green energy financing. The announcement continues this trend, stating that the “Government of India may also approach bilateral and international donors [and] also the Green Climate Fund for achieving this [solar energy] target.” The $10 billion Green Climate Fund is a new international mechanism intended to help poor countries develop in a low-carbon capacity.

Though carbon reductions may not have been India’s intention, the announcement also states that the new solar target will result in the reduction of over 170 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Currently India has around 4.5 GWs of solar capacity installed, and the Indian consultancy firm Bridge to India recently estimated that the country was on track to install 31 GW by 2019 — leaving it nearly 70 GWs short three years before the new target deadline.

[image error]

CREDIT: Courtesy of Bridge To India

According to Bridge to India, there are a number of challenges and setbacks in the government’s way to achieving these targets, including land acquisition, grid infrastructure, and financing. The group found that it would take around $40 billion worth of debt for the country to reach the 60 GWs of utility-scale solar it aims to install by 2022. The majority of this is planned to come from international sources such as the World Bank as well as investments by international solar companies.

For instance, U.S.-based SunEdison is planning to install more than 10 GWs of solar in India in the next seven years, including a $4 billion solar equipment factory. And this week, leading Indian power generation company Adani Power agreed to set up the country’s largest solar park, a 10 GW facility in Rajasthan.

Indian leaders and the solar industry can take reassurances from the bumper year that 2015 is expected to be for the domestic industry. Bridge to India estimates that India will install more solar this year than Germany, some 2.7 GWs, and in doing so become one of the top five solar markets globally, after China, Japan, the U.S., and the U.K.

Bringing India to the forefront of the solar power revolution will require international assistance, but it will also require local cooperation. In Wednesday’s announcement, the Prime Minister’s Office asks local ministries to contribute by identifying land and buildings that could be used for solar; helping develop green energy transmission corridors; setting up sites for domestic production of PV materials; and making rooftop solar mandatory on certain building projects, among other things.

Tags

AsiaIndiaRenewable EnergySolar

The post India Just Upped Its Solar Target Five-Fold, Will Install More Solar This Year Than Germany appeared first on ThinkProgress.

The Pope’s Encyclical Isn’t The First Time The Catholic Church Has Spoken Out On The Environment

In advance of Pope Francis’ major encyclical on climate change — to be officially released on June 18 — former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum made headlines for telling the pope to stay out of the climate change debate, arguing that the Catholic Church should focus on “what [they’re] really good at, which is theology and morality.”

But the Catholic Church actually has a long history of involving itself in environmental causes, from deforestation to climate change.

“The Catholic Church has a strong tradition of attending to matters of importance to the world the church inhabits,” Teresa Berger, professor of liturgical studies at the Yale Divinity School, told ThinkProgress in an email. “In recent decades, ecological concerns have been of growing concern. The pope’s encyclical responds to these, in a quite natural progression of concerns that have marked previous papacies.”

According to Laurel Kearns, associate professor of sociology of religion and environmental studies at Drew University, the Catholic Church has long looked at environmental issues through a moral lens. She noted that both Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II set precedent for Francis’ encyclical by speaking publicly about climate change, and also pointed to orders like the Franciscans, who have worked on environmental issues for decades.

“I think people don’t often realize how long religious groups have been working on climate change,” Kearns told ThinkProgress.

Here are some of the most noteworthy times the Catholic Church has taken a strong stance on environmental issues.

Saint Francis of Assisi: The original Catholic environmentalist
[image error]

The Statue of St. Francis of Assisi is seen from below.

CREDIT: Shutterstock

Pope Francis paid homage to the Church’s patron saint of animals and ecologists by naming his encyclical “Laudato Si” (“Praised Be”), a line taken from St. Francis of Assisi’s “Canticle of Creatures.”

Saint Francis composed the canticle in 1225, and dedicated the first of its three parts to praising the Lord through various natural elements, including “Sister Mother Earth / who sustains and governs us.”

Known for his love of animals and the Earth (and for apparently preaching to birds), Pope John Paul II made Saint Francis the patron saint of ecologists in 1979.

Pope Paul VI: ‘Man and his environment are more inseparable than ever’

In 1971, on the 80th anniversary of the publication of Rerum Novarum — considered the foundational text of Catholic social teaching — Pope Paul VI published an apostolic letter entitled Octogesima Adveniens — “A Call to Action.” In the letter, he listed 11 new social problems that the Church should confront, including the environment.

“While the horizon of man is thus being modified according to the images that are chosen for him, another transformation is making itself felt, one which is the dramatic and unexpected consequence of human activity,” Paul VI wrote. “Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation. ”

In 1972, Paul VI addressed the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, asserting that “man and his environment are more inseparable than ever.” Paul VI condemned the growth of weapons both nuclear and biochemical, but also spoke to “the imbalances caused in the biosphere by the disorderly exploitation of the physical reserves of the planet.” He called for “clear-sightedness and courage” in addressing environmental problems that he argued would impact both present and future generations, and ended by invoking the example of Saint Francis’ love of nature.

U.S. Catholic Bishops: Environmental problems represent ‘moral challenge’
[image error]

Participants pray at the start of the morning general session at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in New Orleans, Wednesday, June 11, 2014.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

In 1981, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement on the moral implications of the global energy crisis, titled “Reflections on the Energy Crisis.” In the statement, the USCCB argued that energy planners must take into account the impact of energy production on human life, arguing that if it’s in the interest of the common good to make sacrifices related to energy use, mankind should make those sacrifices “cheerfully.”

“Future resource restrictions may force us to rethink our expectations; they may even lead to

substantial changes in our way of life,” the statement read. “This means rising above a preoccupation with material gain.”

In 1991, the USCCB issued a pastoral statement which called the environmental crisis “a moral challenge” and argued that environmental ethics are an integral part of Catholic teaching — a move that gave environmental concerns added legitimacy within the Church.

“What I have heard time and time again from local groups is that if the bishops say something, it’ll be a lot easier for us,” Kearns said. “To go even farther than that, and to have it listed as a Catholic social teaching, was even more significant.”

Pope John Paul II: Environmentalism ‘is linked to a command of God’

Pope John Paul II, who was elected to the papacy in October of 1978, didn’t waste time in using his position to speak about environmental issues. In 1979, a year after becoming pope, he named Saint Francis as the patron saint of ecologists, and in 1985, he told the United Nations that “the Church’s commitment to the conservation and improvement of our environment is linked to a command of God.”

His most famous statement on the environment came in 1990, however, when he issued his World Day of Peace statement. In the statement, he warned that the Earth was in danger not just from a nuclear arms race, or regional conflicts, but also a “a lack of due respect for nature, by the plundering of natural resources and by a progressive decline in the quality of life.”

In his statement, he introduced the ecological crisis as a moral problem, highlighting things like “industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants” that all contribute to the degradation of the environment.

He also called for moral solidarity between industrialized and developing nations in solving the ecological crisis, arguing that “newly industrialized States cannot, for example, be asked to apply restrictive environmental standards to their emerging industries unless the industrialized States first apply them within their own boundaries.”

Dorothy Stang: Killed after opposing deforestation
[image error]

Margaret Stang, sister of murdered nun Dorothy Stang, touches an image of her after the verdict was announced in front of the Justice Tribunal in Belem, Brazil, on Saturday, Dec 10, 2005.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Mario Quadros

Sister Dorothy Stang was 73 years old when she was shot and killed by two hired gunman off of a highway in the Brazilian Amazon. Stang had been in Brazil since 1966, working for the Catholic Church’s Pastoral Land Commission and attempting to stop industrial interests from violently removing pastoral farmers from their land.

Stang became a strong opponent to deforestation, testifying before a Brazilian congressional committee in 2004. According to her obituary in the Guardian, she named several industrial logging operations that were illegally seizing land during her testimony.

Following her death, Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva signed a decree protecting some 9.3 million acres of forest in memory of Sister Stang’s work.

Kentucky Nuns fight fracking

Established in 1812, the Sisters of Loretto first dedicated themselves to educating poor children in the Kentucky town in which the congregation was formed. Today, sisters that remain in Loretto have thrown themselves into another cause — fighting fracking.

When two energy companies asked the sisters for permission to survey their land — which sits on the proposed route of the Bluegrass Pipeline that would carry natural gas from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio through Kentucky down to the Gulf Coast — the sisters politely turned them away.

But the nuns weren’t finished: they continued protesting the pipeline at community meetings, singing at an open house information session held by the companies before being told to be quiet.

“I guess my fear is damage to the environment, and damage that is difficult to repair — and maybe even not able to repair — of soil, of water, or air,” Sister Maria Visse told PBS in 2014. “We were given a place on this planet, these trees, this grass, these animals, ourselves, to be healthy people, to be balanced and healthy, and I see an imbalance in what’s happening both to our resources and to ourselves.”

Catholic nuns, Kearns points out, have long been interested in ecological issues. In 1980, the Dominican Sisters of Caldwell, NJ, inherited 231-acres of land. They decided to turn the land into a farm called Genesis Farm, meant to serve as “a demonstration plot of what it meant to practice reverence for the creation,” according to Kearns. Today, the Dominican Sisters at Genesis Farm are part of a movement of Green Nuns — Catholic sisters from a number of different orders that focus on championing ecological concerns.

Tags

ActivismCatholicismClimate ChangeEncyclicalEnvironmental JusticePope Francis

The post The Pope’s Encyclical Isn’t The First Time The Catholic Church Has Spoken Out On The Environment appeared first on ThinkProgress.

It Snowed Once And Other Things Donald Trump Thinks Prove Global Warming Is A Hoax

In a long speech in front of many American flags, billionaire Donald Trump announced Tuesday he was throwing his hat in the already-crowded ring for the Republican presidential nomination.

He did not talk about climate change or national energy policy beyond reiterating his longstanding position that America should take Iraq’s oil to “pay ourselves back.” He also said “Saudi Arabia is in big, big trouble now, thanks to fracking and other things — the oil is all over the place.”

Should Trump be elected president, he will not only take over the executive branch of the United States federal government — he will also take over the president’s official twitter account, @POTUS. For a preview of what that might look like for his theoretical constituents who are interested in President Trump’s views on climate change, he has made those views clear with his personal twitter feed, @realDonaldTrump.

Though he will often tweet links to articles that cast doubt on the reality of climate change, and call it a hoax himself, the lion’s share of his tweets that mention global warming have to do with snow and cold weather.

Since he began tweeting about the topic in November 2011, a comprehensive count reveals Trump has used complaints about cold weather to doubt or attempt to refute climate change 31 times. He has used cold weather and unexpected (or unwanted) snowfall to do so eight times, and tweeted five times solely about snow to refute mainstream climate science. In total, the business magnate tweeted 44 times, mostly in the winter, about how mainstream climate science was a joke because it was cold and/or snowy.

Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 6, 2013

It’s snowing & freezing in NYC. What the hell ever happened to global warming?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2013

As ClimateProgress has reported many times in the past, freezing temperatures in America in the winter do not disprove global climate change. In 2010, Trump said that cold weather records meant that Al Gore should have to return his Nobel Prize.

Trump actually has blamed the Chinese for the “concept of global warming,” which is patently false.

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

He has also criticized the White House for “the billions it pissed away on ‘green energy’ failures.” He tweeted at President Obama’s personal Twitter account in 2011, telling him that “the EPA is an impediment to both growth and jobs.”

In a phrase, Trump’s approach to domestic energy policy is “frack now and frack fast.” He discounts negative impacts of natural gas, oil, and coal, yet in 2012 tweeted that “windmills are destroying every country they touch — and the energy is unreliable and terrible.”

Trump has had a vendetta against wind energy going back to when he began to fight the planned construction of an offshore wind array in Scotland he said would impact the views from a golf course he was building. In 2012, he said that Scotland would go broke if they built the array while losing tourism to Ireland. “I am a world class expert in tourism,” he said.

Last week, Trump was in Scotland, opening the golf clubhouse in Aberdeenshire that had been so endangered by the proposed wind farm. Trump had just suffered another legal defeat the previous week, as a court in Edinburgh dismissed his complaint over the wind project’s approval. In response, he said he could sell the resort once the turbines were installed.

Scotland’s wind industry has seen steady growth which has meant the U.K. broke another wind power record in 2014. That year, wind provided 98 percent of the electricity needed by Scottish households.

What should Americans who want to think about environmental issues do instead? Trump says they should focus on “clean and beautiful air.”

We should be focused on clean and beautiful air-not expensive and business closing GLOBAL WARMING-a total hoax!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2013

Trump joins a Republican presidential field already well-populated by politicians skeptical of climate action. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) compared his climate denial to the intellectual bravery of Galileo. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) risks alienating a key voting bloc that overwhelmingly supports climate change. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) said he was more qualified to talk about climate change than the pope is. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) compared global warming to “sunburn.” Neurosurgeon Ben Carson has said “we may be cooling.” Sen. Rand Paul has said he’s “not sure anybody exactly knows why” climate change is happening. Former Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) doesn’t seem certain which climate denier trope he will settle on. Former Gov. Jeb Bush has said people who accept mainstream climate science are “arrogant.”

Trump may actually fit right in.

Tags

Climate ChangeDonald Trump

The post It Snowed Once And Other Things Donald Trump Thinks Prove Global Warming Is A Hoax appeared first on ThinkProgress.

2015 May Bring Long-Awaited Step-Jump In Global Temperatures

Historically, the global temperature trend-line is more like a staircase than a ramp. We now appear to be headed for a step-jump in global temperatures — one that scientists have been expecting.

NASA reported this week that this was the hottest five-month start (January to May) of any year on record. Climate expert and UK Guardian columnist John Abraham put together this chart of how the start to 2015 compares to previous years:

[image error]

CREDIT: NASA

As Abraham notes, “2015 is a whopping 0.1°C (0.17°F) hotter than last year, which itself was the hottest year on record.”

The recent study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” explains why a speed up in the rate of global warming is imminent — with Arctic warming rising up to 1°F per decade by the 2020s.

More than 90 percent of global heating goes into the oceans — and ocean warming down to 2000 meters (1.24 miles) has accelerated this century, as this recent NOAA chart shows:

[image error]

Climatologist Kevin Trenberth has explained that “a global temperature increase occurs in the latter stages of an El Niño event, as heat comes out of the ocean and warms the atmosphere.” This week, NOAA released its monthly El Niño Southern Oscillation [ENSO] report, which concludes, “There is a greater than 90% chance that El Niño will continue through Northern Hemisphere fall 2015, and around an 85% chance it will last through the 2015-16 winter.”

So — barring a massive volcanic eruption in the next few months — 2015 is all but certain to become the hottest year on record by far. And if the growing El Niño does extend into next year, than 2016 will be another blistering year.

We are building a staircase to … Hell — and High Water.

Tags

Climate ChangeNASANOAA

The post 2015 May Bring Long-Awaited Step-Jump In Global Temperatures appeared first on ThinkProgress.

So What Exactly Is The Pope’s New Encyclical On The Environment Anyway?

A draft of Pope Francis’ new papal encyclical on the environment leaked Monday, outlining a sweeping vision for how the Catholic Church should respond to the issue of global climate change. The official version is set to be released this Thursday, but as journalists and theologians scramble to discern the finer details of the papal document, many others are wondering: what exactly is an encyclical, anyway?

Well, don’t you worry. ThinkProgress has you covered like the pope’s miter on Christmas.

What is an encyclical, really?

Generally speaking, a papal encyclical is one of the highest forms of official teaching a pope can produce. It is second only to an Apostolic Constitution, which is issued far more rarely and usually only to solidify really, really important theological ideas: For example, Pope Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus, an 1854 constitution that defined the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, represents one of only two universally agreed upon instances where papal infallibility was invoked.

Encyclicals are usually addressed and delivered to a group of bishops or bishops at large, but sometimes — especially in the modern era — they are designed to reach a broader audience (i.e., these days they are published on the Vatican website where anyone can read them). They clarify a theological issue or question of Catholic doctrine, and can often be used to help end debate over a contested subject. In practice, this means encyclicals either examine specific spiritual concerns, or clarify the appropriate Catholic response to an issue plaguing society.

A similar but lower form of papal letter is an “exhortation,” which does not define church doctrine per se but encourages a Catholic community (or Catholics at large) to undertake a specific action. Pope Francis issued one of these, entitled Evangelii gaudium, in 2013, where he outlined a deeply progressive vision of economics and called on believers to do more to help the poor. If you’re keeping track, that means that, yes — in terms of the importance of the medium — Francis’ encyclical on the environment is actually more authoritative than his papal letter on poverty, although the new document focuses heavily on how climate change impacts the poor.

Has Francis written an encyclical before?

Just one so far, with the environmental encyclical making it two. He published Lumen fidei in June 2013, a few months after ascending to the papacy. Although published under Francis, the first draft was actually written by his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, with the new pope simply finishing the effort and adding a few details. It focused on faith as a theological virtue, complementing two other encyclicals on charity and hope penned by Benedict during his tenure.

How often do popes issue them?

It depends. Some popes serve for long periods of time and can be especially encyclical-happy. Pope Pius IX, who became pontiff at age 54, issued 38 during his reign from 1846 to 1878, and Pope John Paul II wrote 14. Others are more hesitant, such as Benedict XVI, who only got around to writing three before retiring from his 8-year-run as pope in 2013.

Do they actually accomplish all that much within the Church?

Encyclicals can put intellectual teeth behind a Catholic position, often expanding a vague idea into a robust, academically rigorous platform. This frees up Catholics all over the world — and the pope himself — to advocate for specific policies using any number of well-funded church advocacy arms. Thus, while encyclicals rarely make significant alterations to Catholic teaching, they have to power to energize the church around an issue at least during a pope’s reign — and possibly for centuries afterwards. Pope Leo XIII published his Rerum novarum during the early era of the Industrial Revolution, for example, investigating the awful working conditions faced by lower classes and endorsing labor rights such as the freedom to form unions. The document inspired a generation of Catholic theology and activism around labor issues, and is still cited by many union activists as crucial to their work.

Other papal encyclicals reaffirmed conservative theological positions that went on to become political rallying cries for right-wing Catholics in the United States. The most famous examples are probably Casti connubii and Humanae Vitae, two encyclicals written by different 20th century popes that cemented the Catholic Church’s rigid opposition to both contraception and abortion. That stance continues to impact American politics to this day: in 2010, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the Affordable Care Act because it would require their institutions to provide contraceptives to employees, paving the way for the government to create a special exception for religious groups (although even that workaround has been challenged by some Catholic orders as insufficient).

Is this new encyclical really that great on the environment?

If the leaked version is any indication, then yes, it’s amazing. It covers all the basics and then some: the need to care for the earth, the fact that humans are contributing to global warming, the fact that climate change disproportionately impacts the poor, etc.

So what impact will this have?

From what we can tell, there isn’t much in the new encyclical that challenges traditional Church teaching. The truth is that the Catholic Church has actually been pretty great on environmental issues for some time, and the pope’s willingness to take on climate concerns — similar to his campaign to address global poverty — is mostly just a passionate rehashing of a long-held Catholic position, theologically speaking.

That said, Francis’ document can crank up the volume on how the Catholic Church talks about — and advocates for — environmental policies. This matters, because the Church has proven itself capable of marshaling a pretty effective political apparatus when it wants to. Just here in America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pumped gobs of money into a campaign to defend “religious liberty” in 2012, and the Church has been an influential supporter of immigrant rights for years. And more importantly for a global issue like climate change, Pope Francis is known to have a knack for making miracles happen (metaphorically speaking) in international politics, having successfully brokered a deal to normalize relations between the United States and Cuba and even getting leaders from Israel and Palestine to sit down together in the same room. This means that the Vatican could begin simultaneously pushing for climate-conscious polices at the local, national, and international levels, a trick few countries or advocacy organizations can pull off at such a scale.

Granted, the Catholic Church has been losing a lot of political battles of late, and the once roughly unified “Catholic vote” in the United States is now known to be split on many issues. After all, several Catholic lawmakers still don’t even accept climate change, much less want to do something about it.

But the wild popularity and global moral clout of Pope Francis could turn the tide(s), or at least help keep them from rising. It’s notable that the encyclical dropped in June — just three months before the Pope visits the United States, where he will speak to both Congress and the United Nations. Francis will likely address climate change during both speeches, a move that could convince a few Catholic Republicans — who, ironically, are the ones who invited him in the first place — to change their minds. (Well, that, or at least leave them racked with Catholic guilt.)

Arguably the most important impact of the new document will be how it encourages priests to discuss climate change with their congregants. A 2014 study conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found a strong correlation between priests who preached about climate change and parishioners who express support for policies that help the earth. Here in the United States, where elections matter, changing the hearts and minds of individual Catholics could go a long way toward electing candidates with sound environmental polices, and, ideally, slowing our warming climate. What’s more, Francis is also well-liked by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, allowing him to influence far beyond the walls of Catholic cathedrals.

Sounds like this thing is pretty great, huh?

Definitely a good thing for the environmental movement, yes. Unless you’re a climate denier, of course.

Well, what if I am a climate denier?

Then we will pray for you. Well, Pope Francis will, anyway.

Tags

Creation CareEncyclicalPapal infallibilityPope Francis

The post So What Exactly Is The Pope’s New Encyclical On The Environment Anyway? appeared first on ThinkProgress.

These New Quotes From Pope Francis Could Change The Debate On Climate Change

What is believed to be an Italian-language draft of the pope’s encyclical on the environment leaked yesterday, sending climate and religion journalists scrambling to translate sections of what looks to be the most comprehensive statement on the environment ever produced by the Catholic Church.

The Vatican has condemned the leak, and still plans to release the finalized version on Thursday. But in the meantime, ThinkProgress has trolled the internet and consulted with two Italian speakers (who asked not to be named) to muster a few translations of some of the most interesting sections.

Here are a few (we’ve included the section numbers, so you can look them up on your own if you want):

“Science and religion … can enter into an intense and productive dialogue with each other”

The mere fact that Pope Francis devoted resources to an encyclical on climate change implies that the Catholic Church is willing to accept science. But the encyclical itself takes that idea a bit further. According to our translator’s take, Francis’ draft remarks say science and religion can work together and even complement one another. And that idea isn’t just for Catholics — the draft encyclical implies that all people of faith can have a relationship with science, and that nonreligious people can learn from faith as well.

“I am aware that some people strongly refute the idea of a Creator on political or intellectual grounds, or consider it irrelevant,” the draft’s passage 62 reads. “They even consider irrational the richness that religions can offer for a complete ecology and for the full development of humankind. Sometimes they suppose religions constitute a subculture that must simply be tolerated. However, science and religion, which offer different approaches to reality, can enter into an intense and productive dialogue with each other.”

“There is a very consistent scientific consensus”

There is a surprising amount of scientific language in the leaked draft encyclical. If the New York Times translation of passages 23 and 24 is accurate, Francis’ remarks will not only say climate change is real and caused by humans, but will explain how that happens according to the vast majority of scientists.

“There is a very consistent scientific consensus indicating that we are in the presence of a disturbing heating of the climate system,” the Times’ translation reads. On the cause of this heating, the passage goes on:

It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanism, the changes in the orbit and the axis of the Earth, the solar cycle), but numerous scientific studies indicate that most of the global warming in recent decades it is due to the large concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide and others) mainly emitted due to human activity. Their concentration in the atmosphere prevents the heat of the solar rays reflected from the Earth to be dispersed in space. This is especially enhanced by the model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the center of the global energy system. It is also affected by the increase of the practice of changing land use, mainly by deforestation for agricultural purposes.

“Never have we mistreated and offended our common home as we have in the last two centuries”

The draft remarks prepared for Pope Francis seem to have a firm understanding of how bad things have gotten for the environment by way of human-caused climate change. Indeed, average carbon dioxide levels in the global atmosphere are higher than they’ve ever been in recorded history, bearing similarity to the carbon levels of 15 million years ago. Those changes have been shown to pose severe threats to the world’s oceans, its agriculture, and its poorest populations.

“Never have we mistreated and offended our common home as we have in the last two centuries,” a translated version of the encyclical’s passage 53 reads.

In passage 61, the draft notes “a great deterioration in our communal home. … There are areas already particularly at risk and, catastrophic predictions aside, it is certain that the world’s current system is unsustainable from several points of view, since we have stopped thinking about the results of human actions: ‘Unfortunately, if we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has disappointed God’s expectations.”

Climate change is “caused by the enormous consumption of some wealthy nations”

The leaked encyclical draft does not tiptoe around who it asserts it responsible for environmental degradation. It specifically calls out “rich countries” not only for polluting the environment, but doing it in ways that can impact the poor elsewhere.

“The warming caused by the enormous consumption of some wealthy nations has repercussions in the poorest places on the planet, especially in Africa, where the increase in temperature together with drought has disastrous effects on crop yields,” a translated version of passage 51 reads.

“It is impossible to sustain the current level of consumption”

Stemming excessive consumption by wealthy nations seemed to be a key theme of the draft encyclical. In passage 50, it cautioned against blaming “population growth” for the environmental problems of the world, instead calling out “extreme and selective consumerism … in which a minority believes it has the right to consume at a rate that would be impossible on a general scale.”

“We know that it is impossible to sustain the current level of consumption in the more developed countries and the wealthiest parts of society, where the habit of waste and of throwing things away is reaching unprecedented levels,” passage 27 reads. “Already we have exceeded certain limits of exploiting the planet, without solving the problem of poverty.

“The environment is a common patrimony of all humanity”

Building on the idea that people of faith and people of science can compliment one another, Pope Francis is expected to say that Catholics aren’t the only ones responsible for maintaining the environment — and that, whether we’re of faith or not, degrading it will weigh on our consciences.

“The environment is a common patrimony of all humanity and is everyone’s responsibility,” a translated version of passage 95 reads. “Whoever possesses a part of it should merely administer it for the common good. If we do not do this, our conscience is burdened with the weight of denying the existence of others.”

“A truly ecological social approach should integrate justice in discussions about the environment”

It’s not uncommon for environmental groups in the U.S. to break from their strictly environmental causes to support other social justice movements. According to the draft encyclical, Pope Francis will advocate taking a similar approach.

“[T]oday we cannot fail to recognize that a truly ecological social approach should integrate justice in discussions about the environment by listening to the cry of the earth just as much as the cry of the poor,” a translated version of passage 49 reads.

Of course, Francis is widely expected to talk about climate change as a moral issue surrounding poverty, as increased drought, flooding, and sea level rise caused by climate change is expected to hit developing countries much harder than wealthy nations. But according to the New York Times’ translation of passage 25, the draft encyclical also notes that immigration issues should be taken into consideration as the impacts of environmental degradation force populations to abandon their homelands — something that is already happening around the world.

“The increase of migrants fleeing the misery compounded by environmental degradation, who are not recognized as refugees in international conventions and who carry the burden of their lives abandoned without any protection of the law is tragic,” it says.

“The Church … must listen and promote honest debate among scientists”

In this translated passage, Pope Francis is expected to explain the need for the Vatican to listen to scientists and not have the “final word” on most scientific matters.

Although Catholicism has clashed with science at times, that idea is actually in line with the Church’s surprisingly long history of endorsing scientific study: the Big Bang Theory was developed by a Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, the Church has been open to evolution since 1950, and the Vatican even employs its own astronomer.

“On many practical matters, the Church is not justified in offering the final word and should realize that it must listen and promote honest debate among scientists, respecting differences of opinion,” passage 61 reads.

“It is urgent to develop policy”

Perhaps the most noteworthy part of the draft encyclical is that it acknowledges the inherently political aspects of climate change, and advocates for strong political action. Without comprehensive international policies, the document says, climate change will continue to threaten the poorest and most vulnerable populations on the planet.

In passage 26, Pope Francis is expected to say that policies should actually fix the symptoms of climate change, and not just focus on adaptation to its impacts. That should be done by cutting the use of fossil fuels and developing renewable energy, the document says.

“Many of those who possess more resources or economic or political power focus mainly on masking problems or hiding symptoms, seeking only to reduce some of the negative impacts of climate change,” a translated version reads. “But many signs indicate that these effects could worsen if we continue with current models of production and consumption. Therefore it is urgent to develop policy so that in the coming years, we drastically reduce carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gas emissions, by, for example, replacing fossil fuels and developing renewable energy sources.”

“Heal our life, so we protect the world”

The draft encyclical also includes a “Prayer for our Land.” Roughly translated, this one is pretty darn nice.

My favorite part of the @Pontifex letter on climate. It nearly brought my wife to tears.
http://t.co/U01VmcC6Sz pic.twitter.com/LzfVdh2b58

— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) June 16, 2015

Tags

Climate ChangeEncyclicalEnvironmentPope FrancisSocial Justice

The post These New Quotes From Pope Francis Could Change The Debate On Climate Change appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Science: If Your State Government Is Pro-Environment, You’ll Have Cleaner Air

A state legislature’s strong environmental voting record can translate into real results for states, according to a new study.

The study, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looked at greenhouse gas emissions data for all 50 states going back to 1990. Researchers then compared that emissions data to a range of other factors, including the environmental record of state legislators — determined by the League of Conservation Voters scorecard system — employment rate, and population. The researchers, both from Michigan State University, found that there was a correlation between the voting records of legislators and a state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“For each 1 percent higher a state scored in environmentalism, it’s about half a percent lower in greenhouse gas emissions,” study author Thomas Dietz told the AP. “Overall, environmentalism matters.”

The researchers referred to the voting record data as “environmentalism” — the impact that the environmental movement has had in each state, as shown by that state’s legislative voting record.

“The effect of environmentalism is a potentially powerful mediating factor,” the authors wrote. “By counteracting the time trend toward increased emissions and by moderating the overall effect of population and affluence, environmentalism seems to have been effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions below levels that would have otherwise occurred.”

The study also looked at potential factors that could influence greenhouse gas emissions. It found that population and state gross domestic product (GDP) are strong drivers of a state’s carbon footprint: wealthier states with higher levels of employment tend to have higher emissions. But if a state legislature votes with environmental concerns in mind, the emissions associated with population and GDP growth can be curbed, the study found.

“A strong environmental movement can open space in policy systems for advocacy coalitions to influence decision making,” the authors wrote. “It appears that solutions to environmental problems do not emerge more or less automatically as growth occurs, quite the opposite, it takes a strong movement presence to counteract the effects of growth.”

Some outside researchers questioned the study’s use of the LCV’s environmental scorecard as a measure of “environmentalism.” But the study’s authors said their research is “just the start of a conversation” about how environmentalism impacts actual environmental issues, and that more research on the subject is needed.

It’s true that a state’s leadership can make major environmental changes by implementing greenhouse gas reductions targets or goals for renewable energy. And states will be the ones responsible for coming up with their own plans on how to implement the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut U.S. emissions by 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Some states’ leadership is already planning on blocking the final rule: Wisconsin’s Gov. Scott Walker has said his state won’t comply with the rule “without significant and meaningful changes.” But for states that do want to comply with the rule, an initiative launched earlier this year aims to help them figure out ways to do so.

Tags

Air PollutionClimate Change

The post Science: If Your State Government Is Pro-Environment, You’ll Have Cleaner Air appeared first on ThinkProgress.

The First Inland Surf Park In North America Will Make Perfect Waves. Will It Catch On With Surfers?

AUSTIN, TEXAS — Surf’s up from Austin, Texas.

This phrase — heretofore rarely, if ever, uttered — could catch social media by storm in the next few years if Doug Coors, a Colorado descendent of the Coors Brewing family, has his way. Coors, a small-statured, soft-spoken surfer and engineer wants to make major waves in the surf community by bringing the ocean-bound sport inland.

Austin is his first big test.

In early June, Coors officially announced his intentions from the historic Austin Club in the heart of the capital city. A few blocks away, a giant mound of dirt was in the final stages of completion just in front of the Capitol building: the X-Games were about to get underway. Austin, which ostensibly prides itself on “keeping weird” has become a weekend haven for festivals and activities of all kinds — from SXSW, which seems to take up most of March now, to other events as diverse as triathlons for the disabled, biker rallies, and “Eeyore’s Birthday Party.”

Probably 95 percent of surfers live within a few miles of the ocean.

While the city sprawls out for miles in central Texas’ hill country and is at least three hours from any coastline, Coors sees it as the best location for what will become North America’s first inland surf park. During the official announcement he attributed that to the fact that Austin is full of sports lovers and creative entrepreneurs. It’s a place known for its willingness to give new ventures a chance, no matter how ambitious. Example A: the recently completed Circuit of The Americas Formula 1 track, the first in the country to be specifically built for F1 races. It is located just down the road from the proposed NLand site.

NLand Surf Park’s lagoon will be the size of nine football fields and create “perfectly tubing” waves every 60 seconds. Most impressively, Coors and his developers say it will only require rainwater to run, even during historic times of drought, such as those that have canvassed Texas for most of the last decade.

“The whole idea for the lagoon itself is that it will be a net-zero water user,” Coors, who founded NLand Surf Park as part of his 15-year pursuit of this wave technology, told ThinkProgress. “I want it to be like surfing on raindrops.”

The 160-acre site, located just outside the city near the Austin–Bergstrom International Airport, will capture as much rainwater as possible and push it through a series of filtration systems and reservoirs, according to Coors, who said the project has been a passion of his for over a decade.

[image error]

Doug Coors, CEO of NLand Surf Park.

CREDIT: Credit: Kenny Braun

The initial fill of the facility will come from local water sources unless the builders are able to supplement that reserve with onsite rainwater during the construction process. Coors said they had already secured enough water for this undertaking. With central Texas getting doused by record rainfall this spring, reservoir levels have recovered to average levels after years of loss. However, climate models predict a return to drought-like conditions for the long term.

“Our top priority is water and water conservation,” said Coors. “The surf community is very environmentally conscientious and they pride themselves on environmental stewardship. We want to fit in with that as much as possible.”

Casey Gebhard, Chief Financial Officer of NLand Surf Park, reinforced Coors’ sentiments, saying that the surfing culture and its connection with nature is something they “haven’t lost sight of” and that he and Coors want NLand to help educate “folks in the ways of the surfing community.”

“Probably 95 percent of surfers live within a few miles of the ocean,” Gebhard told ThinkProgress. “We expect to create a lot of new surfers by bringing it inland.”

The full lagoon will have 11 surfing areas featuring 1-, 4- and 6-foot waves with each one lasting up to 35 seconds. The undertaking — which in Coors’ own words is a “pretty significant investment” — is entirely a private one, requiring no taxpayer money. Backing for the project is being provided by 9th Street Capital, a Colorado-based private equity firm of which Coors is president.

Margaret J. Gómez, the Travis County Commissioner who oversees the area where the park will be sited, told ThinkProgress in an email that NLand has not asked for any county assistance and that developers will have to meet laws for development, water use, and drainage as well as getting the appropriate building permits.

Spanish-based Wavegarden — started in 2005 when an engineer and an economist decided they wanted to try and bring their true passion of surfing to the masses — is behind the cutting-edge wave technology, which requires far less energy than existing wave generation technologies. Wavegarden’s patented technology is “based on an innovative hydrodynamic Wavefoil and revolutionary wave lagoon design,” according to the company. The only other commercial surf park in the world using this technology is currently under construction in the U.K. as part of Surf Snowdonia. Wavegarden also has a test facility in Spain.

I liken these surf parks to indoor rock climbing gyms.

If the park is a success, Coors envisions many more of them. Looking down the line, this could change the surfing community’s entire relationship with nature — from the connection to place to the privileged access many currently enjoy. It could save time, money, and greenhouse gas emissions while also preserving important coastal communities that could be overrun by sport enthusiasts.

It could also cause surfers to lose their environmental connection and make surfing into another urban-centric endeavor, caught up in the rhythms of traffic lights and the rigidity of business hours rather than the unpredictability of mother nature and the serenity of the open sea.

Coors’ vision of a man-made surf park will likely fall somewhere in between. But one thing is certain — there will always be a good wave to catch.

Chad Nelson, CEO of the Surfrider Foundation, an NGO that works protect oceans and beaches while still allowing the surf community to enjoy them, told ThinkProgress that he’s heard a “whole range of reactions” about the surf park, “from really positive and excited to negative, that somehow it’s an affront to surfing.”

“I personally feel it’s just another way to recreate,” said Nelson. “I liken these surf parks to indoor rock climbing gyms — great for training. Some people love gyms and others want to get outside and experience the randomness of nature and have a more raw wilderness experience.”

Nelson said that other than siting concerns, the biggest issue with an inland surf park is energy use.

“Water is heavy so moving it around requires a lot of energy,” he said. “In the ocean waves are solar-powered — differential heating of the earth’s surface by the sun creates wind and wind ultimately creates waves.”

When asked about this, Coors said that the park could potentially take advantage of solar power by siting panels on the unused land. He said he’s had discussions with three different solar providers to determine what might be possible.

According to Nelson’s calculus, as far as water use is concerned an inland surf park isn’t much different than a reservoir, wakeboard park, or other recreational water outlets.

“It depends on how much water is really consumed,” he said. “It’s a bit outside of Surfrider’s purview since we are primarily focused on coastal preservation.”

[image error]

Architect’s rendering of NLand Surf Park, opening in Austin, Texas in 2016.

CREDIT: Courtesy of NLand Surf Park

Preserving the coast means confronting climate change and its so-called “evil twin,” ocean acidification. If these two results of elevated greenhouse gas emissions alter coastlines enough, surfers may end up resorting to inland surf parks to catch the best waves anyways. Warm and acidic water could be catastrophic for coral reefs, which give rise to many of the world’s best surf breaks. Sea level rise will also change the way the waves break at popular surf spots.

“Surfers have a lot to lose from the impacts of climate change on the oceans,” said Nelson. “Sea level rise is going to flood coastal areas … and ocean acidification will impact the health of coral reefs, which produce some of the best waves in the world and also support the marine life that makes recreating in the wild ocean an opportunity to connect with nature.”

Ken Tran, a native Austinite and surf lover who recently relocated to California, told ThinkProgress that groups like the Surfrider foundation — whose projects range from “legal defenses of public access to clean water projects and beach clean-ups” — embody the environmental consciousness that almost every surfer develops as part of their connection with the ocean.

“I don’t see a private-enterprise inland water park generating the same kind of culture of stewardship,” he said. “Lots of surfers hate commercialized surf ventures like this and the pro surfing tour because they reduce surfing to a one-dimensional ‘extreme sport’, like the X-Games on water.”

Tran sees the flip side, too.

“You can certainly make the case that surfing in the ocean is harmful for the environment,” he said. “Driving our trucks and vans down long highways in search of breaks to ride our polyester-glazed Styrofoam boards on definitely has a negative environmental impact.”

“All this being said, if and when the place opens, I’ll probably check it out,” said Tran.

Tags

AustinDroughtNland Surf ParkSurfingWaterWavegarden

The post The First Inland Surf Park In North America Will Make Perfect Waves. Will It Catch On With Surfers? appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Opposition Is Piling On A Proposal To Increase Access To Solar Power In Florida

A ballot petition to increase access to solar power in Florida has gotten a lot of heat from groups across the state, with utilities, cities, and even black and Hispanic organizations opposing the initiative.

The petition, which was launched early this year by conservative group Floridians for Solar Choice, seeks to secure a 2016 ballot initiative that would allow Floridians to purchase solar power directly from other consumers. Right now in Florida, consumers can purchase electricity — solar or otherwise — only from utilities.

Floridians for Solar Choice filed a legal brief with the state’s Supreme Court earlier this month, and the court will review the petition and decide whether or not the language is appropriate for it to be entered on the 2016 ballot. The petition for the initiative has gotten more than 88,000 signatures so far– it’ll need more than 600,000 to get on the state’s ballot if the Supreme Court approves the language.

But despite this show of support, the initiative has gotten an almost surprising amount of flack from some Florida groups.

The most expected opposition came from the state’s largest utilities — Florida Power and Light, Duke Energy, Tampa Electric Co., and Gulf Power. The utilities filed a brief Friday opposing the proposed ballot initiative, saying that the initiative’s goals of eliminating barriers to solar power installation are “contrary to Florida’s comprehensively regulated system for the provision of safe, efficient electric power.”

It would amount to an unprecedented constitutional ban on consumer protection.

“The initiative interferes with state and local protections and functions and disrupts funding of state and local activities,” the utilities state in the brief. “Finally, it forces voters to accept consequences they might not otherwise wish to accept in order to obtain the promised benefits of local solar providers.”

The language of the amendment also isn’t clear enough to prevent Floridians from becoming confused about what it’s promising, the utilities claim.

“The proposed amendment fails in several respects to meet basic standards that are intended to protect voters from being misled or confused,” state utility Florida Power and Light (FPL) said in a statement. “Indeed, the amendment’s language is largely unclear, but one thing is certain: It would amount to an unprecedented constitutional ban on consumer protection.”

The utilities weren’t the only ones taking issue with the proposed ballot initiative. The Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce filed an opposition brief against it, saying it was “greatly concerned that the current ballot language does not inform the voter of the price increases to their electrical bill that would occur if the solar amendment is approved.” The state’s Attorney General Pat Bondi joined, saying in a statement that the proposal “will leave voters uninformed and consumers vulnerable.” And the Florida Chapter of the National Congress of Black Women (NCBW) said the initiative would “have a recurring detrimental financial impact on black women, their families and communities in particular.”

Tory Perfetti, founder of Floridians for Solar Choice, told ThinkProgress that he wasn’t surprised by the opposition.

“When you upset the status quo, you’re going to have of course the utility industry fight back and use allies of their’s or other individuals who have associations,” he said. “I was not surprised on any of those groups. We look forward to having a continual dialogue in Florida to show that opening up the energy market will do what has been happening in other states, which is give benefits to people from all income levels.”

When you upset the status quo, you’re going to have of course the utility industry fight back.

Florida Power and Light noted in a statement that it’s not opposed to the expansion of solar in Florida, and that the state “should continue to advance clean energy affordably and responsibly.” But pro-solar groups in the state have been speaking out against the utilities in recent years. Renewable energy groups were dismayed last year when the state’s Public Service Commission cut the energy efficiency goals of utility companies by more than 90 percent, a move that was based off of proposals from Duke Energy Florida, Tampa Electric, and FPL.

Solar groups also claim that part of the reason Florida, with its abundant sunshine, lags behind other states in installed solar power is because the utilities haven’t done enough to embrace it, and because their position as the only entities in the state that can sell electricity to customers makes it hard for solar to take off.

That’s something that FPL disagrees with. “FPL has a strong record of both delivering energy-efficiency programs for customers and advancing solar energy in Florida,” Mark Bubriski, director of public affairs for FPL, said in a December email to ThinkProgress. “We love solar energy, and we, along with our customers, believe solar should play an increasing role in Florida’s energy mix in the years ahead. That’s why we’re working on multiple ways to help make that happen.”

Perfetti said there was “no truth whatsoever” to the claims that the proposal would increase rates for solar customers. And according to some, the claim that increased access to solar power would be a financial burden to poor communities may have been pushed by utilities.

“It appears evident that this ‘solar hurts the poor’ strategy has been coordinated by Duke (Energy) and its cohorts in the corporate electric power industry and used in many states recently,” Rev. Nelson Johnson, pastor of a mostly African-American church in North Carolina, told the Tampa Bay Times.

The city of Coral Gables has also joined the fight against the solar initiative, but for different reasons altogether: it wants to ensure that, if the proposal passes, it can still “use aesthetics as a zoning tool.” In other words, it wants to be able to reject a solar installation if it doesn’t fit with the general look of a certain area.

Perfetti is still hopeful that the initiative will make it on the ballot, and cited growing support for the initiative from Florida groups — including Florida League of Women Voters — as reason to be optimistic. The Supreme Court will hear arguments about the initiative in early September.

Tags

FloridaSolar

The post Opposition Is Piling On A Proposal To Increase Access To Solar Power In Florida appeared first on ThinkProgress.