Hollywood is obviously determined to adapt The Last Of Us for television because it is widely recognized as one of the best narrative-driven videogames to be released in a long time. The Last of Us looks poised to adapt the iconic adventure of Joel and Ellie with creator Neil Druckmann in charge (at least in the first game).
For those who are unaware, the story is set in a world that has been devastated by a terrible fungal disease. Joel is charged with getting Ellie to the Fireflies, a radical group that believes Ellie holds the secret to their redemption.
Joel and Ellie are a pair united by the adversity of the world they live in, and they are forced to work together as a team. Will Joel, however, be able to deliver Ellie there unharmed?
If you’ve been following this one over the past few weeks, you might be interested in learning when the upcoming episode will air. So, stop wondering now!
Here is all the information you need to know about The Last of Us episode 5, including the air date, time, and location.
On the HBO channel and HBO Max, you may watch House of the Dragon. For viewers outside of the US, The Last Of Us will debut on Sky Atlantic in the UK, with the episode streaming live concurrently with the US premiere.
HBO Max will air The Last of Us Episode 5 on Friday, February 10 at around 9 p.m. (ET) / 6 p.m. (PT). The most recent episode has been moved up to meet this Sunday’s Superbowl.
From the start, subtitles should be accessible as well. The program will premiere live on Sky Atlantic at 2 a.m. for viewers in the UK (GMT). After being broadcast, the show will then be made accessible via NowTV for many hours. Subtitles should be accessible by that time.
At Roughly 58 Minutes, Episode 5 Is a Little Bit Longer than This Week’s Chapter.
Nine episodes of The Last Of Us Season 1 are planned. Originally, 10 were planned, however along the route, that number has been decreased to 9. In light of that, there will be four more episodes after this one.
With this particular episode concentrating on Joel and Ellie meeting Henry and Sam and attempting to neutralize the threat of Kathleen and her group, viewers can expect the tale to continue to evolve over time.
As part of the Climate Desk partnership, this article was originally published by the Guardian and is being reprinted here.
According to research, the gap between the carbon emissions of the wealthy and the poor inside a nation is now larger than the gap between emissions within nations.
The study is another proof of the widening gap between the polluting elite of wealthy people around the world and the rest of society’s comparatively low emission-related culpability.
It also demonstrates that there is plenty of room for the world’s poorest people to increase their greenhouse gas emissions in order to achieve wealth, if rich people around the world, including some in emerging nations, do the same.
The majority of global climate policy has concentrated on the distinction between industrialized and developing countries, as well as on their present and past greenhouse gas emission responsibilities.
However, a rising body of research indicates that the emissions produced by a polluting elite of those with the greatest incomes worldwide far surpass those produced by the poor.
This has significant ramifications for climate action since it demonstrates that while wealthy individuals in developing nations have far larger carbon footprints than was previously recognized, low-income individuals in industrialized countries are contributing to the climate catastrophe less.
The World Inequality Lab’s economists analyze the existing sources of carbon emissions in a paper titled Climate Inequality Report 2023. Thomas Piketty, an influential economist and the author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, co-directs the World Inequality Lab.
His work after the financial crisis more than ten years ago helped popularise the concept of the 1%, a global high-income group whose interests are supported by current economic systems.
According to the analysis, carbon disparities within nations now seem to be larger than those between nations. A relatively tiny part of the population’s purchasing and investing habits directly or indirectly contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.
While there are still significant cross-country differences in emissions, certain measures suggest that within-country differences now account for the majority of the variance in global emissions.
The analysis also discovered that although domestic tax reform and the redistribution of wealth from the wealthy were both necessary for developing nations to cut their emissions, international climate aid, which was a major emphasis of the recent Cop27 climate negotiations, would not be sufficient.
The authors propose progressive taxation in nations, including developing nations, which frequently undertax wealthy residents and businesses, as well as windfall taxes on surplus profits to help finance low-carbon investment.
According to the paper, large growing economies like China now have a greater share of the blame for the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. They are now required to present detailed plans for achieving net zero emissions.
Professor of international relations at the University of Sussex, Peter Newell, who has published much on the subject of the polluting elite and was not involved in the investigation, said it demonstrated the need for altered consumption habits to address the climate crisis.
According to him, emissions inequality between those creating the emissions and those experiencing the greatest consequences of global warming and who have the least capacity to adapt is important because it accounts for the majority of global emissions inequality.
It is necessary to shift the polluter elite’s consumption and investment patterns in order to lessen and divert their separate contributions to climate change. This is a really difficult task.
However, he continued, the report also demonstrated how combating global poverty could be accomplished without raising overall greenhouse gas emissions, a crucial point given that the world must cut emissions by roughly half by 2030 in order to keep global temperature increases to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
According to Newell, “tackling global poverty will not overrun global carbon budgets, as is sometimes asserted,” according to the Guardian. Failure to address the privilege and power of the elite polluters will. These are connected because cutting back on carbon emissions at the top can provide carbon space that can be used to help the poor.
According to him, the answers lie in reorienting government policy to target the polluting elite and developing a more egalitarian and effective strategy for reducing emissions.
In order to close some of these gaps, he suggested combining progressive taxes, including on highly polluting activities, with the redirection of fossil fuel subsidies. This would assist to enhance the welfare state and offer social security.
This important analysis highlights the necessity of a just transition to a low-carbon economy, which reflects disproportionate blame for the climate crisis’ cause and unequal ability to address it.
One of the greatest methods to finance the transition to a low-carbon economy, according to a paper published by the PIK Potsdam Institute for Climate Research last year and coauthored by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, is to tax the wealthy.
As part of the Climate Desk partnership, this article was originally published by the Guardian and is being reprinted here.
In order to save its primary business, the oil company Exxon spent decades publicly discrediting such science despite making accurate and skillful predictions about global warming in private.
Exxon knew about the risks of global warming as early as the 1970s, according to a vast collection of internal records and research papers, and other oil sector bodies knew about the issue as early as the 1950s. They actively and effectively mobilized against the research to thwart any attempts to cut back on the usage of fossil fuels.
However, a recent study has shown that Exxon’s scientists were startlingly accurate in their predictions from the 1970s onwards, projecting an upward curve of global temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions that closely matched what actually transpired as the world heated up at a rate not seen in millions of years.
Exxon experts estimated that the burning of coal, oil, and other fossil fuels would release gases that would heat the world by around 0.2C per decade. The latest analysis, which was published in Science, reveals that Exxon’s science was quite competent and that its estimates were at least as accurate as those made by independent academic and governmental models.
It was astounding to see Exxon’s estimates match up so perfectly with what ultimately occurred, according to Geoffrey Supran, whose prior studies of historical industry archives helped shed light on what Exxon and other oil businesses knew.
According to Supran, who oversaw the analysis carried out by academics from Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, this really captures what Exxon knew, years before most of us were even born.
The smoking gun presently in front of us is that they correctly forecast global warming years before they began criticizing science. These graphs demonstrate how Exxon’s knowledge and deceit were mutually supportive.
Between 1977 and 2014, the study examined more than 100 internal papers and peer-reviewed scientific articles that were either created internally by Exxon scientists and managers or co-authored by Exxon scientists in other publications.
According to the analysis, Exxon correctly predicted that the Earth would experience a super-interglacial caused by carbon dioxide rather than the potential ice age that was suggested in the 1970s. Scientists from the company discovered that global warming was caused by humans and will be noticed around the year 2000. They also forecasted the carbon budget needed to keep the warming below 2C over pre-industrial levels.
With this information in hand, Exxon launched a protracted campaign to downplay or refute what its own scientists had confirmed. Rex Tillerson, the oil company’s chief executive at the time, stated that there are uncertainties regarding the effects of burning fossil fuels and that the climate models are insufficient.
They effectively kept quiet while working on this, speaking out against the research only when it became strategically important to address the existential threat to their company, according to Supran.
Instead of rejecting their science, they could have supported it. If the head of big oil had been supporting the science rather than criticizing it, it would have been far more difficult to refute it.
According to climate scientists, the new study highlighted a crucial phase of the fight against the global problem. It is extremely regrettable that the company not only disregarded the risks implied by this information but also decided to support unfounded theories in order to postpone taking action, probably in an effort to increase profits, according to Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University.
Mahowald claimed that the Exxon-aided action delays had significant ramifications because earlier investments in solar and wind energy could have prevented both present and future climate catastrophes. She went on to say that their activities probably had a negative impact on thousands to millions of people if we take into account the effects of air pollution and climate change.
Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University, said the new study was a detailed, robust analysis and that Exxon s misleading public comments about the climate crisis were especially brazen given their scientist’s involvement in working with outside researchers in assessing global heating. However, Shindell said it was difficult to say if Exxon’s experts were any more adept at this than those from other institutions.
According to Robert Brulle, an environmental policy expert at Brown University who has studied the climate denial propagated by the fossil fuel industry, the new effort served to further amplify Exxon’s misinformation.
I m sure that the ongoing efforts to hold Exxon accountable will take note of this study, Brulle said, a reference to the various lawsuits aimed at getting oil companies to pay for climate damages.
As part of the Climate Desk partnership, this article was originally published by the Guardian and is being reprinted here.
Oil and coal firms are accused of colluding to mislead the public about the climate problem, and the same racketeering legislation that was used to bring down mob chiefs, motorcycle gangs, football executives, and multinational fraudsters will be put to the test against them.
Communities in Puerto Rico who were devastated by Hurricane Maria in 2017 are bringing a lawsuit in an attempt to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for years of deceit.
One of the regions of the world most impacted by climate change in Puerto Rico. It is the ideal location for this climate litigation because it is so dangerously situated and gets attacked from all sides by hurricanes, storm surges, heat waves, and coral bleaching, according to Melissa Sims, senior attorney for the plaintiff’s law firm Milberg.
The 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was created to fight organized crime, such as the mafia, but has subsequently been applied in civil courts to argue organized crime claims involving the harms caused by opioids, car emissions, and even e-cigarettes.
A network of paid think tanks, scientists, and other operatives is now accused of conspiring to mislead the public, primarily Puerto Ricans, about the direct connection between their greenhouse gas-emitting products and climate change in the first-ever RICO case involving climate change.
According to the lawsuit, this fossil fuel business, which is still in existence, caused numerous damages as a result of climatic calamities that the defendants knew about but chose to conceal in order to increase profits.
The plaintiffs include 16 Puerto Rican municipalities that were severely impacted by Irma and Maria in September 2017, which resulted in thousands of fatalities, severe food shortages, extensive infrastructural damage, and the longest blackout in US history.
The difference in this [RICO] case, according to senior counsel Sims, is that we have written evidence of the decision made by rival companies, their front groups, scientists, and associations to collaborate in order to sway public opinion about the use of their consumer products by spreading false information.
The defendants, which include ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Rio Tinto, formed the Global Climate Coalition as a not-for-profit corporation in 1989 to influence, advertise, and promote the interests of the fossil fuel industry by disseminating false information to their customers and the general public, according to the lawsuit filed in the US federal district court of Puerto Rico.
It contends that supposedly competitive businesses collaborated to mislead customers and create confusion in order to maintain high and lucrative fossil fuel sales and that the GCC was a propaganda apparatus specifically created to oppose the Kyoto protocol, the first significant international effort to combat climate change. A written action plan was created in 1998 to deceive customers into believing that global warming was not happening and that, even if it did, there was no scientific agreement over whether fossil fuels were to blame.
In other words, the action plan purportedly served as a climate change denial strategy that was carried out through a network of dark money invested in think tanks, research institutions, trade associations, and PR agencies. It also served as a road map for an ongoing, open-ended enterprise.
The complaint claims that the oil and coal industries understood that Puerto Rico was particularly vulnerable to climate change-related phenomena, such as hotter and wetter storms, excessive heat, and rising sea levels, as a result of the island’s geographic location.
According to the Germanwatch Climate Risk Index, Puerto Rico, Haiti, and Myanmar have been the three regions most impacted by extreme weather events like storms, floods, heatwaves, and droughts over the past 20 years. These events are becoming more frequent due to greenhouse gas-driven human-caused global warming. A large portion of the island was left without electricity and water in September when Hurricane Ian damaged crucial infrastructures like roads and bridges.
The lawsuit claims that the oil and coal companies, along with their international partners, are collectively accountable for at least 40% of greenhouse gases. This puts them at fault for the damages brought on by the storms of 2017 and the likelihood of the island experiencing worse climate disasters in the future.
It’s the most recent in a string of civil class actions that municipalities, towns, and cities have taken against businesses and organizations they claim have harmed locals. Cities have a nearly limitless potential to employ their nuisance statutes and local ordinances, according to Sims, who has also represented Puerto Rico towns in opioid action that led to damages reimbursement.
Republican and Christian Sims claimed that cities all around the country have realized their potential and are beginning to use it almost like miniature attorneys general. Using their rights under the racketeering and other laws we’ve helped develop over the years, they are increasingly frequently the first ones to bring lawsuits on opioids, Juul electronic cigarettes, pollution, reverse redlining, and now climate change.
Among the defendants accused of consumer fraud, racketeering, antitrust, false misrepresentation, conspiracy to deceive, product liability, and unjust enrichment are seven oil companies, three coal companies, and hundreds of organizations and operatives.
Requests for feedback from the National Mining Association and American Petroleum Institute went unanswered. In statements, a number of the defendants have criticised the litigation.
The UK government is planning to outlaw other single-use plastic goods including plates and cutlery in England after outlawing straws, stirrers, and cotton swabs there in 2020 in an effort to address the growing plastic waste problem in the UK and the planet.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) held a public consultation regarding a plan to ban the supply of single-use plastic goods and polystyrene food and drink containers from November of last year until February of 2022, according to The Independent.
In order to reform the waste business and fulfill our obligations under the ambitious 25-year environment plan, we are committed to moving even further and more quickly toward the reduction, reuse, and recycling of more of our resources. Reduced reliance on single-use plastics is essential, a DEFRA official told The Guardian.
According to the Financial Times, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs Th r se Coffey will outline initiatives to replace single-use plastic products with biodegradable ones.
Scotland enacted the same ban earlier this year, while Wales adopted a ban on single-use plastic products last week, which will take effect in 2023.
According to the government, 4.25 billion single-use cutlery items and 1.1 billion plates are used annually in England, or 75 pieces of cutlery and 20 plates per person, yet just 10% of this waste is recycled, according to CNN.
The majority of plastics are generated from fossil fuels and emit greenhouse gases, hastening climate change.
According to Julie James, the Welsh Minister for Climate Change, all single-use plastic products have reusable or non-plastic alternatives.
According to James, who was quoted by the Financial Times, it isn’t significantly more expensive, and more affordable alternatives will become available as consumers become aware of how hazardous these items are.
DEFRA is also considering how to handle other single-use plastic products, such as wet wipes and cigarette filters.
Only around 10 percent of the 331 million tonnes of plastic waste produced annually around the world is recycled, and it can persist for hundreds of years before decomposing into tiny fragments that can contaminate the ecosystem and be consumed by wildlife and marine animals.
According to Greenpeace, pollution is both an environmental and a social rights issue. As wealthy corporations make enormous profits from the usage of single-use plastic packaging, single-use, disposable plastic finds its way into our disadvantaged and at-risk neighborhoods.
The Global South frequently bears the brunt of the flow of disposable plastic into their rivers, seas, and landfills when more industrialized nations begin to stand up and restrict the quantity of plastic garbage entering their borders.
To supplement their scant incomes, vulnerable people turn to the trade in single-use plastics, which is suffocating. Although the big industry is aware of this, virtually little is being done to actually stop the flow of single-use plastic that it contributes to the issue.
In a letter to world leaders, more than 650 experts pleaded with them to put an end to the burning of trees for energy because it harms wildlife habitats and violates international agreements on biodiversity and climate change.
In the run-up to the UN biodiversity meeting COP15, which gets underway on December 7 in Montreal, scientists have urged nations to switch from utilizing bioenergy from forests to create electricity and heat to using renewable energy sources.
We are writing to voice our worry about the widespread use of forest bioenergy to provide power and heat, which is an emerging and growing threat to biodiversity. The scientists wrote in the letter, “We request that you and your countries cease all reliance on forest bioenergy and, over time, replace it fully with alternative renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.”
The letter was sent to President Xi Jinping of China, President Joe Biden of the United States, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of the United Kingdom, President Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission, President Yoon Suk-yeol of South Korea, and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan.
Unfortunately, many nations are relying more and more on forest biomass to achieve net zero targets since it has been falsely labeled as carbon neutral. When we most need the trees on our planet, this is hurting them. The letter claimed that contrary to what the logging industry maintains, many of the wood pellets burned at power plants for bioenergy come from complete trees rather than logging trash and residue.
By 2030, bioenergy is expected to account for one-third of all energy classified as low-carbon, according to a forecast from the International Energy Agency, according to The Guardian.
Although we must change our energy system, we cannot do it at the expense of the environment. Energy security is a significant societal concern, but burning our magnificent woods is not the solution. According to Professor Alexander Antonelli, Director of Science at Kew Gardens and one of the letter’s primary authors, labeling this “green energy” is inaccurate and could worsen the world’s biodiversity catastrophe, as Carbon Pulse highlighted.
According to The Guardian, $6.81 billion in subsidies have been provided over the last ten years to assist the burning of biomass as part of the UK’s net zero ambition.
This logging is occurring at an alarming rate. For instance, the letter stated that 5.7 million metric tonnes of wood pellets were exported from the US to the UK in 2019, necessitating the destruction of an area bigger than the UK’s New Forest.
Carbon that would have been stored in forests is released into the atmosphere when trees are cut down for bioenergy.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently highlighted the crucial role that forests play in keeping their stored carbon out of the atmosphere, in addition to its effects on wildlife. According to the experts’ letter, harvesting for bioenergy substantially impairs forests’ capacity to store and sequester carbon.
According to The Guardian, burning wood emits more carbon dioxide into the sky than burning gas or even coal. Additionally, the gathering and delivery of the wood require more energy.
Estonia, Canada, and The United States Provide the Majority of The Wood used for Biomass.
The fact that many of these trees come from old, biodiverse, and/or climate-critical forests is further alarming. For instance, we are aware that the wood pellets burned in the UK are made from clear-cuts of mature hardwood forests in the North American Coastal Plain Biodiversity Hotspot in the Southeast of the United States, protected forest ecosystems in the Baltics, which are vital habitats for imperiled birds and mammals, and primary forests in Canada, including the boreal forest, one of the last intact forests in the world and a stronghold for global bird populations.
According to the letter, rare species like the prothonotary warbler, boreal woodland caribou, and black stork are already in decline as a result of the destruction and loss of these forests.
The letter made note of the fact that forests absorb about a third of fossil fuel emissions and that up to one million species could become extinct by the year 2100 due to habitat loss and fragmentation.
Biomass energy frequently uses wood that has been harvested through unethical methods like clearcutting. Investigations conducted on the ground reveal that two of the largest pellet producers in the world, Enviva, and Drax, produce their pellets using wood that has been clear-cut from forests.
Even in reserves meant to safeguard forests and rare and endangered species, clearcutting for wood pellets takes place throughout the EU and the UK (e.g. European Union s Natura 2000 network). The scientists wrote in the letter that research in tropical forests has revealed that after a forest has been clear-cut, it takes decades, if not centuries, for it to regenerate and return to its prior level of ecosystem output and biodiversity.
The letter stated that the international community must stop using biomass as fuel if 30 percent of Earth’s land and oceans are to be maintained for wildlife by 2030. The letter found that biomass energy had the opposite effect on biodiversity and the climate than preserving forests.
In a recent study, the University of Sheffield examined 68 urban areas in the UK and ranked them according to their availability of parks, sports fields, and greenery. The greenest place in England was discovered to be Exeter, in the county of Devon in Southwest England, followed by the London Borough of Islington, Bournemouth, a tourist destination on England’s southern coast, and Cambridge, which is located about 61 miles north of London.
There were at least 100,000 people living in each of the city centers included in the study, which the authors claim is the first to define and rank metropolitan areas based on various green features. Glasgow, Scotland, came in last on the list, followed by Leeds in Yorkshire, Northern England, and Liverpool, the city where the Beatles’ rock group was founded in 1960.
According to Jake Robinson, the study’s principal researcher, urban greening is thriving these days, which may increase ecotourism, as reported by The Guardian.
According to Robinson, who was quoted by The Guardian, “several of the cities in our analysis are particularly lush and green, which could lead to a growth in urban ecotourism, where people travel to cities to enjoy the wonder of urban nature.” Cities are popular tourist destinations around the world, and they are putting more of a focus on their natural surroundings to attract more visitors. Enhancing our urban green spaces will also draw gorgeous animals. This not only adds to the visiting experience but is essential for preserving biodiversity.
Published in the journal PLOS One, the study is titled Urban center green metrics in Great Britain: A geospatial and socioecological study.
One of the study’s key results was that all of the best city centers were in the south of England, while the cities with the lowest scores were all found in Northern Britain’s erstwhile industrial regions, according to The Guardian.
One of the study’s senior authors, Dr. Paul Brindley of the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of Sheffield, told BBC News that the study “clearly highlights the need to urgently improve the greenness of city centers at the bottom of the list, and to ensure that local authorities take action to close the gap.”
The study, according to the researchers, highlighted disparities in the greenness of urban cores.
According to the study’s authors, disparities in green infrastructure across the nation, together with population and deprivation-related patterns, are crucial for socioecological and social justice. This study serves as a foundation and a catalyst to assist local governments and urban planners in developing and overseeing fair greening interventions in urban/city centers.
According to The Guardian, Amal Ghusain, lead councilor for Exeter’s City Management and Environmental Services, claimed her city benefits from a variety of available green spaces.
According to Husain, who was quoted by The Guardian, we have access to a variety of green open areas, including our six Exeter Valley Parks, which are overseen by Devon Wildlife Trust, sports fields, 1,400 allotments, and a number of leafy cemeteries. We are aware of the value of our parks for mental health, and overall welfare, and supporting our goal of being carbon neutral. Our parks assist to break up the urban nature of the city.
By planting more than 700 trees, Islington expanded its tree canopy by 25% last year, according to Rowena Champion, executive member of the city council for environment, air quality, and transportation.
Islington is one of the most densely populated local authorities in Britain, and only 13% of the borough’s land is green space. For this reason, Champion added, it’s crucial to make the most of what we have in order to improve everyone’s health results.
The damage that their manufacture and combustion can do to the health of those who live nearby is one of the primary risks associated with plastics. For instance, one of the biggest sources of air pollution in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley is plastic manufacturing facilities.
The Protecting Communities from Plastics Act, which was just introduced, aims to solve this environmental justice issue.
U.S. Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA), who filed the bill, stated in a statement emailed to EcoWatch that plastic pollution is a huge environmental injustice that directly affects frontline and fenceline communities throughout the plastics lifecycle.
By reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the climate crisis and the fossil fuel industry’s petro-dictatorship as it views plastics as a safety net, my bill will safeguard the health of our communities. The time is running out, and while we’ll continue to work on this Congress, we want to warn the oil and gas industry right away. Our neighborhoods must come first.
The legislative group behind the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act, including Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Representative Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), launched the legislation on Thursday. The law would establish national targets for reducing the production of specific single-use plastics and promoting the use of reusable materials in food and other packaging, in addition to tightening health and environmental rules for plastics manufacturers.
The proponents of the measure also stressed how the manufacturing and consumption of plastics, which are expected to quadruple over the next 10 years, contribute to the climate catastrophe.
Fossil-based plastic manufacture poses a threat to our attempts to address the climate catastrophe as we switch to clean and renewable energy, Booker said in a statement emailed to EcoWatch. Residents of fenceline settlements that are close to plastic manufacturing facilities suffer from the emission of hazardous pollutants and an increase in the prevalence of life-threatening illnesses like cancer and heart disease.
I’m glad to have put forth this legislation, which will set national targets for plastic source reduction and halt the permitting of new and enlarged plastic facilities until the EPA changes regulations for plastic facilities, to address these environmental injustices.
According to E&E News, the measure would specifically request that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) target certain chemicals used in the manufacture of plastics, such as styrene and vinyl chloride, and look into their effects using the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The law also calls for a moratorium on permits for new or enlarged plastics operations and a study into the health effects of plastic polymers, additives, and byproducts. Last but not least, it shifts away from chemical recycling as a remedy for the plastics challenge and requests that the EPA exclude such facilities from its National Recycling Strategy.
More than 30 different organizations have approved the legislation, including the Ocean Conservancy, which collaborated closely with the bill’s architects.
Dr. Anja Brandon, associate director of U.S. plastics policy at Ocean Conservancy, said in a statement emailed to EcoWatch that the Protecting Communities From Plastics Act is a crucial step toward addressing the extensive harms brought on by the petrochemical industry and ending our dependence on single-use plastics. It also takes the significant step of forbidding the EPA from including chemical recycling technology in the national recycling strategy, which would sustain our reliance on virgin plastic derived from fossil fuels. Instead, it places an emphasis on producing less plastic.
According to a statement made by Joshua Baca, the American Chemistry Council’s director of plastics work, switching to materials with a higher carbon footprint would result in the loss of American jobs, the risk of billions of dollars in investments in new technology, and a worsening of the climate crisis.
Republican senators and the industry’s opposition might be enough to kill the bill. Congress has been unable to advance the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act, which includes comparable pauses on new plastics permitting and source reduction goals.
According to Bloomberg, Poland’s backyard coal mining is on the rise again as a result of the global energy crisis brought on by Russia’s conflict in Ukraine and Europe’s reliance on the authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin’s methane gas supply.
More than 75 percent of all coal-heated homes in the EU are in Poland, where 37% of families use coal to heat their homes despite the serious health concerns (and climate impacts).
Poland also has a lot of readily available coal, sometimes only a metre beneath, and when unemployment in (previously legal) coal mining districts is as high as 12% and people are burning garbage for heat, “artisanal” (illegal) coal mining pays the bills and keeps homes warm.
In just half a day, a four-man crew in Walbrzych may dig up coal worth 1,000 zloty ($220), which is more than half the typical weekly wage. Grzegorz, who declined to disclose his last name, told Bloomberg that we will continue to drill here as long as coal could be extracted. After then, a fresh pit will be dug.
The most polluting drivers will have to pay $15 per day starting in August to enter an Ultra-Low Emissions Zone that has been enlarged to cover all of metropolitan London, the mayor of the British capital said on Friday.
Mayor Sadiq Khan tweeted, “Outer London will soon have cleaner air.” Today I’m announcing that we’re extending the ULEZ to all of London, a move that will benefit five million additional Londoners by bringing them access to better air.
The mayor said, “Our city is being choked by toxic air and it’s harming and killing Londoners, causing asthma, dementia, and even cancer.” Even the livers and brains of unborn children have been shown to contain air pollution particles. We cannot watch this happen and do nothing.
Khan continued, “Around 4,000 Londoners die prematurely each year as a result of chronic exposure to air pollution, with the majority of deaths occurring in outer London districts. Because of the need to improve everyone’s access to clean air, this expansion is crucial.
Kevin Fenton, the director of London’s public health department, tweeted that “air pollution is the biggest environmental risk to public health in the UK… Everyone who resides in or works in London is impacted by it, and its effects can be felt from conception until old age.
The new regulation was hailed as “a significant triumph for health” by the advocacy organization Mums for Lungs, which has been pushing for an extended ULEZ since 2018.
The group continued, “Air pollution affects children before they are even born, and causes lifelong health concerns.” “We applaud this effort to better clean the air in London.”
Under the scheme, which was introduced in 2019, drivers are charged to enter the area within London’s north and south-circular orbital roads but the charge is not applied across the capital. People with non-compliant cars who live in the ULEZ are not exempt from daily charges…
Some 60% of those who responded to the public consultation into the expansion plans were opposed to it, with 70% of residents in Outer London against the idea, and 80% of workers in Outer London opposed. The Greater London Authority (GLA) Conservatives described the opposition as “overwhelming” and “staggering” and criticized the mayor for pushing ahead with the plans despite the public response.
Defenders of The Environment and The Climate, Though, Applauded Khan’s Announcement.
Si n Berry of the City Hall Greens, a member of the London Assembly, tweeted, “Finally, after SO many years of Green activism, the mayor has finally found the political will to act and deliver healthier air for EVERYONE in London.” “We fought for and won a London-wide ULEZ!”