The massive devastation of natural habitats is perhaps one of open-cast coal mining’s most striking consequences. Large tracts of land must be cleared as part of the process, uprooting complex ecosystems. Such a drastic loss of biodiversity directly threatens several species due to the disappearance of topsoil and vegetation. Moreover, the large volume of greenhouse gas emissions generated by burning coal for energy is a major contributor to global warming. Open-cast mining has changed the environment and left noticeable scars on the planet’s surface. A new documentary, “Finite: The Climate of Change”, focusses on two communities where local activists in the UK are making a stand against an opencast coal mine.

—

Activism Takes Centre Stage

‘Finite: The Climate of Change’ is a documentary that highlights the urgency of environmental activism. Director and producer Rich Felgate, an environmental activist himself, has been involved in campaigns against the fossil fuel industry, including shutting down the UK’s largest coal mine, Ffos-y-Fran, in Wales. The film captures the essence of direct action through the eyes of frontline communities, activists, and fossil fuel corporations, revealing the true impact of human actions on the environment and underscoring the power of collective efforts to counteract seemingly insurmountable odds.

The context of “Finite” is consistent with the ongoing battle in the UK against coal imports and exploitation, which is being fiercely fought against by organisations like the Coal Action Network. Anne Harris from Coal Action Network plays a significant role in the documentary’s emphasis on the process of bringing about climate action as an activist. By addressing the role that coal has played in steelworks, power plants, and historical consumption, they strive for justice for the affected populations in Pont Valley.

According to Felgate, the movie comes at a pivotal moment when the world is grappling with conflicting messages on coal mining and climate action. In an exclusive interview with Felgate and Harris, the discrepancy between governmental decisions and international commitments to curb global warming is discussed at length. The film offers a lens through which viewers can comprehend the complex interplay between policy, industry, and the environment.

The Unseen Face of Open-Cast Coal Mining

One of the main ways in which Felgate and Harris have been able to tackle the detriments of opencast coal mining in the UK is by targeting loopholes in legislation that can be used to make claims for the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity. The strenuous task of going through legal documents, which, as Harris explains, is “not for everyone,” gave Coal Action Network its first issue to tackle: finding Great-crested newts.

The importance of these newts, as Felgate captures in the film, is for the Coal Action Network and residents of the Pont Valley to claim the government’s biodiversity protection in the area, given the rare and endangered nature of this animal. Upon claiming protection, it was deemed that there was no population of great crested newt in the area. However, according to Harris “you will not find it if you don’t look for it.”

Due to the discrepancies in diligence on the government’s processes, ones that were set in place to protect biodiversity and ecosystems, Coal Action Network set out on a mission to find gold-crested newts on their own.

As the network and residents of the Pomp Valley fought tooth and nail to report their finding of a gold crested newt, the glaring gap between the government’s claims to aid climate change through protective measures and their actual actions, started becoming more and more evident.

One such shortcoming in the government’s approach, as pointed out by Harris, has been the Section 106 Agreement. Under this section, coal mines are given rules and regulations on the ways in which they can and cannot operate in order to protect residents of the area. However, a violation of enlisted rules does not impact the company or developers in any way. “This document is meaningless”, said Harris, since the regulatory document does not hold them accountable.

After Coal Action Network’s legal team wrote a letter to the Secretary of State to ask to revoke this system, the higher courts acknowledged the loopholes in this legislation and claimed to “remake” a decision, which is yet to happen and has not seen much progress.

Through the progression of the documentary, the revelation of the system’s favouritism of developers and their lack of consistency in upholding what they set out becomes increasingly prominent. Thereby, showcasing the obstacles to succeeding in an atmosphere where environmental activists are disadvantaged.

The 21 Best Environmental Films of 2023New UK Coal Mine Goes in ‘Opposite Direction’ to Fight Against Climate Change, Says US Climate Envoy

Climate Action: A Melting Pot of Opinions

Contrary to sensationalised media coverage, polarised perspectives from behind the screen, and outright climate deniers, Felgate and Harris believe the cause of climate action to be a melting pot of opinions. At the very core of an individual’s disagreement with climate action, lies their “fear of feeling threatened” and the feeling of “disempowerment,” explained Felgate.

The ultimate goal of climate action is to have liveable communities for everyone. “When there are real people there, it can change attitudes and can create a community,” said Harris.

Felgate also talked about the importance of differentiating between climate deniers and people who just resent protesters. The latter is often misplaced, and thought to be an overall negation of climate change on the opposition’s end. Thus, translating itself into an environment where climate action is not as supported as it should be.

According to Harris, “most people aren’t indifferent; they are just caught up in the system and restrained by life circumstances. Regardless of the challenges that environmental activists such as Felgate and Harris face, they bring a refreshing perspective to the forefront, one that wishes to actively find common ground.

As “Finite: The Climate of Change” makes its way from theatres to screens, it forces society to face the unflinching truth of the damaging repercussions of open-cast coal mining. It serves as a tool for education, empowerment, and eventually, the creation of a sustainable future as we stand at a critical juncture in the fight against climate change.

FINITE is available to rent or buy online on Vimeo on Demand from November 30

Featured image: supplied.

You might also like: The 21 Best Environmental Films of 2023

The post Finite: A New Documentary Shining a Light on Environmental Activism and Open-Cast Coal Mining appeared first on Earth.Org.

The Russia-Ukraine war has had significant political, economic, and social repercussions on a global scale. Food markets worldwide were particularly impacted as a consequence of unprecedented grain shortages. In this article, we take a look at Russia’s role in the global food market prior to the conflict, how economic sanctions added to the already complex situation, and how different countries reacted. 

—

Russia has been a primary producer of grains, oilseeds, and fertilisers for years. Its status as a global food producer, one that several countries depend on, has only intensified the global ramifications of food insecurity. 

Russia’s default vis-à-vis its unprompted invasion of Ukraine in March 2022 was met with rightful international criticism through economic sanctions. However, despite its now demoted position in the international arena, states are reluctant to impose direct sanctions on food grain exports. 

The question then arises: At the core of this, does there lie an overriding bargaining power in the hands of the Russian economy or a helpless global food economy?

Russia’s Role in the Global Food Market

Russia’s production and export of wheat make up a large part of the Black Sea food crop. For decades, the country has supplied wheat to regions in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. While there have been several economic sanctions against Russia on the grounds of oil, coal, gas, and mining, there have been no direct sanctions on the trade of wheat and food grains. Such a hesitance amongst major states like the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany is solidified by Russia’s wheat exports skyrocketing by more than 60% over the last decade and being projected to account for 20% of the world’s wheat supply by the end of 2023. This is largely due to the ample natural resources possessed by Russia, which allow the country to take on the food grain trade on such an extensive level.

While there is much to be said about the detrimental ways in which this war is taking a toll on civilians in Russia, an interesting point of contradiction is a rather favourable economic situation when it comes to a rise in food grain exports. 

The southern agrarian regions of Russia are in a very good economic position. These areas experienced a record grain crop in 2022, which boosted exports. As a measure of production, exports rose year over year, especially in the third quarter of 2022, in each of the important agricultural districts of southern Russia: by 7.1% in the Stavropol territory, by 8.6% in the Krasnodar territory, and by 23.6% in the Volgograd region. This is in direct relation to Russia’s economic bargaining power for wheat, given its dominance in cultivation in the south of the country.

Wheat production in Russia, by region. Source: International Production Assessment Division.

What’s Holding Russia Back?

While the repercussions of the war have been significantly less burdensome on Russia than on Ukraine, there is no doubt that, without the economy of war, its presence in the global food markets would have been much more prominent. 

Despite the US pegging Russian wheat exports at an all-time high of 45.0 million metric tonnes in the 2022–23 season, only second to the record high of 41.5 million metric tonnes in the 2017–2018 season, logistical restraints and a lack of global support have hindered the nation from reaching its optimum.

Given Russia’s newfound status as a pariah state, rendering it an outcast, the Russian government has strived to hold down the fort. In doing so, they have imposed export quotas and taxes to limit external production in 2021 and cater to domestic needs before international trade. 

This is influenced by the obstacles to international trade faced by the Russian state, such as the large exodus of global grain merchants led by logistical constraints in railway wagons. Additionally, due to the fact that major agrarian business in Russia takes place in the southern and central regions, which border Ukraine, there is an even greater military obstacle to production.

Internally, there are several setbacks posed by the war on Russia’s status as a global food producer. One of them – which Putin is set to overturn – is that of the Black Seas Grain Initiative. 

In July 2022, the United Nations signed an agreement that enabled 25 million metric tonnes of food to be exported from Ukraine. This initiative was launched alongside a Memorandum of Understanding with Russia, wherein their fertiliser and food product exports are to be promoted in global markets. In doing so, the UN’s aim was to create two-way trade beneficiance for Russia and Ukraine. Despite such efforts of gradual peace brokering, Moscow’s quest to assert power over Ukraine does not thrive on a mutually beneficial step such as this.

The initiative was renewed on May 18 after Russia agreed to extend the accord by two months, allowing Ukraine to tackle the growing food insecurity with its exports.

What’s Next for Russia?

While an agreement by Russia on the extension of the Black Sea Initiative is seemingly a step in the right direction, it is imperative to understand the consistent attacks on biodiversity that Russia has indulged in. 

As recently as June 6, 2023, the primary water reservoir and dam in Ukraine were completely destroyed by the Russian military, wreaking havoc in the water and sanitation industries in the country. Such actions by Russia showcase their still-standing sentiment of being the aggressor, making global, regional, and even domestic socio-economic facets suffer the consequences. 

You might also like: The Growing Importance of Food and Water Security Amid the Ukraine-Russia War

The post How the War in Ukraine Shaped Russia’s Role in the Global Food Market appeared first on Earth.Org.

A carbon tax is an example of Pigouvian tax. It comes with limitations such as becoming regressive and de-incentivising the public’s willingness to contribute to climate action. Revenue neutrality is a solution to both of these challenges that governments can implement through taxes.

— 
Carbon taxes have been known to be a classic example of a Pigouvian tax – a tax to eliminate the negative social impacts, or, more technically speaking, an externality, by incentivising a lack of the usage of goods that cause social detriments. 

The tax on carbon emissions has been a longstanding and straightforward solution to offset their negative impact. However, the study of economics is largely based on ideals and the outcome of carbon taxes is not without its fair share of limitations. More broadly, the limitations are those of a Pigouvian tax. 

One of the main concerns is that the tax will become regressive in nature, meaning that the burden of the tax will asymmetrically affect those that belong to lower-income groups. A prime instance of this is the market effect on pull and push factors that lead to an increase in costs as a result of levying carbon taxes on corporations. The burden of increases in production costs can be very easily shifted to consumers by increasing prices. In addition to this, carbon taxes are often a small price to pay for large corporations in proportion to the profit they make, thus not ensuring the absolute effectiveness of Pigouvian taxes in eradicating carbon emissions.

From the two limitations of carbon taxes, it is evident that a common denominator in them is the tax burden on consumers, which consequently de-incentivises the public’s willingness to contribute to climate action. 

A solution to such a problem that can ensure efficiency to a large extent, if not absolutely, is making carbon taxes revenue neutral. This essentially means that the government retains little, if any, of the revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions. To offset the burden and successfully eliminate the negative externalities, the revenues are returned to the public, with only small amounts utilised to assist communities dependent on fossil fuel extraction and processing to adapt and convert to low- or non-carbon economies. The revenue neutrality of carbon taxes in such a manner optimally targets both the above-mentioned challenges: it prevents taxation from becoming regressive while also giving corporations the resources to evolve their infrastructure in a climate-friendly way. This then brings up the question of the methods by which governments can implement revenue neutrality through taxes. 

Two ways in which this has been implemented are through the fee and dividend system in the United States and tax shifting in British Columbia, Canada.

You might also like: What Countries Have A Carbon Tax?

The Fee and Dividend System in the US

The premise of the dividend and fee system is the redistribution of the tax burden to compensate low-income families that are most affected by carbon taxes. In the specific case of the US, partisanship plays an integral role in policy decisions. The partisan nature of the government and the electorate is especially heightened when taking environmental politics into account. Despite Republicans being at odds with carbon taxation as of 2018, 97% of the House Republicans on the floor voted against carbon taxes. Nonetheless, in 2019, after being advocated for almost a decade, Republicans and Democrats came to consensus on the dividend and fee system, the aim of which is to offset the regressive nature of carbon taxes by providing cash back and rebates to low-income families. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum lies the anti-carbon tax argument that these taxes negatively impact the economy by increasing government expenditure. However, as per the Stanford Energy Modelling Forum (EMF) project, the “revenue recycling” process involved in this system will require little to no additional government expenditure in providing rebates.

This policy is administered by returning 100% of the net fees back to households as a monthly dividend after initially holding them in a Carbon Fees Trust Fund. If implemented correctly and consistently, this policy is projected to bring carbon emission levels to 52% below 1990 levels in two decades, as well as prevent over 230,000 premature deaths over the same period from improved air quality. While there is potential for carbon taxes to slow down economic growth in a minuscule manner, the benefits that accompany the minimisation of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions will arguably overturn this slowdown.

Canada’s Tax Shifting

As per the 2017 policy report by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, individuals generally express support for the use of tax revenues to ease the impact of the tax on low-income households. While this sentiment is seen as a common consensus, inhibitions towards carbon taxes still prevail. Such aversions, however, can be countered via a gradual phasing out of the taxes levied on carbon emissions. Taxpayers are more likely to be on board with a tax rate increase after seeing the initial success of the propositions made by the government. An outcome-based shifting of the tax will then, as the survey suggests, be the best way to get individuals to express general support for tax redistribution as well. A slower increase in taxes allows tax-paying individuals to understand the costs and benefits of paying said tax, especially if they belong to higher-income households and are to pay a larger proportion than low-income families.

A mechanism like this was implemented in British Columbia, Canada, in 2008. This tax is levied on the sale and use of fossil fuels and accounts for approximately 70% of the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. A coordinated national carbon pricing system was established by the federal government in 2019, and it was increased to CA$50 per tonne (US$36.68 per tonne) as of April 1, 2022. 

On July 1, 2022, the Climate Action Tax Credit increased from $174 to $193.50 for adults and from $51 to $56.50 for children. As of 2023, the government of British Columbia established that the taxes will gradually be increased, with an ultimate goal of reaching $170 per tonne (US$124.72 per tonne) in 2030. These increases are put in place on a legislative level, wherein there are set times laid out for an increase in taxes from the onset of the policy’s launch. The revenue generated is then utilised for redistribution purposes. The credit, which is given four times a year by the Canada Revenue Agency, aids in reducing the burden of the carbon taxes that low- and moderate-income people and families pay. The government also provides a number of carbon tax programmes for local governments and corporations to facilitate sustainable, long-term, environmentally friendly infrastructure. 

Final Thoughts

Considering the limitations of Pigouvian taxes, there are substantial considerations to make when implementing a carbon tax. However, maintaining revenue neutrality, as laid out in this article, is a foolproof solution to this shortcoming. While the solution is evident, its implementation is far overdue. 

 You might also like: Carbon Tax Pros and Cons: Is Carbon Pricing the Right Policy to Implement?

The post The Importance of Revenue Neutrality for Carbon Tax’s Success appeared first on Earth.Org.

On Monday, the US states of Arizona, Nevada, and California signed a landmark deal that entails cutting water consumption by 3 million acre-feet in order to prevent water shortages amongst states that border the Colorado River. 

—

From now until 2026, the states bordering the Colorado River – Arizona, Nevada, and California – will collectively have to cut their water use by more than 3 million acre-feet (approx. 370046 hectare-meter) as a part of a landmark deal reached on Monday.

In the context of the deal, the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will help cities and irrigation districts in the three “Lower Basin” states roughly US$1.2 billion in exchange for using less water. 

But this is merely a short-term fix. Many farmers consider the restrictions an insult to their industry because the agreement does not address long-term water sustainability concerns in the area. Government officials of the three aforesaid states must pay farmers more per acre-foot of water than they would have earned from selling crops on a specific field in order to persuade them to plant fewer crops. This stems from the fact that the deal is actively urging farmers to produce drought-resistant crops,effectively reducing the total number of crops they can grow and thereby also reducing potential profits. 

Farmers in California’s Imperial Valley have resisted accepting money to leave their fields unplanted, especially since vegetable prices have remained as high as they already were due to overall inflation in the American economy. Irrigation officials have compensated growers to invest in technologies aimed at making their farms more efficient – such as precision irrigation, drought-resistant crops, and soil moisture sensors. 

The Imperial Valley programme is one of the two main initiatives undertaken by the federal government. It focuses on improving water efficiency and reducing demands for water supply by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) – a public agency that provides water and energy supply services to California Imperial Valley and one of the biggest consumers of Colorado River water. Aside from the IID, the other main consumers of Colorado River water are the states of California and Arizona. 

A second programme, which focuses on water management in parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, is the Upper Basin pilot programme. Both programmes get considerable reimbursement from the Biden administration for their conservation efforts.

The federal government gave the river states an ultimatum last summer, forcing them to reduce their water usage by between 2 and 4 million acre-feet, or as much as one-third of the river’s typical annual flow, by coming up with a plan by 2023. This sparked the competition among the 7 bordering states of the Colorado River –Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. If these states fail to agree on their own, the administration threatened to impose unilateral water cuts. 

Although California and Arizona, combined, were blamed by the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico for taking up a majority of the Colorado River water. However, Californian representatives urged that Arizona take accountability for the excessive water usage.

At the root of this impending doom of a water crisis in the region is the mega-drought that has affected the Western US for nearly two decades. Rising temperatures caused Lake Mead (located in southeastern Nevada and partially in northwestern Arizona) and Lake Powell (northern Arizona and partially in southern Utah) to reach their lowest levels ever in 2022. These record lows prompted the first-ever Tier 1 Water Shortage declaration for the reservoir, which has been in effect since early 2022. 

To lessen the risks of worsening water insecurity in Colorado, in 2015, then-governor John Hickenlooper signed the state’s first water plan. It includes goals such as reaching 400,000 acre-feet (approx. 45,000 hectare-meters) of local and industrial water conservation by 2050 and having 75% of Coloradans incorporate water-saving land-use planning by 2025. While this plan was temporarily efficient, the territory still lacks a long-term plan.

Water levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead are projected to stabilise this summer thanks to the melting of the Rocky Mountains’ snowpack, making it slightly easier for states to implement the deal. Nonetheless, a $4 billion tranche for the facilitation of drought response was negotiated by Arizona’s Senator Kyrsten Sinema in order to finalise the agreement for the next three years. 

What will happen when the conservation agreement ends at the end of 2026 as states and tribes come together to discuss the river’s long-term future remains the biggest concern at this point. For now, issues such as who should use less water and how the government may compensate tribal groups who still lack access to water remain unresolved. 

You might also like: What’s Happening with the Arizona Water Shortage Crisis

The post Arizona, Nevada and California Sign Landmark Deal to Save the Colorado River appeared first on Earth.Org.