A weekly reckoning with life in a warming world—and the fight to save it |
|
|
|
|
Downed power lines in Puerto Rico on September 19 Jose Jimenez/Getty |
|
|
|
|
|
Hurricane Fiona hit the island of Puerto Rico this weekend as only a Category 1 storm. But despite the weakness of this storm, and despite huge amounts of talk about greater resilience in the wake of Hurricane Maria, almost exactly five years ago, the electrical grid promptly collapsed. The island-wide outage reflects very poorly on U.S.-led privatization efforts, which were “pitched as a panacea for the island’s troubled grid” after Maria, Kate Aronoff pointed out this week. The widespread blackouts should also serve as a reminder, she noted, that “just $40 million of the $9 billion in federal funds meant to rebuild Puerto Rico’s grid since Maria has been spent.” Very few of the reforms energy experts have recommended and that receive widespread grassroots support have been implemented. For example, Kate wrote, a more renewables-based and decentralized grid would help: |
|
|
|
|
Electricity from fossil fuels needs to be generated at centralized power plants, a job that falls on PREPA as it still handles electricity generation. Most of the plants are in the south, meaning electrons need to be carried up via transmission lines over the mountainous center of the country to population centers in the north. Queremos Sol (We Want Sun), a platform for clean energy development and climate justice backed by a number of environmental and community groups and unions across the island, has pushed for a more decentralized and renewable grid that can be turned back on even when the grid endures massive damage. So far that hasn’t happened, even after the 2019 passage of a green energy law intended to bring more clean energy onto the grid. |
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, predatory “vulture funds,” i.e., investors specializing in distressed assets, seek to make a buck off Puerto Rican debt, while the Obama-era Financial Oversight and Management Board has demanded austerity measures and privatization from the island’s government. It’s not hard to see how Puerto Rico’s unequal status in the United States has led to this situation. Over a million homes remain without power as of the drafting of this newsletter, days after the storm. “It’s a tragedy that most Puerto Ricans saw coming,” Luis Martinez of the Natural Resources Defense Council told Vox’s Umair Irfan earlier this week. And that was only with a Category 1 storm. Climate change will most likely make hurricanes more severe as time goes on. Perhaps the only thing more disturbing than realizing that policymakers saw this coming, yet chose not to act upon it, is the near-certainty that, if they continue on this track, these kinds of avoidable disasters will happen again and again—and get worse. —Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor |
|
|
|
|
{{#if }} Our writers and editors are bringing you vital reporting, explanation, and analysis to understand the current climate crisis—but they need your help.
Here’s a special offer to subscribe to The New Republic. |
—Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor |
{{/if}} |
|
|
|
California-based produce supplier Taylor Farms is apparently experimenting with a renewables-heavy microgrid to get around the state’s frequent blackouts. That’s not going to help the broader statewide problem, but it may draw attention to just how unsustainable the current situation in California is, as well as introduce more people to the concept of microgrids—which wouldn’t be a bad thing! |
|
|
Duke Energy has been leaking a shocking amount of the extra-strong greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride, according to reporting from Inside Climate News and NBC. TNR has previously covered Duke Energy’s many other environmental malfeasances, but this story is nevertheless pretty appalling. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That’s how much Denmark just pledged to pay toward climate-related “loss and damage” in more vulnerable countries, becoming the first rich country to make this pledge. Rich countries, and particularly the U.S., as Kate wrote last year, have strongly opposed setting up loss and damage funds, which they fear would open the door to talking about rich countries’ historical responsibility for the bulk of climate change. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elsewhere in the Ecosystem |
Whenever the British royal family pops up in headlines, you can bet your next quart of coffee that goofy and embarrassing commentary won’t be far behind. It didn’t take too long, for example, for people to start wondering whether Charles will be a “climate king,” because he supports conservation and is a longtime organic gardening enthusiast. Yet the new monarch’s environmental views are heavily tinted by racist Malthusianism and aesthetics-first thinking. I’ll admit to special affection for Mary Annaïse Heglar’s trenchant summary, not least because it comes with an action plan for the new king: |
|
As Shannon Osaka lays out in The Washington Post, the former Prince of Wales sees population growth in the Global South (much of his former Empire) as a grave threat to the future of the environment and has fought wind farms on his own property. Classic NIMBY behavior. Plus, he does all this while flying around the world on his private jet! Look, I’m not big into shaming people for their personal carbon footprints, but I take exception for the King of England. Not only does the private jet make him a hypocrite as a climate voice, it was paid for by the blood and tears of so, so many people. Which brings me to my final point: the only climate-woke monarchy is No Monarchy. If the Royal Family wants to be part of the climate solution, their role has to start with putting things back where they belong. The wealth of the monarchy should be refashioned into reparations. The crown jewels should go back to the countries they came from. That private jet needs to come out of the sky. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Subscribers Are Reading |
Yvon Chouinard’s decision to transfer ownership of the company to a trust and nonprofit has received glowing reviews. But the details matter. And Patagonia hasn’t always delivered on its promises of sustainability. |
|
|
Details on the permitting reform demanded by Senator Manchin remain scant. Many fear it could prove a giveaway to fossil fuel companies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
