IPCC Report: Climate Change Is a Generational Justice Issue
Originally published by Union of Concerned Scientists, The Equation.
By Christina Swanson
How many times have we said this before? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) new report, its sixth since 1990, is a “wake-up call.”
The report, authored by more than 200 scientists from across the globe and based on more than 14,000 individual studies, is a comprehensive synthesis of the latest science on the changing state of our climate system. It concludes that it is “unequivocal” that climate change is being caused by human activities, primarily the burning of coal, oil, and gas. Yet, California, a state known for its progressive climate stance, just approved 40,000 new oil wells in Kern County, an area already littered with tens of thousands existing wells and among the most polluted regions in the state.
The IPCC reports that now, decades after scientists’ first warnings, our actions have pushed our climate into an “unprecedented” state. The increase in temperature measured since 1970, when I was a young teenager, is faster than for any other 50-year period going back at least 2000 years.
”It finds that virtually every child on the planet is exposed to at least one climate or environmental hazard right now.”
Adriana Calderón, Farzana Faruk Jhumu, Eric Njuguna and me write in NYT as @UNICEF publish their Children’s Climate Risk Index.https://t.co/J1fc9ZCLMW
— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) August 20, 2021
The IPCC’s report provides graphic descriptions of the human, ecological, and financial costs that we are already paying for climate driven heat waves, droughts, floods, and fires, and which will be worse in the future. According to the report, these types of climate and weather extremes are already affecting every inhabited region of the globe. As I write this, my drought-parched state, California, is burning again, with the Dixie fire consuming nearly 600,000 acres (almost 900 square miles!), destroying whole towns, and forcing thousands to evacuate.
And the IPCC sounds an urgent call for action, warning that we have very little time left if we are to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and avoid the worst, most catastrophic, and irreversible impacts of climate change. Global temperatures have already risen by an average of 1.1 degrees Celsius.
Reading the report, it is painfully clear that, by our ongoing societal failure to act on our knowledge to slow and reverse climate change, we are not only bringing disasters down upon ourselves, we are jeopardizing our children’s future.
This basically sums up our current situation. The “code red” IPCC report came out a week ago. Since then not one politician has been held accountable. Not one politician has been asked how they are going to act in line with this. 1/4
(Graph by @Peters_Glen ) pic.twitter.com/1r4vljDzJw— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) August 16, 2021
Climate change is not just an environmental problem that is damaging ecosystems, harming, displacing, and killing people, and driving species toward extinction on land and sea. It is not just an environmental justice problem that is inflicting disproportionate harm on marginalized and vulnerable communities, countries, and regions of the globe. Climate change, and its resultant and escalating environmental, social, and economic harms and costs, is a generational justice problem that my generation — and the nearly 70% of the total cumulative emissions that were generated during my lifetime — is dumping on our children and future generations. That’s not right.
But the report also tells us that there is hope and a path — a very slim and very challenging path — for us to reduce our carbon pollution enough to limit global warming to that critical 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold.
We know, and in fact we have known for decades what we need to do: replace coal, oil, and gas with clean energy alternatives for electricity, transportation, industry, and buildings; change the ways we use land and produce food to protect and regenerate the natural systems, like forests and wetlands, that absorb carbon dioxide; and, because climate impacts are already upon us, we need to change how and where we build, work, and live to adapt to survive our changing climate.
All of these changes are well understood and feasible, some are already in progress, and most of them will provide social and environmental benefits beyond their positive climate effects, like improved health from less air pollution. So why are we failing?
One simplistic answer is that change is hard and often slow because the societies and systems in which we live have the tendency for inertia. At a time when we need different and difficult decisions, by governments, by industries and businesses, by the finance and investment sector, by communities, and by individuals, we are instead intentionally framing and grounding our expectations, planning, and decisions in the context of the status quo, the way things are and have been and in pursuit of short-term outcomes.
And so, informed by the IPCC report, motivated by our own self-interest, and inspired by our moral and ethical responsibilities to our children and future generations, here is one approach that we can take to help guide and facilitate those different and difficult decisions. Rather than making decisions based on the status quo, we could instead evaluate our options and make decisions based on the future and what we want that future to be. For every proposal for a new oil well, pipeline or power plant, or for an expanded highway, urban development, or logging plan, we should be asking “Is this project consistent with the characteristics and constraints of a world in which we meet our climate goal and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius?” If it’s not, we shouldn’t do it.
“We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.”
This quote is perhaps overused by many of us in the environmental community, but it has always been one of my favorites. It resonates with my deep personal connection with nature, my training as a biologist, and my commitment to apply my professional efforts and talents to better protect our planet. But, with each passing year, as I have watched with joy and pride the next generation of my family grow to adulthood, it feels gloomier and more ominous, an accusation rather than inspirational rallying cry.
The new IPCC report is telling us — again — that we are trashing the planet we have borrowed from our children. We know we are doing it, we know what we need to do to stop it, and we don’t have much time left before the damage becomes catastrophic and irreversible. We are all responsible. We all have the responsibility to act. Most importantly (and most impactfully), policymakers at all levels of government, but especially those in Washington, must take decisive steps to confront the climate crisis. Not next year: now. And that means Congress should advance President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda, which weds an equitable recovery from the pandemic-drive downturn with the climate action we need now.
So please, let’s all of us wake up and get to work.
Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.
After years of teasing that other automakers would license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, Elon Musk has now admitted that no other automakers want to license it.
“They don’t want it!” He says.
For years, the bull case for Tesla (TSLA) has relied heavily on the idea that the company isn’t just an automaker, but an “AI and robotics company”, with its first robot product being an autonomous car.
CEO Elon Musk pushed the theory further, arguing that Tesla’s lead in autonomy was so great that legacy automakers would eventually have no choice but to license Full Self-Driving (FSD) to survive.
Back in early 2021, during the Q4 2020 earnings call, Musk first claimed that Tesla had “preliminary discussions” with other automakers about licensing the software. He reiterated this “openness” frequently, famously tweeting in June 2023 that Tesla was “happy to license Autopilot/FSD or other Tesla technology” to competitors.
The speculation peaked in April 2024, when Musk explicitly stated that Tesla was “in talks with one major automaker” and that there was a “good chance” a deal would be signed that year.
We now know that deal never happened. And thanks to comments from Ford CEO Jim Farley earlier this year, we have a good idea why. Farley, who was likely the other party in those “major automaker” talks, publicly shut down the idea of using FSD, stating clearly that “Waymo is better”.
Now, Musk appears to have given up on the idea of licensing Tesla FSD. In a post on X late last night, Musk acknowledged that discussions with other automakers have stalled, claiming that they asked for “unworkable requirements” for Tesla.
The CEO wrote:
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
Suppose you translate “unworkable requirements” from Musk-speak to automotive industry standard. In that case, it becomes clear what happened: automakers demanded a system that does what it says: drive autonomously, which means something different for Tesla.
Legacy automakers generally follow a “V-model” of validation. They define requirements, test rigorously, and validate safety before release. When Mercedes-Benz released its Drive Pilot system, a true Level 3 system, they accepted full legal liability for the car when the system is engaged.
In contrast, Tesla’s “aggressive deployment” strategy relies on releasing “beta” (now “Supervised”) software to customers and using them to validate the system. This approach has led to a litany of federal investigations and lawsuits.
Just this month, Tesla settled the James Tran vs. Tesla lawsuit just days before trial. The case involved a Model Y on Autopilot crashing into a stationary police vehicle, a known issue with Tesla’s system for years. By settling, Tesla avoided a jury verdict, but the message to the industry was clear: even Tesla knows it risks losing these cases in court.
Meanwhile, major automakers, such as Toyota, have partnered with Waymo to integrate its autonomous driving techonology into its consumer vehicles.
Electrek’s Take
The “unworkable requirements for Tesla” is an instant Musk classic. What were those requirements that were unachievable for Tesla? That it wouldn’t crash into stationary objects on the highway, such as emergency vehicles?
How dare they request something that crazy?
No Ford or GM executive is going to license a software stack that brings that kind of liability into their house. If they license FSD, they want Tesla to indemnify them against crashes. Tesla, knowing the current limitations of its vision-only system, likely refused.
To Musk, asking him to pay for FSD’s mistakes is an “unworkable requirement.” It’s always a driver error, and the fact that he always uses hyperbole to describe the level of safety being higher than that of humans has no impact on user abuse of the poorly named driver assistance systems in his view.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
CPSC warns Rad Power Bikes owners to stop using select batteries immediately due to fire risk
In an unprecedented move, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a public safety warning urging owners of certain Rad Power Bikes e-bike batteries to immediately stop using them, citing a risk of fire, explosion, and potentially serious injury or death.
The warning, published today, targets Rad’s lithium-ion battery models RP-1304 and HL-RP-S1304, which were sold with some of the company’s most popular e-bikes, including the RadWagon 4, RadRunner 1 and 2, RadRunner Plus, RadExpand 5, RadRover 5 series, and RadCity 3 and 4 models. Replacement batteries sold separately are also included.
According to the CPSC, the batteries “can unexpectedly ignite and explode,” particularly when exposed to water or debris. The agency says it has documented 31 fires linked to the batteries so far, including 12 incidents of property damage totaling over $734,000. Alarmingly, several fires occurred when the battery wasn’t charging or when the bike wasn’t even in use.
Complicating the situation further, Rad Power Bikes – already facing significant financial turmoil – has “refused to agree to an acceptable recall,” according to the CPSC. The company reportedly told regulators it cannot afford to replace or refund the large number of affected batteries. Rad previously informed employees that it could be forced to shut down permanently in January if it cannot secure new funding, barely two weeks before this safety notice was issued by the CPSC.
For its part, Rad pushed back strongly on the CPSC’s characterization. A Rad Power Bikes Spokesperson explained in a statement to Electrek that the company “stands behind our batteries and our reputation as leaders in the ebike industry, and strongly disagrees with the CPSC’s characterization of certain Rad batteries as defective or unsafe.”
The company explained that its products meet or exceed stringent international safety standards, including UL-2271 and UL-2849, which are standards that the CPSC has proposed as a requirement but not yet implemented. Rad says its batteries have been repeatedly tested by reputable third-party labs, including during the CPSC investigation, and that those tests confirmed full compliance. Rad also claims the CPSC did not independently test the batteries using industry-accepted standards, and stresses that the incident rate cited by the agency represents a tiny fraction of a percent. While acknowledging that any fire report is serious, Rad maintains that lithium-ion batteries across all industries can be hazardous if damaged, improperly used, or exposed to significant water intrusion, and that these universal risks do not indicate a defect specific to Rad’s products.
The company says it entered the process hoping to collaborate with federal regulators to improve safety guidance and rider education, and that it offered multiple compromise solutions – including discounted upgrades to its newer Safe Shield batteries that were a legitimate leap forward in safety in the industry – but the CPSC rejected them. Rad argues that the agency instead demanded a full replacement program that would immediately bankrupt the company, leaving customers without support. It also warns that equating new technology with older products being “unsafe” undermines innovation, noting that the introduction of safer systems, such as anti-lock brakes, doesn’t retroactively deem previous generations faulty. Ultimately, Rad says clear, consistent national standards are needed so manufacturers can operate with confidence while continuing to advance battery safety.
Lithium-ion battery fires have become a growing concern across the US and internationally, with poorly made packs implicated in a rising number of deadly incidents.
While Rad Power Bikes states that no injuries or fatalities have been tied to these specific models, the federal warning marks one of the most serious e-bike battery advisories issued to date – and arrives at a moment when the once-dominant US e-bike brand is already fighting for survival.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Rivian’s e-bike brand launches $250 smart helmet with breakthrough safety tech and lights
ALSO, the new micromobility brand spun out of Rivian, just announced official pricing for its long-awaited Alpha Wave helmet. The smart helmet, which introduces a brand-new safety tech called the Release Layer System (RLS), is now listed at $250, with “notify for pre-order” now open on ALSO’s site. Deliveries are expected to begin in spring 2026.
The $250 price point might sound steep, but ALSO is positioning the Alpha Wave as a top-tier lid that undercuts other premium smart helmets with similar tech – some of which push into the $400–500 range. That’s because the Alpha Wave is promising more than just upgraded comfort and design. The company claims the helmet will also deliver a significant leap in rotational impact protection.
The RLS system is made up of four internal panels that are engineered to release on impact, helping dissipate rotational energy – a major factor in many concussions. It’s being marketed as a next-gen alternative to MIPS and similar technologies, and could signal a broader shift in helmet safety standards if adopted widely.
Beyond protection, the Alpha Wave also packs a surprising amount of tech. Four wind-shielded speakers and two noise-canceling microphones are built in for taking calls, playing music, or following navigation prompts. And when paired with ALSO’s own TM-B electric bike, the helmet integrates with the bike’s onboard lighting system for synchronized rear lights and 200-lumen forward visibility.
The helmet is IPX6-rated for water resistance and charges via USB-C, making it easy to keep powered up alongside other modern gear.
Electrek’s Take
This helmet pushes the smart gear envelope. $250 isn’t nothing, but for integrated lighting, audio, and what might be a true leap forward in crash protection, it’s priced to shake things up in the high-end helmet space.
One area I’m not a huge fan of is the paired front and rear lights. Cruiser motorcycles have this same issue, with paired tail lights mounted close together sometimes being mistaken for a conventional four-wheeled vehicle farther away. I worry that the paired “headlights” and “taillights” of this helmet could be mistaken for a car farther down the road instead of the reality of a much closer cyclist. But hey, we’ll have to see.
The tech is pretty cool though, and if the RLS system holds up to its promise, we might be looking at the new bar for premium e-bike head protection.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024