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.
Honda has officially unveiled the new WN7, its latest electric motorcycle and the first in a planned lineup of larger EV two-wheelers. Designed as a commuter-friendly electric motorcycle for the European market, the WN7 is part of Honda’s push toward carbon neutrality.
The launch shines more light on a reveal we’ve long been waiting for. But with a price tag of £12,999 (nearly US $18k), the real question is whether this modest commuter bike has a fighting chance in an increasingly competitive segment.
While Honda hasn’t released the full technical specs for the WN7 just yet, the company has revealed several key features that give us a glimpse of what to expect. The bike will be powered by a permanent magnet synchronous motor paired with a chain drive, offering a familiar mechanical setup for riders used to older combustion-engine motorcycles. Up front, riders will get a 5-inch color TFT display, and the bike will debut a newly developed Honda RoadSync app, which enables smartphone connectivity for navigation and communication. For added practicality, the WN7 includes a generous 20-liter underseat storage compartment, which should be a nice bonus for commuters looking to stash a helmet or daily essentials.
Honda estimates the WN7 will offer a range of over 130 km (83 miles) on a single charge, making it suited for daily commuting and city riding. It features a fixed lithium-ion battery and supports both home and rapid charging. Using a standard household outlet, riders can expect a full charge in under three hours, while a CCS2 rapid charger can top the battery up from 20% to 80% in just 30 minutes, adding flexibility for quick turnarounds during a busy day.
The WN7 is being marketed as a practical, everyday-use electric motorcycle targeting primarily younger riders in urban environments. Honda is also promising quiet operation, easy handling, and a new sound-emitting system to enhance pedestrian awareness, taking cues from current EV regulations in both automotive and two-wheeled segments.
Production is set to begin later this year at Honda’s Atessa plant in Italy, and the bike will be eligible for government EV subsidies in various European markets.
However, Honda hasn’t yet shared key specs like top speed, motor power, or battery capacity, all of which are vital to truly assessing how this electric bike stacks up in real-world use. But with the announced price of £12,999, it’s already clear that the bike won’t be price competitive against other commuter electric motorcycles in the market.
Electrek’s Take
Look, I’m excited to see Honda finally putting an actual electric motorcycle into production. This isn’t a concept or a lab experiment – it’s a real bike you’ll be able to buy. But with a price of £12,999 (approximately US $17,700) for what appears to be a commuter-level electric motorcycle, this thing might be dead on arrival.
Unless Honda is hiding some truly game-changing specs under the panels, this pricing just doesn’t make sense. Riders in the commuter category already have plenty of options ranging from electric scooters to motorcycles, with many models from smaller manufacturers offering comparable (or even better) range and speed for half the price.
Honda may be banking on brand loyalty, reliability, and build quality to justify the price, and maybe that will work for some buyers. But unless the WN7 delivers dramatically better specs than what’s currently been shown, most would-be EV riders are likely to look elsewhere.
This might be a huge milestone for Honda’s electrification roadmap, but it’s hard to call it a win for riders at this price point.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Uber Freight is launching a ‘Dedicated EV Fleet Accelerator Program’ in partnership with Tesla to lower the most significant barrier to electric Class 8 adoption: upfront cost.
The buyer program pairs purchase subsidies for Tesla Semis with pre‑arranged dedicated freight and route planning around Tesla’s Semi Charger network, which is currently being deployed in the US.
As the name implies, the Dedicated EV Fleet Accelerator Program aims to accelerate the deployment of electric vehicles in Uber Freight fleets.
Here’s how Uber aims to achieve that from the press release:
- Subsidized Price: Fleets purchasing Tesla Semis through this program will receive a subsidy on the purchase price.
- Predictable Growth: Fleets will integrate their Tesla Semis into Uber Freight’s dedicated solutions for shippers for a pre-determined period. This creates an opportunity for carriers to forecast revenue with confidence, while shippers gain consistent access to reliable, zero-emission capacity.
- Optimize Utilization: Uber Freight taps into its extensive freight network to match carriers with consistent, high-quality freight from our strong shipper base—helping ensure the addition of these Tesla Semis stay fully utilized and carriers see dedicated, real, measurable returns from the start.
Uber actually had a similar partnership with Tesla for its passenger vehicles in Uber’s ride-hailing fleet. Uber drivers were offered discounts on Tesla vehicles and Tesla integrated Uber’s app in its system to work with the car’s navigation and only suggest rides within the vehicle’s current range.
Now, Uber Freight will integrate its software on Tesla Semi trucks and help truckers get routes that work with the electric trucks and its
There are still many unknowns about the program. Primarily, we don’t know how much Uber and Tesla are subsidizing the trucks.
We don’t even have the price of the Tesla Semi.
Tesla originally announced a price of $150,000 for the 300-mile version of the Tesla Semi and $180,000 for the 500-mile version, but this was in 2017, when the electric truck was initially unveiled.
The vehicle program has been delayed several times since and Tesla never updated the price publicly since.
We recently reported on an early Tesla Semi customer, Ryder, complaining of a “dramatic” price increase. The price could have doubled, based on documents Ryders submitted to authorities to obtain financing for its Tesla Semi test fleet.
Now Uber Freight says that Tesla will review the total cost of ownership with potential fleet buyers through its new program.
Tesla Semi is now expected to enter volume production in 2026.
The automaker is also starting to deploy its Megacharger stations, EV fast-charging stations designed for commercial electric vehicles, such as the Tesla Semi.
It is currently primarily installing Megachargers at its own facilities and those of early test partners, but there are also a few public Megacharger stations on the way.
Electrek’s Take
This is cool. We don’t know the exact size of the subsidy, but it is a significant development that Uber Freight is offering more job opportunities for those who own an electric truck.
It should encourage more fleet managers to accelerate their fleet transition to electric vehicles.
The sticker price is often a significant barrier to EV adoption, even though the total cost of ownership is often cheaper than that of internal combustion engine vehicles. However, for truckers, the total cost of ownership is much more important since it is their business.
However, everything suggests that the Tesla Semi will cost closer to $300,000 than $150,000, and therefore, every consideration is important when making such a large purchase.
Interestingly, this new partnership coincides with Rebecca Tinucci’s recent appointment as CEO of Uber Freight.
Tinucci was the head of Tesla’s charging division until last year when she was reportedly fired, along with her entire team, by Elon Musk after she refused to let go a higher percentage of her team.
Now, she is back working with Tesla through this program.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla has agreed to settle another wrongful death lawsuit from a fatal crash involving Autopilot before the case could get to trial later this year.
It’s one of many lawsuits involving several crashes involving Tesla’s advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised), after the floodgates were open following a watershed trial.
Over the last few years, Tesla vehicles have been involved in numerous accidents involving the automaker’s advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS): Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised), better known as ‘FSD’.
Despite the names of those feature packages, they are not considered automated driving systems. They are Level 2 driver assistance systems and require the driver’s attention at all times.
Drivers and victims involved in those crashes have often sued Tesla, but the automaker has managed to have the cases dismissed, placing most of the blame on the drivers.
However, things started to change over the last year.
Last year, Tesla settled a wrongful death lawsuit involving a crash on Autopilot that happened in 2018, and last month, the automaker lost its first trial over a crash that occurred in Florida in 2019.
For the first time, a case went to trial before a jury, and they decided to assign a third of the blame for the crash to Tesla for the role Autopilot played. The rest of the blame was assigned to the driver, who had already settled with the victims and their families before the Tesla trial began.
The jury awarded the plaintiffs $243 million. The automaker has made clear its intentions to appeal the verdict.
Before the trial, the plaintiffs offered Tesla to settle for $60 million, and the company refused.
The trial process cost them much more.
The jury didn’t buy Tesla’s usual argument that it couldn’t be blamed because it clearly informs the driver that they are always responsible for the vehicle. The plaintiffs’ lawyers successfully argued that Tesla was careless in the way it deployed Autopilot, without implementing geofencing and marketing it to customers in a manner that encouraged the abuse of the system.
Following the trial results, Electrek reported that the “floogates of Autopilot lawsuits” were open.
There are dozens of additional lawsuits against Tesla involving incidents with Autopilot and FSD, and they are all riding on the verdict as well as all the information that came from the trial.
The same lawyers and law firms that represented the plaintiffs in the trial in Florida are also representing victims and the families in those other lawsuits.
Brett Schreiber, the lead attorney in the Florida case, is also leading Maldonado v. Tesla, another wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla involving its Autopilot feature. The case was set to go to trial in the Alameda State Superior Court by the end of the year.
The case involves a Tesla vehicle on Autopilot that hit a pickup truck on the highway, killing fifteen-year-old Jovani Maldonado, who was a passenger in the pickup truck. His father was driving him back home from a soccer game.
In a new court filing, Tesla and the plaintiffs have requested that the court approve a settlement that the two parties have reportedly agreed upon.
The settlement is confidential.
Electrek’s Take
Like I said, the floodgates are open. We are now starting to see the crashes that occurred in 2018 and 2019 being addressed in court.
This is just the beginning.
Crashes on Autopilot and then FSD have greatly ramped up starting in 2020-2021 with greater delivery volumes and Tesla launching FSD Beta.
I hope that more cases reach trial, as we do learn a lot more about Tesla and its deployment of driver assistance systems through them.
But with how the first one went, I am sure the automaker is much more eager to settle those cases.
However, can it just keep doing that?
There have already been over 50 deaths related to crashes involving Tesla Autopilot or FSD.
As morbid as it sounds, if the going rate for a Tesla Autopilot-related death is around $50 million, that’s already more than $2.5 billion and growing.
This is nuts. Will this continue to happen?
More people die in crashes involving Tesla’s half-baked ADAS products. Tesla continues to compensate the victims and their families with millions each time, essentially using the money it earns from selling the dream of those half-baked ADAS features eventually leading to real autonomy.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment12 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024