8 mars

Le riz nourrit plus de la moitié de l’humanité depuis 9 000 ans. Mais selon une étude publiée dans Communications Earth & Environment, le réchauffement climatique progresse désormais 5 000 fois plus vite que la capacité d’adaptation de cette plante. Les régions rizicoles atteignent des températures jamais enregistrées dans toute l’histoire de cette culture — et le milliard de personnes qui en dépendent directement commence à manquer de temps.

The Green Scare created precedents that today reach far beyond radical environmentalism, and threaten anyone willing to engage in direct action.

Environmental defenders across Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia are increasingly facing legal pressure, intimidation and attempts to restrict their work. Non-governmental organisations warn about a steady rise in SLAPP lawsuits (1), defamation cases, claims for compensation for alleged damages and other tactics intended to discourage public scrutiny of industrial, mining and development projects with a negative impact on environment. Civic oversight is becoming more difficult, especially for those who challenge powerful economic or political interests.

Yet, as the climate crisis worsens, the civic space for climate protests is shrinking. Instead of focusing on meeting their commitments to reduce climate change, governments are threatening environmental protectors—from Indigenous communities defending their ancestral lands to young activists protesting the expansion of fossil fuels—with intimidation, legal harassment, and at times deadly violence. New forms of attacks are emerging, like the use of counterterrorism laws against climate activists, who are vilified in public and political discourse. And governments have been ratcheting-up their repression of such protests.

The criminalization and repression of climate and environmental activists have intensified globally in the past few years.1 These are forms of backlash against often impactful social movements. The repressive wave has sparked major concerns in many quarters, with the UN secretary general, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, and many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), politicians, and social movements speaking out against it.2 In this article I will draw on findings from a University of Bristol project that I led on this topic.3 Driven by a combination of state and corporate actors, the repression of climate and environmental protest is a truly worldwide phenomenon that takes place across the Global North and South.

In a landmark paper, the UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders warns that the continued State efforts to repress and criminalise environmental protests, including direct action and civil disobedience, are a threat to fundamental freedoms and democracy itself.

A Climate Rights International report exposes the increasingly heavy-handed treatment of climate activists in Australia, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the US. It found the crackdown in these countries – including lengthy prison sentences, preventive detention and harassment – was a violation of governments’ legal responsibility to protect basic rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association. It also highlights how these same governments frequently criticise regimes in developing countries for not respecting the right to protest peacefully.

The Global Justice Project is a collective research initiative developed by the World Inequality Lab. Combining comparative historical data series from the World Inequality Database with global input-output tables, environmental accounts, labour force surveys and other sources, the project explores what a just distribution of socio-economic and environmental resources could look like at the global level from 2025 to 2100 – both between and within countries – in a way that is compatible with planetary boundaries. The project partly builds on the analysis and proposals set out in Thomas Piketty’s Brief History of Equality, extending them into a broader and more comprehensive global framework. The Global Justice Project is now available to explore on a dedicated website, that includes an interactive tool to explore the distributional pathways and climate scenarios behind the report.

La construction d'un datacenter en Utah a entrainé une opposition farouche des habitants. La course à l'IA repose la question de l'équilibre entre technologie et ressources limitées en eau, en terres arables et terres rares, en électricité. De nombreux datacenter vont utiliser des énergies fossiles.

L’ONG Transport & Environment calcule que la demande pour ces carburants produits à partir de ressources agricoles pourrait bondir de 30 % en 2026 et de 70 % d’ici à 2030.

While green technologies can hypothetically make supply chains more efficient, enhanced efficiency often leads to more production and economic growth, not less.

Modi denied climate change for years. Now, as heat deaths mount, his government offers branding instead of protection.

Patrick Pester is the trending news writer at Live Science. His work has appeared on other science websites, such as BBC Science Focus and Scientific American. Patrick retrained as a journalist after spending his early career working in zoos and wildlife conservation. He was awarded the Master's Excellence Scholarship to study at Cardiff University where he completed a master's degree in international journalism. He also has a second master's degree in biodiversity, evolution and conservation in action from Middlesex University London. When he isn't writing news, Patrick investigates the sale of human remains.

Climate change is causing measurable harm globally1,2. Political and legal efforts seek to link these damages with specific emissions, including in discussions of loss and damage (L&D)3,4; however, no quantitative definition of L&D exists5,6, nor is there a framework to link past and future emissions from specific sources to monetized, location-specific damages. Here we develop such a framework, which is integrated with recent efforts to estimate the social cost of carbon7. Using empirical estimates of the non-linear relationship between temperature and aggregate economic output, we show that future damages from past emissions—one component of L&D—are at least an order of magnitude larger than historical damages from the same emissions. For instance, one tonne of CO2 emitted in 1990 caused US$180 in discounted global damages by 2020 ($40–530) and will cause an additional $1,840 through 2100 ($500–5,700). Thus, settling debts for past damages will not settle debts for past emissions. In other illustrative esti

Trump has launched an unprecedented assault on the environment. Where’s the pushback?