Alito Recuses Himself From Climate Case; Proves Public Pressure Can Sometimes Work

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is recusing himself
from a case involving fossil fuel companies, reversing
his earlier plans thanks to public pressure. 

Public pressure against injustice actually sometimes works. Even when it involves the Supreme Court. 

Per CNN:

"Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito announced Monday that he will recuse himself from a major climate change-related case the court is set to hear next week, following weeks of pressure from environmental groups that argued he was compromised by his financial holdings in the oil and gas industry."

Alito sent a letter to the court clerk saying he would not participate in the case, but did not explain the reasoning behind his decision. 

The case involves Boulder, Colorado and whether it can sue Suncor Energy and ExonMobil for damages caused by climate change. Or whether state laws are pre-empted by federal law and separation of powers principles in the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court case will have a big impact on similar legislation on other states, including Vermont. 

Even with Alito apparently out of the picture,  it's unclear whether the rest of the Supreme Court will side with Boulder. The Supreme Court hasn't really been friendly to environmental initiatives in recent years. 

Alito owns stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, among other energy holdings, CNN reports. 

In any event, Alito's turnaround is a bit of surprise. Back in May, a Supreme Court spokesman had said that since Alito doesn't have stock in the oil companies involved in the court case, he needn't recuse himself. 

Alito's recusal came after a lot of public pressure. As Scotusblog reports:

"In May, a coalition of left-leaning watchdog groups urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Alito's involvement in the dispute, contending that his 'substantial holdings in individual oil and gas companies' among other issues, would 'undermine(e) public confidence in the impartiality of the Court.

They stated that Alito had 'previously recused from considering a petition brought by' the same companies involved in Suncor Energies, 'There is no apparent reason for this change in Justice Alito's recusal practices, and Alison provided no statement justifying his failure to recuse,' the groups wrote." 

There's a lot to complain about regarding our current U.S. Supreme Court, but this was at least a small victory in the name of fairness.

 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions In The United States Increased In 2025, Dropped In China,

It looks like this guy will ensure coal and oil use 
continue to spew more and more greenhouse gas
emissions into the atmosphere, but at least it looks
like China and India are trying 
to reign in fossil fuel use. 

 Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States went up by 2.4% in 2025, reversing two previous years of decreases, according to a BBC report.  

Part of the reason for the increase was just bad weather luck. January, 2025 was colder than most other recent winters. Homes burned more gas for heating than usual, while coal use rose by 13% to meet rising electricity demands. 

Data centers driven by soaring use of AI, and a raging cryptocurrency fad or industry (depending upon how how you look at it) were a big driver of the greenhouse gas emissions. 

We rightly blame Donald Trump for a bunch of new or looming environmental ills because of his militantly pro oil and coal stance. 

However the damage from Trump was probably minimal in 2025.  It'll almost surely increase starting this year. 

At least China and India seem to be counteracting the U.S. and preventing an enormous boom in emissions. Electricity generated by coal declined in India by 3%. China's coal generation was down 1.6 percent from the previous year. It's the first time since 1973 that coal-based electricity generation fell simultaneously in both countries.

 "The fall in 2025 is a sign of things to come, as both countries added a record amount of new clean-power generation last year, which was more than sufficient to meet rising demand," according to Carbon Brief, which did the analysis on India and China's greenhouse gas emissions. 

It's possible both countries are reaching a historic peak in coal use. Climatologists and other scientists are hoping from now, coal use in China and India continue to decline. 

China managed to reduce coal consumption despite electricity demand growing by 5 percent over the year. India's reduction in coal use might have been partly weather related. The extreme heat waves India has experienced in recent years were not quite as severe in 2025. 

Bottom line: We have a mixed future in further diminishing the global dependence on coal and oil. But the United States, once in a leader in the battle against climate change, has turned into the world's worst enemy. 

That seems to be a trend lately.  

Trump Pulls Out Of Climate Treaty, Continuing His Quest To Turn U.S. Into A Pariah Nation

Donald Trump is pulling out of a basic but hugely
important global climate treaty as he continues
his march to make the U.S. an economic and
political pariah basket case. 

 Donald Trump continued on with his desire to turn himself and the U.S. into a worldwide embarrassment Wednesday by announcing the United States is pulling out of a longstanding critical climate agreement. 

The agreement Trump is pulling the plug on is the overarching global treaty on climate change. It's called the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC.  We will now become the only nation on the planet not part of this agreement. 

The agreement, ratified by Congress in 1992, doesn't force the U.S. to cut fossil fuels or reduce pollution. But it forms the basis and sets up the process for climate agreements like the Kyoto Protocol in 1995 and the Paris Agreement in 2015. Both the 1995 and 2015 accords are considered two monumental moments of global cooperation in the fight against climate change, as CNN notes. 

Trump has already started the process of pulling the United States out of Paris Agreement. The process finishes up this month, which leaves the U.S., Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only countries not committed to the Paris accord.  

 The U.S was the first industrialized nation to join the UNFCCC treaty and it will be the only nation ever to leave it. So it's another sign of how far we've fallen under Trump, as if we need more evidence.

The UNFCCC was one of 66 organizations the U.S. is abandoning, as the administration announced Wednesday. 

"Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength," said a statement from the White House.

Which is rich, since we've been stomping all over other nations' sovereignty lately. 

Trump and his minions are part of a small and ever-shrinking group of holdouts who still think climate change isn't happening, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. The years 2023 or 2024 were the world's hottest on record. As of this writing, the number crunchers were still trying to figure out if 2025 was the world's second or third hottest year on record. 

Pretty much everybody outside the MAGA sphere thinks pulling out of the UNFCCC is an incredibly dumb idea. 

Politico is among the many news organizations giving us some examples:

"Of all the wreckage Donald Trump is leaving in his wake, this one could be among the most consequential and damaging, particularly for future generations," said John Podesta, the climate policy coordinator for Presidents Obama and Biden.

World Resources Institute U.S. Director David Widawsky said withdrawal from UNFCCC is "a strategic blunder that gives away American advantages for nothing in return."

Other critics point out that the United States will now miss out on billions or even trillions of dollars in clean energy investments as the world moves away from fossil fuel consumption. Whether Trump likes it or not.

Like pretty much everything Trump does, we don't even know if withdrawing from UNFCCC is legal. The Senate ratified it, so we don't know from a legal standpoint if Trump can unilaterally pull the plug by himself. 

But since we have a MAGA-majority Congress and a MAGA-majority Supreme Court, both of which have given up their authority to Trump, it doesn't really matter.  We used to be a nation of laws. Now, apparently,  the law is just what Trump says it is. 

If sanity ever returns, getting back into the UNFCCC would also be complicated. So would rejoining other pacts, like the Paris Agreement.  (The Paris agreement is the one that pledges to keep global warming to within 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-Industrial levels. It's getting more and more doubtful that goal can be accomplished, so now the goal seems to be shifting to 2 degrees).

As Politico tells us:

"Some legal experts say the Senate's consent does not operate in perpetuity after the U.S. leaves a treaty. Others argue that if a president can unilaterally leave a treaty, a future could rejoin it without a new vote.

Whatever happens, Trump is once again diminishing the nation's strength, influence and leadership, even as he somehow thinks he's increasing it. 

Trump is sort of the mascot of the Dunning-Kruger effect, part of which suggests that stupid people think they know a lot more about subjects than they do.  To Trump, as his narcissistic personality disorder rages out of control, thinks he alone is smarter than all of the climate experts out there. 

Plus he wants to keep his fossil fuel oligarch buddies happy, so there's that.  

EPA Scrubs Mention Of Human Caused Climate Change From Its Website

The EPA in recent weeks has scrubbed their websites 
of pretty much any information that climate change
is caused by humans. It's denial, and a way to 
help the fossil fuel industry. 

Once again, the Trump administration has wildly concluded that eliminating mention of human-caused climate change will somehow "prove" that it doesn't exist. 

Never mind that anybody with half a brain understands that by far the main driving force behind our warming world is us humans. 

The latest censorship and anti-science move is on an EPA website, on the page that explains the causes of climate change. Though it no longer accurately does that. 

Oh, on this page, climate can change, alright, the EPA admits. But whoever revised it is Mr. or Ms. Excuse coming up with all kinds of reasons the climate changes. Like these:

The Earth's orbit and rotation can change.

There's variations if solar activity.  

The Earth's reflectivity changes.

Volcanoes can blow up and the stuff they belch into the atmosphere changes the climate

There might be natural changes in carbon dioxide concentrations. 

They're so, so, close on that last one. As everybody except the Keystone Kops of the Trump administration know, humans are increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide, and that's making the world warm up. 

There's even a chart, right there, under their reasons for climate change list, that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide rocketing upward like mad since the Industrial Revolution started.   

On the social media site Bluesky, climatologist Daniel Swain wrote how he was able to compare the EPA web site that was up on October 8 with the current iteration. 

Human-caused warming was removed from the causes of climate change page that I described above. Swain also noted that there used to be "indicators of climate change" pages on the EPA website that have been scrubbed entirely. "The pages no longer exist; there are numerous dead links on the current/live EPA site, and no indications they have been moved to a new URL" Swain said. 

Other pages that describe how climate change can affect children's health and low income populations are also now gone, as the Washington Post notes. 

Not only is climate information deleted from the EPA sites, the web pages out and out lie. Earlier versions of the web site say the buildup of greenhouse gases have resulted in "dangerous effects" to humans and the ecosystem. Now, the pages say the greenhouse effect "is natural and necessary to support life."

Sure. unless you let the greenhouse effect spiral out of control via all us humans belching fossil fuel emissions. 

 Swain, wearing his Captain Obvious hat, had this to say:

"...it is still profoundly alarming that the primary regulatory body for environmental protection and pollution control in this country is not actively ignoring scientific evidence. This will end poorly."

The response at the EPA of these questions raised by Swain, the Washington Post and others is typically juvenile and nonsensical of the Trump administration. 

Hold your nose as you read this missive from EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch. :

"Unlike the previous administration, the Trump EPA is focused on protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback, not left-wing political agendas.... As such. this agency no longer takes marching orders from the climate cult."

It's always a projection from Trump and MAGA, isn't it?  Our minion Brigit describes solid science as a cult. Meanwhile, MAGA seems to be like the ultimate cult.  

The recent revisions on the EPA site might well be an effort to tee up a move to get rid of something called the endangerment finding. 

That's a legal and scientific foundation for standards and rules put in place back in 2009 that serves as a legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. 

That's because Trump, and by extension EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, want to gift the oil and gas industry with more ways to make money atop their already record profits. 

The EPA, at Trump's behest. also wants to roll back controls enacted in 1990 that limited sulfur dioxide pollution. Sulfur dioxide in the air causes smog and acid rain. 

By the way, I did see little "oopsie" they left in at the top of their "climate change causes' page:

"Natural processes are always influencing the earth's climate and can explain climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution of the 1700s. However, recent climate changes cannot be explained by natural causes alone."

Looks like one of the climate deniers over the EPA didn't proofread as much as Trump might have hoped.  

Carbon Emissions Set To Set New Highs This Year

Global fossil fuel emissions are continuing to rise
in 2025, despite increases in renewal sources
like solar and wind. 

The only real way to blunt climate change is to reduce and even end humans' nasty habit of belching ton after ton of fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere.  

So far, it's not working. 

Per the Washington Post: 

"Fossil fuel emissions are projected to rise by 1.1 percent, amounting to 38.1 billion metric tons of fossil carbon dioxide emissions in one year, the report found." 

This is another nail in the coffin for the goal to keep Earth beneath a 1.5 degree Celsius warming threshold that many experts said would constitute catastrophic warming. 

"Catastrophic" is in the eye of the beholder of course. But the world is still slightly below that 1.5 degree threshold, and climate change is already killing thousands of people annually at minimum, and is causing billions of dollars in damage. 

Going past the 1.5 degree warming Greenland ice sheet melting would accelerate to sea level rise enough to threaten cities around the world. Heat and humidity would make big swaths of the world essentially uninhabitable. 

Crop failures, disease and weather disasters would greatly accelerate, according to scientists. 

Already, right now, heat waves are much worse and more frequently than they used to be. Storms are stronger, deadlier and more destructive. 

In another recently released report. the International Energy Agency says that under current policies, the world will have warmed nearly 3 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Even if nations stick to strict clean energy policies that would make worldwide coal and oil demand peak by 2030, warming would still be close to 2.5 degrees. 

United States emissions will probably increase by 1.9 percent this year. Driving the increase was a somewhat colder winter than the previous two. Plus, natural gas prices went up, so there was a corresponding increase in coal consumption. 

It looks like big emitters like China and India will have only slight increases in 2025. China's annual emissions unto increases until recently have been huge, but it has slowed way down in recent years, they've plateaued. This year, their fossil emissions are expected to increase just 0.4 percent over last year. 

India's emissions will only increase by 1.4 percent this year, less than previous years. But that might be because record heat was less widespread in India this year than recent seasons so air conditioning use was lower. 

The bottom line is renewable energy is growing by leaps and bounds, but energy demand is outstripping that. 

It does seem like the goal post for peak fossil fuel emissions keep moving. Over the past few years, we keep getting told that peak fossil fuel emissions are imminent, and would soon start to decline. But it never happens. 

Per the Washington Post:

"'The expectation is that Chinese and global fossil CO2 emissions should peak soon based on growth in renewable energy,' said Glen Peters, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate Research and one of the Carbon Budget report's authors 'But emissions keep growing, making the peak always seem like it is one year away.'"

BRIGHT SPOTS

Although global fossil fuel emissions are rising more slowly over this decade so far than previous decades, so the hope of an eventual reversal in emissions is still alive. Maybe barely, but alive.

 There are some bright spots in the annual emissions reports. Emissions in at least 35 countries have decreased in the past decade while their economies have grown. Many developing countries have radically increased their solar and wind power capabilities. 

Also, the BBC tells us:

"Electricity generated from fossil fuels is forecast to flatline or even decline slightly this year, according to the think tank Ember, for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic". 

That's despite the fact that electricity demand increased sharply this year. The extra demand has been more than met by solar generation, and to a somewhat lesser extend, wind power.  

Annual Climate Talks Hosted By Mideast Oil Kingdom Raises Questions

Is the UAE making big oil deals at a huge annual climate
conference of all things? 

 There's a big international annual meeting going on, this year called COP28, which is meant to negotiate the worldwide policy tangle associated with climate change.  And make tons of political speeches, mostly meant to burnish the reputations of those who attend. 

The thing that raises my eyebrows to the ceiling of the Scottish hotel I'm currently staying at is why an oil kingdom is hosting such a major climate event.

More on that in a minute, but first, let's take a step back and figure out what the big shot meeting is about in the first place. The Washington Post explains it better than I can:

"More than 100 world leaders are scheduled to address the gathering Friday and Saturday. The speakers include French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Brazilian President Luis Ignacio Lula da Sila, according to a list released by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

After the speeches have concluded, the negotiations will begin in earnest. Delegates from nearly 200 countries are expected to haggle over whether to phase out fossil fuels, the primary driver of global warming and whether to provide more money to help developing nations cope with the ravages of climate change."

The whole shindig is taking place at in the United Arab Emirate, not exactly the world's biggest hotbed of EV, protests to stop fossil fuel and climate activism. 

Heading up the talks at this big gathering is Sultan Al Jaber, who is chairman of UAE's renewable energy office. That sounds nice enough. But he's also chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. 

The annual COP conferences are rotated every year among five global regions, and this year it's Asia-Pacific.  UAE is in that area, but so are lots of other nations. The UAE made an unopposed bid to host this year's big affair, so that's where it's happening. 

UAE hopes to make itself look good by getting everybody agree to a better, more extensive "loss and damage" agreement - that's what the Washington Post referred to up above to aid for developing nations swamped by disasters caused by or made worse by climate change. 

So in a perfect world, UAE makes itself look better by creating an environment that helps nations that really need it. I can't argue with that goal.

But I'm a cynic. So are a lot of other people out there.  I'm not sure everyone is trusting UAE here. 

The Centre for Climate Reporting and the BBC obtained documents showing that the UAE planned to use its role in hosting the climate talks to strike oil and gas deals with 15 nations.  Yes, that does seem a bit unseemly, doesn't it?

According to the BBC:

"(The documents) included proposed 'talking points such as one for China which says Adnoc, the UAE's state oil company is 'willing to jointly evaluate international LNG (liquefied nature gas) opportunities in Mozambique, Canada and Australia.

The documents suggest telling a Columbian minister that Adnoc 'stands ready' to support Columbia to develop its fossil fuel resources."

The BBC has lots and lots of details in its report in conjunction with the Centre for Climate Reporting. I won't get into it all here, but it's pretty fascinating to wade through. 

As the Centre for Climate Reporting (CCR) writes:

"Prof Michael Jacobs of Sheffield University, who is an expert on climate politics, said the COP28 president's actions look "breathtakingly hypocritical."

Ya THINK?

Anyway, Jacobs goes on: 

"The UAE at the moment is the custodian of the United Nations process aimed at reducing global emissions. And yet, in the very same meetings where it's apparently trying to pursue that goal, it's actually trying to do side deals that will increase global emissions,"

As for the UAE, their response to the CCR was: 

"....a COP28 spokesperson said: 'Dr. Sultan Al Jaber holds a number of positions alongside his role as COP2 President-Designate. That is public knowledge. Private meetings are private, and we do not comment on them."

CCR said former COP presidents and others associated with the event said GOP presidents should never make their nation's commercial interests part of the climate talks. 

"As a COP president you should not represent any national or commercial interest, it is your job to leas the world," said Manuel Pulsar-Vidal, the president of the COP20 summit in Lima in 2014.

'You can't represent the interests of a country or a business because it will undermine confidence and trust in the presidency," he said. 

The annual COP climate conferences have done some real good, of course. 

The third of these meetings, GOP3 in Kyoto, 1997, the first time nations formally agreed to reduce carbon emissions COP21 led to the Paris agreement, in which nations agreed to try limiting the increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and shoot for no more than 1.5 degrees.

That 1.5 degrees is looking less and less realistic, but at least it was a goal that might have helped the process of reducing emissions.

However, I'm not optimistic about this iteration.  Some annual COP meetings fall short. This one might be that way, too. 

I just hope it doesn't do the opposite and ultimately make climate work. 

Working From Home Helps Battle Climate Change

Working from home instead of commuting to work
can help combat climate change, but
you have to do it right. 

 Your boss might not like you working from home. But you might, since you don't have to hassle with the annoying commute every day.  

If you want to press your case to work remotely instead in the office, try this really good argument, courtesy of the Washington Post: 

"Fully remote workers could produce less than half the climate-warming emissions of people who spend their days in offices according to a new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

Switching from working onsite to working from home full time could reduce a person's emissions by 50 percent. Hybrid schedules, where people work from home two to four days a week can cut emissions buy 11 to 29 percent. 

It does seem like a large proportion of employers are gravitating toward the hybrid model, but that won't  reduce fossil fuel consumption as much as working exclusively from home could. 

Many employers have really gravitated to a hybrid model, but that might have that much effect in battling climate change.

The climate benefits of working from home only work if you do it right. Which can get complicated. 

As Scientific American reports, the analysis regarding the environmental effects of working at home looked at five factors: Commuting, non-commute travel, information technology devices and residential energy use. 

If at least part of  your motivation for working at home is to fight climate change, you still have to be smart about it. Sure, eliminating your commute will prevent fossil fuel emissions. But the analysis indicates some people who work from home end up taking several short car trips during the work day, which cancels out the positive effects of avoiding a commute.  

Working from  home might also tempt you to crank up the air conditioning in your home on hot summer days, or blasting the heat in the winter. That also offsets the climate change fighting power of working at your home office instead of commuting in to the cubicle farm.

(OK, as I write this from home, I just now realized an unnecessary light was on.  This story inspired a tiny, tiny bit of good: I just shut off the light. Perfectly bright enough in here).

If your boss insists on making you come to the office, you can greatly offset your carbon footprint by taking public transportation or riding your bike.  In many places, including here in Vermont, public transportation is woefully inadequate in getting people to and from their jobs with a decent level of efficiency.  

 

  

Wild, Important Climate Change Court Ruling From Montana, Of All Places

A successful climate lawsuit in Montana has legal experts
expecting more litigation to enforce climate change policies.

 Here's a new one. A good one, actually. From ultra-conservative Montana!

Here's the story, from the Washington Post:  

"In the first ruling of its kind nationwide, a Montana state court decided Monday in favor of young people who alleged the state violated their rights to a 'clean and healthful environment' by promoting the use of fossil fuels.

The court determined that a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act has harmed the state's environment and the young plaintiffs by preventing Montana from considering the climate impacts of energy projects. The provision is accordingly unconstitutional, the court said. 

The sweeping win, one of the strongest decisions on climate change ever issued by a court, could energize the environmental movement and usher in a wave of cases aimed at advancing action on climate change, experts say."

The case involved 16 Montanan youths, ages five to 22.  It was the first constitutional and first youth-led climate lawsuit to go to trial, says WaPo. 

Youth-led climate lawsuits have really become a thing around the world, but it's been hard to get one of these off the ground in the United States.  Fourteen such  cases have been dismissed in the U.S., WaPo reports. 

Of course, this isn't the end of the Montana case.   It will be appealed to the state Supreme Court.  A spokesperson for the Montana Attorney General said the ruling was "absurd"  and Montanans can't be blamed for causing climate change. 

It's absolutely true that Montana contributed an exceedingly small share to climate change.  This case alone will not "solve" climate change. But Montana does contribute a tiny bit to our altered climate. After all, Montana is a major coal producer and has a lot of coal in the ground yet that can be mined or otherwise recovered for use as a fossil fuel. 

Rikki Held, whose name is on the lawsuit said, "I know that climate change is a global issue, but Montana has to take responsibility for our part in that."

This case does have a better chance than others because of the Montana Constitution. That constitution has the phrase that the state's residents have a right to that "clean and healthful environment."

Youths who brought the suit hammered at that wording in their litigation and testimony. A 15-year old with asthma described being a prisoner in  her own home home when wildfire smoke blanketed the state. (Does that sound familiar? Seems wildfire smoke has been a problem everywhere these days, including here in "clean" Vermont).

The practical effect of the Montana ruling involves a law that blocks the state from considering emissions and climate change when considering whether to approve energy projects. That type of law applies in a number of conservative oil, gas and coal producing states. 

You'd better believe Montana Republicans and the state's petroleum and coal industry will be fighting hard for an appeal to this court ruling.  An industry spokesperson told the Washington Post that it will be hard to approve coal and oil projects and those approved would be subject to time-consuming and costly litigation. 

 "'If this decision stands, it will cause great economic harm to the state of Montana," said Alan Olson, the executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association.'"

Still, it's definitely possible the Montana Supreme Court will uphold the ruling, despite the appeals and opposition from the fossil fuel industry.

According to the Montana Free Press/Flathead Beacon: 

"Speculating about what the Montana Supreme Court might do on appeal, retired Supreme Court Justice  Jim Nelson called the case a 'slam dunk home run' and said he expects the state's highest court will have a difficult time overturning the decision.

'I think this is one of the most powerful decisions I've ever read on the environment in Montana,' said Nelson, who said on the state Supreme Court for nearly two decades."

Even though other states don't have the "clean and healthful environment" language in their constitutions, the Montana case will probably open the door to other climate lawsuits in other states. Lawyers and activists are surely combing state laws and constitutions nationwide to support their causes. 

This opens yet another front in the battle for real climate change action.  Some of it is coming from just the free market that so many Republicans tout. After all, companies that promote and create means of renewable energy are making money hand over fist, and hiring, in large part because the demand is there. 

Some local and state governments, and to an extent federal agencies are beginning to take climate change more seriously, as voters are increasingly demanding it. At least in some corners of the nation and world. 

And for those that are clinging to the fossil fuel past, expect more litigation like this.  

 

Will Olympic Athletes Choke On Foul Beijing Air? Some Officials Worry

Officials are worried about air pollution in and near 
Beijing during the upcoming Winter Olympics next month.

On top of everything else to worry about with the upcoming star-crossed Winter Olympics - Covid, China's government, etc there's another potential problem: nasty air pollution.  

As the Washington Post notes:

"With less than two weeks to go  until the Opening Ceremonies of the Beijing Winter Olympics, the Chinese government said is battling 'extremely unfavorable' weather to clear the city's skies of hazardous smog."  

Air quality in Beijing has a reputation of being lousy, especially in the winter, when temperature inversions trap pollutants over the city.

An inversion is a layer of relatively warm air over a layer of colder air at the surface. The inversion acrs as a lid, preventing pollutants from blowing away and dispersing. 

The Chinese government has been working for months, even years, to find ways to minimize the winter pollution in time for the Olympics.

Agence France-Presse reports:

"In an attempt to clear the smoggy skies, steel plants around the city were ordered to cut production in half in August and coal stoves in 25 million households across northern China were replaced with gas or electric burners ahead of the Games."

Fine particulates which can cause problems ranging from heart attacks to lung cancer to premature babies, was at 33 micrograms per cubic meter of air last year.. That's down by a third from 2013 but still about six times higher than levels recommended by the World Health Organization, notes Agence France-Presse. 

Fossil fuels are of course a huge source of the problem in China.  Almost 60 percent of China's economy is powered by coal.  China has also seen surges in fossil fuel imports and mining to combat power shortages that have dampened factory output and the overall economy.  

The immediate weather forecast is not terribly encouraging. Conditions favoring a temperature inversion are expected to intensify as we approach the end of the month. Chinese celebrate Lunar New Year's Eve on January 31 with fireworks, which would certainly worsen the pollution in Beijing. 

The Olympics are scheduled to run from February 4 to 20.