News

Researchers Question Effectiveness of ‘Carbon Footprint’ Concept

Published

5 months ago

November 9, 2024

RTX

As the term “carbon footprint” marks its 25th anniversary this year, researchers are beginning to question its effectiveness in driving meaningful climate action. Initially popularized by the Oxford English Dictionary as the 2007 UK Word of the Year, the concept of a “carbon footprint” has helped raise awareness about the environmental impact of our personal choices, from the food we eat to the energy we use. However, some experts argue that the focus on individual responsibility may have diverted attention from the larger systemic changes needed to address climate change.

The term was first coined in 1999 by the BBC’s Vegetarian Good Food magazine and quickly gained traction. It became a widely recognized way to measure the environmental harm of everyday activities, such as the higher carbon emissions of beef compared to chicken. “It highlights how every choice we make, whether as individuals or organizations, contributes to environmental changes,” says Irene Bertolami, a researcher at the Eurac research center in Italy.

While the carbon footprint concept has helped raise awareness, it has not translated into decisive action by governments or businesses, according to Antje Boetius, director of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany. She points out that, despite widespread recognition of the term, reducing carbon emissions remains costly, and fossil fuel reliance continues to prevail. “Politically, [the term] has not led to proper conclusions regarding national carbon emission pathways,” she says.

Another issue is the lack of standardized methodologies for calculating carbon footprints, which leads to confusion and even greenwashing. A 2021 study highlighted the chaos in comparing the environmental impacts of different products and actions due to inconsistent definitions. Experts argue that standardization is crucial to avoid misleading calculations and comparisons.

Critics also point to the use of the term by major oil companies, particularly BP, which hired a public relations firm to popularize the term in the early 2000s. BP introduced one of the first carbon footprint calculators in 2004, which some see as an attempt to shift the responsibility for climate change onto consumers. “I think the PR of the oil industry has worked really well to divert attention from the need for systemic change,” says Boetius.

Rather than focusing on individual actions, researchers argue that the conversation should shift towards broader societal and governmental action. Tom Bradley, director of the environmental consultancy Decerna, calls the emphasis on personal carbon footprints a distraction. “We need a wholesale societal shift and a complete change in how everything is done,” he says.

Experts like Mathis Wackernagel, president of the Global Footprint Network, advocate for more comprehensive measures of sustainability, such as the Ecological Footprint, which accounts for overall resource consumption and waste generation. Wackernagel believes that instead of focusing solely on carbon emissions, we should measure the broader impact of human activities on resource security.

As the conversation around climate action evolves, researchers urge a shift in focus from blaming individuals to demanding more significant climate policies from governments and businesses. “Often people are surprised when they learn that a small percentage of businesses or individuals are responsible for the majority of carbon emissions,” says Boetius. Ultimately, experts suggest that the goal should be to secure resources and reduce pollution in ways that go beyond the individual level, creating more sustainable systems for the future.

News

Myanmar Struck by Aftershocks as Earthquake Death Toll Rises

Published

3 days ago

March 30, 2025

RTX

Myanmar continues to be rocked by aftershocks following the devastating 7.7-magnitude earthquake that struck on Friday, killing at least 1,644 people. The latest tremor, a 5.1-magnitude quake, hit near Mandalay on Sunday morning as rescue operations remained underway in the hardest-hit areas.

According to Myanmar’s ruling military junta, the earthquake has also left 2,376 people injured and 3,408 missing. While there were no immediate reports of further damage from Sunday’s aftershock, fears of continued tremors have kept thousands of people sleeping outdoors in Mandalay, Myanmar’s second-largest city.

Rescue Efforts Hindered by Damage and Conflict

Rescue operations remain challenging due to widespread destruction, damaged roads, and unreliable communication networks. The impact of the ongoing civil war has further complicated efforts, leaving civilians and local volunteers to handle much of the initial search and recovery work. Many affected areas remain inaccessible, and people have been digging through rubble by hand in scorching 41-degree Celsius heat.

“It’s mainly been local volunteers, local people who are just trying to find their loved ones,” said Cara Bragg, the Yangon-based manager of Catholic Relief Services in Myanmar. She added that while some countries are now sending search and rescue teams to Mandalay, hospitals are overwhelmed with the injured, and medical supplies are running low. Many survivors are also struggling to find food and clean water.

Mandalay, home to 1.5 million people, saw many buildings destroyed, including infrastructure such as bridges and the city’s airport. The disaster has left many residents homeless or too afraid to return to their homes due to the risk of further aftershocks.

Regional Impact and International Response

The earthquake’s effects were also felt in neighboring countries. In Thailand, at least 17 people were reported dead, with 83 still missing. The tremors even caused a tower to collapse in Bangkok. China also experienced the quake’s impact, though reports of casualties remain unclear.

Myanmar’s Shadow National Unity Government (NUG), which leads the resistance against the military junta, announced a partial ceasefire on Saturday to allow for rescue operations. The NUG’s armed wing, the People’s Defence Force (PDF), will suspend offensive military operations in the earthquake-affected areas starting Sunday.

While some international aid is beginning to reach Mandalay, the scale of the disaster has left many survivors in dire conditions. The coming days will be critical for search and rescue efforts, as well as for providing essential supplies to those left homeless by the quake.

News

Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Effort to Dismantle Voice of America

Published

4 days ago

March 29, 2025

RTX

A federal judge has temporarily halted the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle Voice of America (VOA), calling the move a “classic case of arbitrary and capricious decision-making.” The decision prevents the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees VOA, from firing more than 1,200 employees or shutting down its affiliated services.

Judge Blocks Mass Firings and Funding Cuts

Judge James Paul Oetken issued a restraining order blocking the USAGM from taking further action to terminate, furlough, or place employees on leave. The order also prevents the agency from cutting grant funding to other international broadcasters, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio Free Afghanistan.

The decision came after a coalition of VOA journalists, labor unions, and the nonprofit advocacy group Reporters Without Borders filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. The plaintiffs argued that the administration’s efforts violated a legal precedent protecting VOA journalists from political interference.

Following the ruling, USAGM announced it was restoring funding to Radio Free Europe after another court in Washington, D.C., ordered it to do so.

White House Justifies Defunding VOA

The Trump administration has been critical of VOA, claiming it harbors a “leftist bias” and fails to project “pro-American” values. The White House labeled the broadcaster “The Voice of Radical America” and justified its defunding as an effort to prevent taxpayers from supporting what it called “radical propaganda.”

Citing coverage it deemed too favorable to former President Joe Biden, as well as reports on topics like white privilege, racial profiling, and transgender asylum seekers, the administration sought to slash funding for USAGM and six other federal agencies.

VOA, founded in 1942, is mandated by Congress to function as a non-partisan news organization, providing independent journalism to global audiences. Critics argue that the Trump administration’s actions threatened press freedom and democracy.

Judge Criticizes Administration’s “Sledgehammer” Approach

During a hearing in Manhattan, Judge Oetken condemned the administration for dismantling a long-established agency with “no consideration of the effects.” He also singled out USAGM special adviser Kari Lake for making sweeping changes “seemingly overnight” without a clear strategy.

“This is a decisive victory for press freedom and the First Amendment,” said Andrew G. Celli Jr., the plaintiffs’ attorney. He described the ruling as a strong rebuke to the Trump administration’s disregard for democratic principles.

The plaintiffs also warned that VOA’s absence from the airwaves could leave a vacuum that might be filled by propaganda from authoritarian regimes.

Congressional Funding and Future Implications

Congress has allocated nearly $860 million (€794 million) for USAGM in the current fiscal year, signaling bipartisan support for the agency’s mission. However, the future of VOA and its affiliated networks remains uncertain as legal battles continue.

With this court ruling, the Trump administration’s push to defund VOA faces a significant legal hurdle, but the broader debate over the role of government-funded international broadcasting is far from over.

News

Russia Demands SWIFT Reconnection as Condition to Revive Black Sea Initiative

Published

7 days ago

March 26, 2025

RTX

Russia has set forth a key demand for the restoration of the Black Sea Initiative—reconnecting its Agricultural Bank, Rosselkhozbank, to the SWIFT financial system. This request, which falls under the jurisdiction of the European Union (EU), comes amid ongoing negotiations between global powers on the war in Ukraine.

Partial Ceasefire and Black Sea Security Agreement

Following recent talks in Saudi Arabia, the United States announced that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to a partial ceasefire specifically covering energy facilities. While this fell short of the broader ceasefire pushed by former President Donald Trump, the parties also agreed on measures to ensure the safe navigation of commercial vessels in the Black Sea and to prevent their use for military purposes.

However, the Kremlin quickly detailed additional conditions, demanding the lifting of sanctions on food exports, fertilizers, agricultural machinery, and cargo insurance. Most notably, Russia is insisting that Rosselkhozbank and other financial institutions involved in agricultural trade be reinstated on SWIFT, a global messaging system that facilitates secure financial transactions.

EU’s Role and Sanctions History

SWIFT, headquartered in Belgium, falls under EU regulations. In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU removed several Russian banks from SWIFT in 2022, including Sberbank, Credit Bank of Moscow, and Rosselkhozbank. The exclusion was a significant blow to Russia’s financial system, as it restricted the country’s ability to conduct international transactions.

Rosselkhozbank, a state-owned institution, plays a critical role in facilitating payments for Russia’s agricultural exports, a major revenue source through the global sale of wheat, barley, and corn. While the EU has not directly sanctioned Russian agricultural exports, the banking restrictions have complicated payments for these transactions, leading to the collapse of the initial Black Sea Initiative brokered by Turkey and the United Nations.

Diplomatic Tensions and Uncertain Outcomes

The demand to reinstate Rosselkhozbank puts the EU in a difficult position. Granting this request could signal a willingness to make concessions, potentially encouraging Russia to seek further sanctions relief. However, refusing it could provoke tensions with the Trump administration, which is eager to secure a ceasefire.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently opposed easing sanctions, arguing that they must remain in place until Russia ends its military aggression. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen echoed this stance, stating that sanctions would only be lifted after Russia takes concrete steps toward peace.

As EU sanctions require unanimous renewal every six months, any member state could disrupt the process. Hungary, which has previously expressed opposition to sanctions, could leverage this situation to push for changes when restrictions are up for review on July 31.

Future of SWIFT and Global Financial Pressures

While the EU holds the power to reinstate Rosselkhozbank’s SWIFT access, the U.S. could signal leniency by ensuring that those engaging with the bank avoid legal repercussions. Analysts suggest that Russia’s demand may be a strategic move to test both Washington and Brussels, pressuring the EU to reconsider its stance on financial restrictions.

For now, the EU remains firm in its approach. France has indicated that sanctions should remain unless Russia agrees to a full ceasefire, reparations, and security guarantees for Ukraine. However, with negotiations ongoing and international pressure mounting, the debate over SWIFT and broader sanctions relief is unlikely to fade anytime soon.