1/ In reflecting on my work this year I have just realized that everything I published concerned climate change: here is a roundup of my 2020 writing on #climate #justice, climate #reparations, climate #debt, climate #displacement, climate #mobilities & #disaster #recovery

#AirPollution, measured by annual PM2.5--particles finer than a human hair--reduced in bigger cities such as Delhi & Varanasi but increased in smaller cities such as Fatehabad & Moradabad, finds a @CSEINDIA analysis of 26 cities. Follow the thread for insights:

In many cities in the upper Indo-Gangetic plains, avg PM2.5 levels were above 2019 levels. #AirPollution in Fatehabad, in northern Haryana, deteriorated the most, with PM2.5 levels increasing 35% from 2019

The %age of PM2.5 in the coarser PM10--which determines air toxicity--was in the high 40s in Oct & remained so in Nov, averaging 55% in Amritsar, 48% in Chandigarh & 53% in Patna. It reached 64% in Amritsar, 69% in Chandigarh & 62% in Patna during #Diwali2020

#AirPollution reduced the most in Sirsa, 40km from Fatehabad, with a 44% lower avg PM2.5 2020 level vs 2019. This massive variation can’t be attributed to meteorology & has to do with local factors such as stubble burning, Avikal Somvanshi, CSE prog mgr, said in a press release

PM2.5 avg in Nov 2020 was 310% higher in Fatehabad, 104% in Agra and 57% in Kaithal, compared to November 2019

It's (nearly) five years since the Paris Agreement was gaveled through… but was it any good? Tricky question. Based on emissions, temperature data and impacts, no. *But...* (thread)

The team at @SystemIQ_LTD have crunched the numbers & reviewed how far + fast sectors have shifted since 2015. Their take is the global economy could be a decade away from seismic tipping points that see the world move fast towards low carbon.

In 2015, zero-carbon technologies and business models could rarely compete with incumbent carbon-solutions. In 2020, zero-carbon solutions are competitive in sectors representing around 25% of emissions. In 2030 the figure’s looking like 70%.

What does this mean for a COVID-smashed world, where 2021 is shaping up to be a hellish mix of recessions and mass unemployment? Well, the 2020s could see a net increase of 35 million low carbon jobs if governments roll out the right policies + invest wisely.

Can the low carbon acceleration be pinned to Paris? Not entirely, but partly. In 2014 no-one talked of net zero targets. Now 120+ countries either have these plans or are working on them. By mid 2021 the US, China, EU, UK, Japan, Korea, Canada will have these targets.

1/13 #ClimateChange is a result of a mindset, that is based on monoculture, fossil fuels, chemicals, corporate control. @BillGates cannot alter a condition with the same mindset that created it in the first place @Trevornoah @drvandanashiva

2/13 The mad rush for #FakeFood and #FakeMeat, ignorant of the #diversity of our food cultures & the role of biodiversity is a recipe for accelerating the #climatecrisis, the destruction of the planet & our health @drvandanashiva

3/13 The perpetrators of the industrialized & now digitized predatory economic model that has led to worldwide ecological devastation are trying to sell us their solutions as the only path forward @drvandanashiva @NnimmoB

4/13 The #GatesFoundation works to create a friendly regulatory environment to push its innovations regardless of risks or past failures by funding to align to its interests- media, research, start-ups, government programmes & international institutions

5/13 Amnesia and denial of past failures becomes evident with the @gatesfoundation new initiative #AgOne where only digital tech and the #GreenRevolution is seen as the solution to the #ClimateCrisis & #BiodiversityCrisis @drvandanashiva

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Some 70% of people, depends how you ask, accept the global emergency. Climate system destabilisation is one aspect, declining biodiversity and increasing pollution is another. I ask: what would actually *break* if humanity responded decisively? 1/

Climate: a decisive response = cap on fossil fuel extraction and planned phase out. Fewer private car journeys, less electricity. Nothing would *break*. We still live and eat. There are alternatives and we can all cut back and share more. So what are we afraid of breaking? 2/

Pollution: reducing the above helps all that, cracking down on pollution and biodiversity loss will reduce materials consumption but changing and sharing we can still live on the planet. What would break? 3/

Most pollution and resource consumption is done by rich people. Billions of poor people live and thrive so the rich can too. Nothing will *break* there? 4/

Of course, a rapid reduction in resource consumption, less of most things and enough of the essentials for everyone will *break*something. Economic growth for one thing. But if that broke, what would *break*with it? 5/

As 2020 comes to a close, we're taking a look back at some of our best reporting on the environment.

The American landscape has become 48 times more toxic to insects since the 1990s, a shift largely fueled by rising use of neonicotinoid insecticides.

Banned in the EU, a sophisticated information war has kept these insecticides on the U.S. market.

Amid California's severe wildfires, grape growers in Sonoma County got exemptions to send in farmworkers who have few alternatives or options for support into fire evacuation zones.

With Trump's election, a small and previously marginalized group of toxics apologists suddenly took control over health and environmental regulations, ushering in higher profits for polluters and higher cancer rates for the American people.

Steven Donziger won a multibillion-dollar judgment against Chevron in Ecuador. The company sued him in New York — as of December, he has been under house arrest for over 500 days.