American E-Waste Piles Up

The United States has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to dealing with electronic waste. As reported yesterday in Scientific American, the US is one of the largest producers of e-waste in the world, yet we have no federal regulation in place to monitor toxic chemicals that go into our electronic products, and no federal regulation to monitor where they go when we're done with them.

As of today, 19 states have their own laws for e-waste, but these have little influence over large manufacturers. A patchwork of individually-tailored state laws as opposed to one comprehensive set of guidelines makes it difficult for large manufacturers to comply, and easy for them to turn a blind eye.

A team of researchers at the University of California found that obsolete electronics in US households add up to more than 1.36 million metric tons of potential e-waste. Most of our e-waste is sent out of our own backyards to Africa, China and India, where items are sold second-hand or broken down for their copper and iron components. But without regulation in the manufacturing stages, toxic chemicals from the used electronics leach into the environments where they end up after having been discarded by US consumers.

The Senate introduced a bill in July of 2009 that, if passed, will be the federal government's first step toward monitoring which chemicals are allowable in the manufacture of electronic devices, as well as the ways in which electronics can be legally recycled. But this initial bill focuses on research. Although it is a clear step forward, it is still leagues behind where we could and should be -- working not only on research, but on fully-formed manufacturing, recycling and disposal methods.

While we wait for the government to catch up, there are things we can do as individuals to promote responsible electronics recycling. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an Overbrook Foundation grantee, has been a staunch defender of electronics recycling laws in the city of New York. Search their site for current information on the state of e-waste in NYC. The Council on the Environment of New York City is another great resource, with two e-recycling events happening this weekend in New York.

Wisconsin Passes Producer Responsibility Bill

There’s good news in the world of sustainable consumption and production! Last week Wisconsin’s Governor Jim Doyle signed into law a new producer responsibility bill for electronics. That makes Wisconsin state the twentieth with such a statewide e-waste law. This bill was sponsored by Senator Mark Miller (D-WI), who was one of the first state legislators to introduce such a bill in the US, nearly eight years ago.

This law that Governor Doyle passed is modeled on the Minnesota producer responsibility law, which calls on manufacturers of computers, TVs and printers to meet collection goals tied to what they are selling. It also includes a ban on use of prison labor and it includes a disposal ban.

This is a significant victory in a lot of ways. While only two states such passed laws this year (Indiana is the other), Wisconsin’s new law is actually a very strong one. According to Barbara Kyle, the National Coordinator at the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, “We’d rather pass fewer laws with teeth, than see states pass weak bills that don’t really mean much. This has collection goals tied to sales, for computer, TV and printer manufacturers. Adding printers into the mix is an important development for meaningful laws.”

This bill also continues a strong show of support for producer responsibility laws. Wisconsin is the fourth state in the Midwest (along with Minnesota, Illinois and Indiana) that have recently passed such laws, which goes a long way in showing that regional momentum definitely helps in getting bills passed.

Additionally, and not surprisingly, Wisconsin’s bill was opposed by manufacturers, who clearly lobbied against it (mostly via their industry associations). A strong coalition of recyclers, local governments, NGOs, schools, and some other businesses were able to overcome these lobbying efforts to get this bill passed. It shouldn’t be understated the amount of time and energy that goes into passing a bill over the objections of a regulated industry.

Let’s hope this momentum from the Midwest carries into other regions. There’s no reason we shouldn’t have effective producer responsibility laws in every state. For a full list of laws by state, be sure to check out this great resource.

Jobs in Navajo Nation...At What Cost?

Native American communities are still feeling the deleterious effects of decades of uranium mining on their land, even though many mines have been closed since the 1980s. But outcry from Navajo communities over health risks and desecration of sacred lands apparently means nothing to energy companies that are lining up for permits. With the proposed Senate climate bill and upcoming talks in Copenhagen focusing on reducing CO2, many energy industry leaders are placing their bets on nuclear as the "clean and green" power of the future.

But the Navajo Nation knows first-hand that nuclear is far from safe. "This has multi-generational effects," said Early Tulley, Vice President of the Navajo group Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment. "I won't even live long enough to see what it does to people in 500 years." Tulley's wife and daughter have both battled cancers they attribute to radiation contamination on their land.

Since Uranium mining began in the 1940s, The Navajo Nation has been ravaged by kidney disease and cancer, diseases that had previously occurred so rarely among Navajo that words to describe them did not even exist in their native language. Now the Navajo know what cancer is, and they have spent decades petitioning the government to acknowledge its link to uranium mining.

Mining companies counter the horror stories of rampant illness with assurances that today's methods and oversight of mines are much more stringent than they were in the past. In situ leaching, a uranium extraction method in which chemicals dumped into an aquifer leach out uranium, was recently described by an industry executive as perfectly environmentally safe. The water contaminated in the process is purified at the end of the process, but generations of Navajo who have seen their families suffer from poisoned environments will not accept industry assurances blindly.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar instituted a two-year moratorium on awarding new mining claims in New Mexico, but the issue is still up for debate. There is no doubt that opening new uranium mines will add jobs and rejuvenate the economy in the Navajo Nation, but at what cost?

A Victory for Net Neutrality

We’ve blogged often about the importance of network neutrality. Well there’s been an important and historic development. Yesterday, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Net Neutrality, which follows through on its earlier promises to preserve an open Internet.

Over 1.6 million people have supported Net Neutrality in the past few years and more than tens of thousands came out in the last week to stand behind the FCC. Yesterday’s vote was an extremely important step forward in securing an open Internet and it was a decisive victory for the public interest and civil rights organizations, small businesses, Internet innovators, political leaders and the public who will all be impacted by this decision.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn voted in favor of the rulemaking; Commissioners Meredith Attwell Baker and Robert McDowell gave partial support to the proposal.

The proposed rules would codify the four open Internet principles that now guide the FCC’s oversight and enforcement of communications law. The FCC also proposed rules that would codify two new principles prohibiting Internet service providers from discriminating against content or applications and ensuring that network management practices be transparent.

The FCC is seeking public comment on these proposals, with initial comments due by January 14, 2010 and reply comments due by March 5. Free Press will send an announcement out as soon as you can start filing official comments.

This victory is no doubt in part due to the hard working folks in the media reform movement. Congratulations to them all! Let’s hope this is the first in a series of victories for Network Neutrality.

This Saturday -- Climate Action in Your Neighborhood!

Author Bill McKibben's web site 350.org is initiating a world-wide day of climate action this Saturday, October 24th, with events as widespread as a black-tie gala in Shanghai to a group hug in Yukon Territory, all in the name of protecting the environment.

"350" refers to the atmospheric CO2 level McKibben and others want world political and business leaders to focus on as a stabilization goal. The earth hasn't seen 350 parts per million since 1987, a huge leap from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, but not even close to the 400-550 ppm to which some scientists fear we are currently headed. Among scientists, 350-550 ppm is considered the range in which drastic and irreversible climate change will occur, such as massive sea level rise, changes to ecosystems, agriculture and animal migrations.

"Our job is to change the political reality," McKibben said, "because the physical and chemical reality is not going to change."

350.org has reaped the rewards of social networking sites, and since the idea for an International Day of Climate Action was posted, it has spread virally around the world. Saturday, over 4,000 events are planned in 170 countries, with 1500 in the United States alone.

Go to the site to search your zip code for events happening near you.

Nuclear Power Controversial as Ever

The United States is currently reviewing 18 new construction applications for nuclear power plants, and is considering doubling the allowable temporary above-ground storage limit for radioactive waste. This would raise the current 20 year limit to 40, with the idea that in 40 years researchers will have come up with a solution for permanent storage. But scientists and industry leaders are no closer to consensus than they were when the first nuclear power plants began operating in the '50s. Many remain skeptical about the proposed extra twenty years, wondering if they will bring us anything more than dangerous waste piled up in our backyards.

Power utilities are championing nuclear power as the new "green" fuel since its production does not produce any greenhouse gases. But many environmentalists, as well as citizens living near nuclear plants, argue the waste is too dangerous to be considered "clean," even if the actual power generated does not hurt the environment.

Quoted yesterday in Bloomberg News, Georgui Kastchiev, senior scientist for nuclear safety at the University of Vienna's Institute for Risk Research said, "New plants will continue to be built with no concern for where to put the spent fuel. A solution to the problem is constantly being moved to some point further in the future."

No one debates a viable solution for safe, long term nuclear waste storage remains elusive. Where industry leaders and anti-nuclear activists differ is their perception of the level of risk taken when nuclear waste is stored in above-ground casks. Although designed for 20 or more years of storage, casks are vulnerable to weather and terrorists attacks. Storing waste underground is equally controversial because of unpredictable seismic shifts that could release radioactive waste into soil and groundwater.

Even so, fifty new plants are currently being built worldwide. China is building 16 with 90 proposed, and the United States is reviewing 18 applications. Japan and India have also expressed interest in building nuclear power capacity in coming years.

One General Electric executive went as far as to call spent fuel an "opportunity," pointing to the unused energy in the waste.

Meanwhile, the long debated repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain has been abandoned, after $9 billion in utility company funds paid for investigating the safety of the site.

A New Media Analysis of the Status of Women

There’s a major media analysis of the status of women underway and it’s called, The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything. The report is spearheaded by Maria Shriver, with powerhouse partners including the non-profit The Center for American Progress, The Rockefeller Foundation, NBC News and Time Magazine. The basis of the project is a nearly 500 page report and national poll on where we, as women, are today.

Progressive Women’s Voices alum Courtney Martin wrote a conclusion of the report, and The Women's Media Center (WMC) is singled out in the Media chapter as a place to look for answers: "We would do well to trumpet the analysis of The Women's Media Center..." WMC co-founder Gloria Steinem writes exclusively on the WMC website about the potential for good news and bad news in the multi-million dollar effort:

"You have to pay attention to understand that the immediate cause of workforce parity is not women's advancement but men's job loss: three out of four paychecks eliminated by the recession have been in construction, manufacturing and other fields that are better paid and therefore still overwhelmingly male."

You can read Gloria Steinem’s full essay "It's Not a Man's World or a Woman's Nation” online. You can also watch the CNN Headline News's Joy Behar Show discussing the report with Joy and Judith Regan. Check that out here. Women’s Media Center also placed our SheSource expert Heidi Hartmann of the Institute for Women's Policy Research in MSNBC's coverage of the report, which you can watch here.

Money Talks for the Planet

Experts in the biological, ecological and social sciences concluded the DIVERSITAS conference in Cape Town today (see my 10/14 post), revealing some startling and positive preliminary research on the real costs and benefits of ecosystem services.

DIVERSITAS participants weighed the cost of environmental degradation against the cost of preserving coral reefs, forests, coastlines, grasslands, and more. While the upfront cost of preservation and clean-up is sometimes significant, in every single example the rate of return was found to be positive. Pavan Sukhdev of the United Nations Environment Programme and head of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project presented research on the economic worth of coral reefs worldwide, breaking down specific aspects of the cost benefits of a healthy reef. According to Sukhdev, the breakdown looks like this:

• Food, raw materials, ornamental resources: average $1,100 (up to $6,000);
• Climate regulation, moderation of extreme events, waste treatment / water purification, biological control: average $26,000 (up to $35,000);
• Cultural services (eg. recreation / tourism): average $88,700 (up to $1.1 million)
• Maintenance of genetic diversity: average $13,500 (up to $57,000)

Combined, Sukhdev says global coral reef services have an annual value of about $172 billion.

Although his research appears to be great news, and just the "eureka!" moment industry leaders and policy makers need, Sukhdev says we are far from the path we need to be on to salvage coral reefs. Sukhdev says coral reefs are unlikely to survive in an atmosphere with CO2 levels above 350 parts per million, but the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found CO2 already at 379 ppm in 2005.

DIVERSITAS participants found similarly positive cost-benefit ratios when looking at deforestation. According to their research, cutting deforestation rates in half has a net value of about $3.7 trillion, not to mention an added benefit of absorbing 4.8 gigatonnes of carbon each year that would otherwise spew into the atmosphere.

Click here for a chart listing the various biomes studied and their respective costs and benefits.

At its conclusion, the 600-plus participants of the DIVERSITAS conference proposed an Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which would work similarly to the IPCC.

"We call on governments and non-governmental organizations to join us in establishing IPBES as soon as possible," the concluding statement implored. "The fabric out of which the Earth system is woven is unravelling at an accelerating rate."

New Content from New America Media

There’s two great pieces of content recently thanks to New America Media, a nationwide association of over 700 ethnic media organizations representing the development of a more inclusive journalism (NAM), based in San Francisco, California. On Tuesday night, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer aired NAM editor Marcelo Ballve's report from Honduras on the political crisis there, including his exclusive interview with ousted President Zelaya at the Brazilian Embassy.

This report is the first step in a partnership between NAM and the News Hour to integrate NAM’s editors and ethnic media partners into the News Hour's reporting grid -- to widen the News Hour lens and expand visibility for the ethnic media sector. We hope that it’s the first of many News Hour collaborations. Please take a look at Marcelo's report by clicking here Zelaya Forecasts Dim Prospects for Honduras Negotiations.

Additionally, Richard Rodriguez, who has been an editor at New American Media since 1988 recently wrote “Final Edition: Twilight of the American Newspaper” for the November edition of Harper’s Magazine. His piece details the plight of American newspapers over the last decades and surveys the current media system with respect to how digital technologies are affecting the industry. Also if you’re interested in reading another essay Rodriguez’ wrote for Harper’s Magazine, “The God of the Desert,” which appeared in the January 2008 issue, click here.

These two reports out of New American Media are thriving examples of how the ethnic media continue to play a thriving role in our changing media landscape.

Cape Town Conference Warns Against Ignoring Global Biodiversity Loss

Scientists and policy makers are joining forces this week in Cape Town to address the growing problem of global biodiversity loss. DIVERSITAS, the international program hosting the Cape Town conference, will address questions on the future of biodiversity conservation. Now that we have the science to back up our observations, the DIVERSITAS panel will ask, what are we going to do about it as a global community?

Loss of animal and plant life has been on the scientific "radar" for years, but scientists' responses to the data are changing. Increasing numbers of scientists are joining with interdisciplinary teams in the hopes their research can be translated to tangible policy change, focusing on biodiversity loss as it relates to the world economy and the UN Millennium Development Goals to improve the lives of the world's poorest and most vulnerable communities.

Georgina Mace, Vice-Chair of the DIVERSITAS program, reflected this new melding of environmental protection with human rights. "Biodiversity is fundamental to humans having food, fuel, clean water and a habitable climate," she said.

Mace also acknowledged the intrinsic value of healthy ecosystems, saying "It is hard to imagine a more important priority than protecting the ecosystem services underpinned by biodiversity."

Use of the phrase "ecosystem services" reflects the growing point of view that biodiversity loss is equivalent to economic loss. It is difficult to quantify ecosystem services, but saving a place for the environment in the world economy could help lawmakers and industry leaders shift their views and actions toward the environment.

Two of the main topics to be addressed this week in Cape Town attempt to answer questions surrounding ecosystem services: how can we economically quantify the impacts humans have on the environment, and what are biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation worth? The program will also address possible economic incentives for the prevention of habitat destruction.

One of the clearer examples of ecosystem degradation as related to economic loss is the "major freshwater biodiversity crisis," according to Klement Tockner of the Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries in Berlin. Tockner says healthy freshwater ecosystems aid in water purification, disease regulation, agriculture and more. Tockner has done research on carbon sequestration in freshwater ecosystems, finding that about seven percent of the carbon humans emit annually is now absorbed by aquatic systems and their species. The seven percent can be quantified and directly related to health.

Anne Larigauderie, Executive Director of DIVERSITAS, reflected on the growing need to put a tangible value on biodiversity. "Ecosystem services are difficult to value, which has led to policy neglect and the irreversible loss of species vital to a well-functioning environment," she said.

Georgina Mace summed up the overriding feeling of the program in Cape Town, saying, "Meaningful action should have started years ago. The next best time is now."

President Obama and LGBT Rights

In case you missed it, President Obama addressed the Human Rights Campaign (the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization) this past weekend in Washington D.C. and announced publicly for the first time that he has added gay rights initiatives to his “near-term” agenda. The issue of gay rights is an area where Obama has been criticized since taking office, by not coming out in strong support of many of the issues that face the LGBT community. He is however, only the second president (besides former President Bill Clinton) to address this community openly and directly.

Obama has a lot of work to do to support gay rights during his presidency. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Bill Clinton in 1996) remains a formidable obstacle to equal rights for gay couples. Obama highlighted his commitment to repeal the act and promised to afford all rights to two men and two women in committed relationships that married couples have now. Additionally, the military policy of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” has most certainly run out its course of usefulness and must be eradicated. Obama did promise to sign into law the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, among many other promises (which would repeal “Don't Ask, Don't Tell”).

On one hand this feels like a historic moment, with a promise for a call to action for many of the key issues that are being discussed. President Obama is saying the right things. On the other hand, it’s taken Obama nearly a year to talk about these issues. Critics also say they are concerned with Obama’s unwillingness to present a timetable on many of these objectives. But speaking up for gay rights was and is the right thing for him to do, although in my opinion, he should have done it several months ago. But what bothered me most about Obama’s speech was that in his speech he said everything just shy of "I support gay marriage." Those four words, although small, would speak far beyond their terseness to the gay community and its supporters.

If President Obama can follow through on his promises, it will certainly go a long way toward building the presidency he hopes to pursue. If you want to watch President Obama’s entire speech, you can click here to view it. Following the speech, the Human Rights Campaign’s President, Joe Solmonese, released this statement acknowledging the historical importance of the speech.

GFEM Funder Briefing

Grantmakers in Film and Electronic Media is please to present a funder briefing call and toolkit release tomorrow from 12-1pm (EDT).

An unprecedented $7.2B in federal Broadband Stimulus funding is being distributed over the next 12 months for building out high-speed Internet access specifically to unserved and underserved communities. Beyond wiring these communities, there is government support for tele-health and economic development projects, online learning, technology training in schools and libraries, and much more.

Yesterday, the Benton Foundation released Philanthropy's Role in Creating a Connected America - a toolkit to help funders make the most of this historic opportunity. GFEM was pleased to have contributed to the production and distribution of this timely resource for the philanthropic community.

If you’re interested in discussing these issues further and part of the philanthropic community, please RSVP to join GFEM and our co-sponsors on Thursday, October 8th, for a lively discussion with colleagues featured in the toolkit and it's authors. We will hear how funders have gotten involved and how you can also: from convening informational sessions with grantees and providing funds for technical assistance, to actively coordinating and submitting regional proposals.

Presenters on tomorrow’s call will include:
- Laura Efurd, ZeroDivide
- Jill Nishi, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
- Bernadine Joselyn, Blandin Foundation
- Cecilia Garcia, Benton Foundation

If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Perlstein, at jperlstein@gfem.org, or to receive the call-in number.

Developing Nations Angry in Approach to Copenhagen

With only two short months before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, alliances are forming and tempers are flaring. Guardian environment editor John Vidal reported yesterday that a group of 130 developing nations is accusing the United States of planning to dismantle the structure of the Kyoto Protocol, in a back-handed effort to dump the responsibility of cutting emissions on the developing world.

Yu Qingtai, China's special representative to the climate talks, blames the UN Annex 1 countries (developed nations) for the continued lack of progress in emissions reductions and climate change mitigation. Lumumba Di-Aping, Sudanese Chair of the developing country conglomerate G77, echoed China's sentiment. Di-Aping characterized the U.S. and European Union's hedging as a "total rejection of their historical responsibilities."

Developing nations have long expressed discontent with what they see as a lackluster plan from the developed world, but the recent uproar was most likely a reaction to the Obama administration's admission that the U.S. Senate will not vote on a national climate bill in time for the Dec. 7 launch of the Copenhagen convention. The U.S. has also suggested dismantling the basic structure of the Kyoto Protocol, in which global emissions goals are agreed upon and bound by specific targets and timelines. The U.S. has proposed, with tacit agreement from the E.U., that legally binding plans be pushed aside in favor of individual national promises that would not be held to specific standards.

The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that developed nations need to cut their emissions by 25-40 percent by 2020 in order to avoid a larger than 2 degree Celcius global temperature rise. But an analysis by the Alliance of Small Island States reports the United States' pledge thus far would only reduce emissions by 16-23 percent, a revelation especially troubling to eroding islands surrounded by rising ocean levels.

Environmental groups from all over the world will converge in Copenhagen at the beginning of December, and there is still hope that world leaders will come up with a meaningful plan of action. Unfortunately, the convention will first have to overcome an increasing rift between nations.

Chamber of Commerce Losing Members

The United States Chamber of Commerce is losing members fast due to divisive views on climate change, an issue businesses have traditionally ignored.

In an inspiring turn of events, several businesses have dropped membership, citing discontent with the Chamber's stance against federal regulations that would curb carbon emissions. The Chamber does support incentives for clean energy, but still refuses to support any kind of legal requirement or regulation against spewing greenhouse gas.

As being green becomes a more and more prominent political issue, it is also an issue of fashion and public support. Consumers are starting to look at companies' political and environmental records before they buy. (See my post on GoodGuide.) Nike, for example, dropped off the Chamber's board issuing a statement that explicitly points to environmental policy as a key issue for the shoe and active wear company. Although Nike will remain a member in order to keep a pro-environment voice in the Chamber, the company resigned from the board as a statement that it supports climate change legislation. Like Nike, others that have left the Chamber say their views are no longer being correctly voiced, and they feel misrepresented.

The most recent drop-out is Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear plant operator. In a now widely distributed statement, Exelon chairman and chief executive John Rowe reflected a pragmatic point of view. "The carbon-based free lunch is over," Rowe said.

Many businesses see the writing on the wall and wish to be a part of crafting new legislation, as opposed to passively waiting for it to descend upon them. Others are actively fighting any kind of federal regulation, and are even going so far as to deny climate change is real. Grist posted a story last August about the Chamber's call for a "Scopes Monkey Trial" on climate change, in which the EPA would be forced to defend the science behind climate change before it could regulate emissions.

It is astounding that climate change naysayers still exist, even as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change works on its fifth assessment report, and world leaders from across the globe prepare to convene in Copenhagen to create a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Last weekend's Tavis Smiley Show from Public Radio International featured, among others, an interview with Congressman Marsha Blackburn about the proposed climate change bill in the Senate (Blackburn prefers to be called "congressman" as opposed to "congresswoman.") When Smiley asked Blackburn if she even believes climate change is real, she replied that the people of Tennessee see climate change in their own backyards, four times a year, winter, spring, summer and fall. Smiley was perhaps too polite to point out that what Blackburn was referring to is season change.

Despite the prominence of voices like Blackburn's, it does seem to be a waning prominence, and one undermined further by news of major businesses dropping out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to speak up for climate change legislation.

Google Earth Tackles Climate Change

Users of Google and Google Earth will soon be able to peer into the planet's future, using a variety of climate change scenarios through 2100. In anticipation of the United Nations Climate Change Convention in December, Google is partnering with the Danish government to launch a new component which will allow users to click on different emissions scenarios and time periods as they scroll around the globe.

The climate scenarios are gleaned from data in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Users can find the region of the world they live in and choose a decade they would like to look at, as well as the problem they're interested in (temperature and precipitation change are two choices ready now, but Google plans to add more in coming weeks such as water demand and species turnover.) In a video tour, Al Gore leads viewers through the new climate change options of Google Earth.

The effects of climate change are appearing in the news with alarming frequency. One hopeful result of the Google Earth tool is that people will be able to more immediately see climate change as a real and global problem that cannot be ignored. The option of scrolling through different results from varying emissions scenarios will also give difficult topics a visual component, and one that can be "played" with at home as opposed to a classroom or lecture hall. Another upcoming feature will be a regional "tracker," which will allow users to see what communities around the world are doing to mitigate changes and adapt to those beyond their control.

The news may be bad, but the tools and minds ready to deal with it are heartening! Check back in with Google Earth in the coming weeks to see how the new climate change tool progresses.