News

California’s dire drought conditions have finally triggered more meaningful action at the state level. Today, Gov. Brown issued an executive order which calls on state and local water agencies “to implement a series of measures to save water, including increased enforcement to prevent wasteful water use, streamline the state’s drought response, and invest in new technologies,” said California Coastkeeper Alliance.

The governor issued the statement today as readings of the April 1 assessment came in, which showed snowpack levels are at their lowest since the state started keeping records (approximately 6 percent of normal levels, compared to 24 percent of normal levels last year).

“Today we are standing on dry grass where there should be five feet of snow. This historic drought demands unprecedented action,” said Gov. Brown. “Therefore, I’m issuing an executive order mandating substantial water reductions across our state. As Californians, we must pull together and save water in every way possible.”

The lack of snowpack will result in very little or no runoff from the Sierra into California’s reservoirs and rivers, posing a serious problem for the already incredibly water-starved state. Only a few weeks ago, NASA scientist Jay Famiglietti warned “the state has only about one year of water supply left in its reservoirs.”

Gov. Brown directed the State Water Resources Control Board to implement mandatory water reductions in cities and towns across California to reduce water usage by 25 percent. After a series of weak measures involving voluntary conservation orders issued by Brown’s administration, organizations such as Waterkeeper Alliance, California Coastkeeper Alliance and Los Angeles Waterkeeper praise the mandatory conservation order.

The organizations said they “are encouraged by measures to increase reporting and monitoring of water usage, a needed move to improve local enforcement.” They also praised “the requirement that local water agencies adjust rate structures to implement conservation pricing.” They are however concerned “about how streamlining permitting of drought salinity barriers could harm Delta smelt, Chinook salmon and other threatened and endangered fish and other species.”

According to the governor’s statement, the issue will also:

• Replace 50 million square feet of lawns throughout the state with drought tolerant landscaping in partnership with local governments;
• Direct the creation of a temporary, statewide consumer rebate program to replace old appliances with more water and energy efficient models;
• Require campuses, golf courses, cemeteries and other large landscapes to make significant cuts in water use; and
• Prohibit new homes and developments from irrigating with potable water unless water-efficient drip irrigation systems are used, and ban watering of ornamental grass on public street medians.

This executive order comes on the heels of emergency legislation, which was signed by Gov. Brown last week to fast-track more than $1 billion in funding for drought relief and critical water infrastructure projects.

As for whether the order will be a game changer, Liz Crosson, Los Angeles Waterkeeper executive director says, “Local jurisdictions have to implement and enforce these measures to actually reduce water usage. Many of the State Board’s mandatory measures are still not enforced in Los Angeles. Until Californians take the drought seriously, we will continue to see reserves depleted and the future become more uncertain. The next step for California is to set mandatory daily limits on gallons per person per day.”

And while California may be one of the farthest “up the creek,” Marc Yaggi, executive director at Waterkeeper Alliance, points out climate threatens all of our world’s waterways. “Nearly every region in the country is facing increased risk of seasonal drought and as we’re seeing in California, climate change is wreaking havoc on the sustainability of our water supplies,” says Yaggi. “We need to amplify the voice of communities that are suffering in order to demand action from our leaders at the global level before it’s too late.”

With the Paris climate talks looming in December, nations are being challenged to come up with climate action plans to mitigate their own impacts on climate change. The informal target for climate plans to be submitted to the UN is today and they have begun to trickle in.

The U.S. released its plan today, putting it ahead of such major countries as China, India, Russia, Canada and Australia. Australia, which has been a laggard on climate issues thanks to Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s commitment to fossil fuels, has said it will not release its plan until mid-year, and it is currently seeking public input on what its emissions reduction target should be.

The U.S. said it would reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent over 2005 levels cut by 2025, the same pledge that President Obama made last November in Beijing. Many other countries are looking to the U.S. pledge for direction.

“The U.S. is strongly committed to reducing greenhouse gas pollution, thereby contributing to the objective of the Convention,” said the announcement. “The target is fair and ambitious. The U.S. has already taken substantial policy action to reduce emissions, taking the necessary steps to place us on a path to achieve the 2020 target of reducing emissions in the range of 17 percent below the 2005 level in 2020. Additional action to achieve the 2025 target represents a substantial acceleration of the current pace of greenhouse gas emission reductions.”

America is taking steps to #ActOnClimate, and the world is joining us → https://t.co/Ft0xj1KpIJ pic.twitter.com/yqaM9MMwgt

– The White House (@WhiteHouse) March 31, 2015

“By announcing its plan ahead of Paris as agreed, the U.S. has at least shown it is committed to the negotiation process and willing to push the other nearly 200 countries to deliver,” said Greenpeace legislative director Kyle Ash. “It is incredibly important countries move quickly in developing strong proposals for climate action so we can step back and assess the progress toward an agreement in December.”

Americans agree. A new poll released yesterday found that 72 percent of Americans support the U.S. signing an international climate agreement.

“We applaud the Obama Administration for following through on the ambitious commitment made last November with China by pledging clear, significant action to tackle the climate crisis and protect our children and grandchildren,” said Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune. “We’ve seen the effects of unmitigated carbon pollution take their toll around the world, but this announcement is further proof that the U.S. is stepping up to lead the world in pursuing solutions.”

“Momentum for real climate action is building at a historic rate. With our nation moving away from coal and the world embracing clean energy at a record pace, this announcement and others like it open the door to meet the 2 degree celsius goal needed to avoid catastrophic climate change. In the coming months, we expect additional ambitious commitments to pour in that will further prove the world is ready to act and keep us on the right track to Paris and beyond,” Brune concluded.

On Friday, Mexico became one of the first countries to formally submit its plan, saying it will cap its greenhouse gas emissions by 2026 and reduce them by 22 percent by 2030. The country, considered an “emerging” nation, said it would do so without financial help from wealthier, developed countries.

“The U.S. welcomes the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) submission by President Peña Nieto earlier today and applauds Mexico for being the first major emerging economy to formally submit its INDC,” said a White House press statement. “Mexico is setting an example for the rest of the world by submitting an INDC that is timely, clear, ambitious and supported by robust, unconditional policy commitments. We hope that Mexico’s actions will encourage other economies to submit INDCs that are ambitious, timely, transparent, detailed and achievable.”

In addition, President Enrique Peña Nieto and U.S. President Barack Obama announced a new joint clean energy and climate policy task force intended to “further deepen policy and regulatory coordination in specific areas including clean electricity, grid modernization, appliance standards and energy efficiency, as well as promoting more fuel efficient automobile fleets in both countries, global and regional climate modeling, weather forecasting and early alerts system.”

“On the occasion of Mexico submitting its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), President Barack Obama and President Enrique Peña Nieto reaffirm their commitment to addressing global climate change, one of the greatest threats facing humanity,” said the White House. “The leaders underscore the importance of jointly addressing climate in their integrated economy.”

Switzerland was the first country to submit its INDC plan, which promises to reduce its emissions by 50 percent from 1990 levels by 2030. It did so on February 27. The 28-nation European Union (EU) followed on March 6 with a promise of a 40 percent reduction in the same time frame. Norway also submitted its plan on Friday, making a commitment identical to the EU’s while suggesting it might step up its level of commitment.

“If it can contribute to a global and ambitious climate agreement in Paris, Norway will consider taking a commitment beyond an emission reduction of 40 percent compared to 1990 levels, through the use of flexible mechanisms under the UN framework convention, beyond a collective delivery with the EU,” said Norway’s climate and environment minister Tine Sundtoft in a statement. “We need more international cooperation to meet the climate challenge. Both Norway and the EU have high ambitions on climate and view climate measures in the context of long-term transition to low-emission societies. By linking our climate efforts, we can achieve better results.”

According to the New Climate Institute, which is tracking the submissions, the first wave submitted by the end of March is expected to cover less than 30 percent of global emissions, but more than 50 percent are likely to be covered in plans submitted by June. Oct. 1 has been set as the deadline for the submission of all INDC plans in order to assemble the final report for the December talks.

Paris itself is gearing up for the talks by moving toward divestment. Paris city council voted earlier this month to divest from fossil fuel holdings, the first European city to do so. If ratified by Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, it would bar the city’s newly created endowment fund from investing in fossil fuel industries and phase out such investments from the city’s pension funds.

In an open letter to Hidalgo, 350.org founder Bill McKibben, 350.org France campaigner Nicholas Haeringer and This Changes Everything author Naomi Klein, along with 18 French co-signers, said, “People concerned about climate change were so happy to hear the news that the Paris City Council had gone on record as favoring divestment from fossil fuel companies. The motion is a very important step towards a fossil fuel free future. That’s why it’s so imperative that the city government now agrees to implement this wise recommendation, and ensures that the newly created endowment fund never invests in fossil fuel companies, while making sure that the council members’ pension fund divests from the sector.”

“With Paris playing host to the next climate talks at the end of the year, it has a responsibility to set an example and to go a step further,” they added. “The city could take a leadership role in local authorities’ climate action and call other cities in France to join the divestment movement. The momentum behind a Fossil Free France would help immeasurably as the world heads toward the important climate negotiations in Paris this December.”

CREDIT: Shutterstock

The new chair of the powerful Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is expected to secure a vote Thursday by the U.S. Senate on a controversial proposal to sell off America’s national forests and other public lands.

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) amendment to Congress’s budget resolution would support and fund state efforts – which many argue are unconstitutional – to seize and sell America’s public lands. These include all national forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, historic sites, and national monuments.

Murkowski’s amendment follows a similar proposal from House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rob Bishop (R-UT) to spend $50 million of taxpayer dollars to fund the sale or transfer of U.S. public lands to states.

The land grab proposals in Congress this year appear to echo the calls of outlaw rancher Cliven Bundy, best known for his armed standoff with federal officials last year, who has infamously refused to recognize the authority of the federal government, including over public lands.

Murkowski’s proposal to sell off public lands, however, is meeting stiff opposition from other western senators. On a conference call yesterday, Senators Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) said that they are determined to turn back legislative attacks on the outdoors. Bennet called efforts to sell off lands to reduce the federal deficit “an assault on our public lands.”

Senator Heinrich also introduced an amendment Wednesday which would block any effort to sell off public lands to reduce the federal deficit. Heinrich said that “selling off America’s treasured lands to the highest bidder would result in a proliferation of locked gates and no-trespassing signs in places that have been open to the public and used for generations.”

Public opinion research has found that a majority of Westerners oppose land grab efforts and believe that transferring public lands to state control will result in reduced access for recreation; higher taxes; increased drilling, mining and logging; and a high risk that treasured public lands will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Over the past few months, sportsmen’s groups have also been battling state efforts to seize and sell off public lands by rallying in state capitols across the West. Land Tawney, Executive Director of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, thanked Senator Heinrich for introducing his amendment and fighting for public lands.

“American hunters and anglers have consistently stood up in support of U.S. public lands since Theodore Roosevelt set them aside for all Americans more than a century ago,” Tawney said. “Today, Congress has responded.”

The dueling Senate amendments are expected to be voted on during the Senate’s “vote-o-rama” budget amendment series later on Thursday.

Despite public opposition that has so far blocked the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, the fossil fuels industry has successfully-and quietly-expanded the nation’s domestic oil network by installing thousands of miles of pipeline across the country, according to new reporting by the Associated Press.

“Overall, the network has increased by almost a quarter in the last decade,” the AP reports. “And the work dwarfs Keystone. About 3.3 million barrels per day of capacity have been added since 2012 alone-five times more oil than the Canada-to-Texas Keystone line could carry if it’s ever built.”

While the Keystone project is still in limbo, the petroleum industry has “pushed relentlessly everywhere else to get oil to market more efficiently, and its adversaries have been unable to stop other major pipelines,” writes AP journalist Henry Jackson.

That’s not to say they haven’t tried.

In Minnesota, for example, local opponents succeeded last year in getting state regulators to consider rerouting a 616-mile pipeline proposed by Toronto-based Enbridge around lakes and forests, delaying it for at least a year.

“More typical, though, was an Enbridge project to double the capacity of a 285-mile stretch of pipeline in Michigan,” Jackson writes. “Groups like the Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands fought the proposal, citing a spill in 2010 that caused serious environmental damage. But the Michigan Public Service Commission ruled the project acceptable, and the expansion went ahead.”

Opposition to local pipeline projects is ongoing. In Iowa, the Meskwaki Indian tribe is objecting to a Texas company’s plans to construct a 343-mile crude oil pipeline across 18 Iowa counties, the Des Moines Register reported Monday.

“As a people that have lived in North America for thousands of years, we have environmental concerns about the land and drinking water,” tribal chairwoman Judith Bender wrote in a letter filed last month with state officials. “As long as our environment was good we could live, regardless of who our neighbors were.”

She continued: “Our main concern is Iowa’s aquifers might be significantly damaged. And it will only take one mistake and life in Iowa will change for the next thousands of years. We think that should be protected, because it is the water that gives Iowa the best way of life.”

An analysis released in November by the Center for Biological Diversity found that there have been more than 8,700 significant incidents with U.S. pipelines involving death, injury, and economic and environmental damage since 1986-more than 300 per year.

In fact, a new proposal from the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration “is an implicit acknowledgment that some of the oil industry’s testing technology isn’t sophisticated enough to detect cracks or corrosion in time to prevent a pipeline’s failure,” according to Energy & Environment Publishing’s EnergyWire, which reported exclusively on the plan on Monday.

According to EnergyWire:

Almost two years after an Exxon Mobil Corp. pipeline split open and sent Canadian crude flowing through a neighborhood in Mayflower, Ark., federal regulators have quietly proposed a sweeping rewrite of oil pipeline safety rules.

If the proposal is finalized in its current form, as much as 95 percent of the U.S. pipelines that carry crude, gasoline and other liquids-182,000 miles-would be subject to the new rules and about half the system may have to undergo extensive tests to prove it can operate safely, according to information from the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

The plan, known as the Hazardous Liquids Integrity Verification Process, is an implicit acknowledgment that some of the oil industry’s testing technology isn’t sophisticated enough to detect cracks or corrosion in time to prevent a pipeline’s failure. And for the first time since PHMSA was created, it may wind up telling companies they have to replace certain aging pipelines.

The oil and pipeline industries are already lobbying against the idea, EnergyWire reports, though few details about the plan are publicly available.

According to EnergyWire journalist Mike Lee: “PHMSA declined to make any of its officials available for interviews over a five-day period and wouldn’t answer written questions on the record-even though the agency has already briefed two oil industry trade associations about the proposal.”

CREDIT: Dennis Schroeder, NREL

On Thursday morning, President Obama signed a new executive order that requires the federal government to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2025 from 2008 levels. A fact sheet distributed by the White House noted that this could boost government renewable energy sources to 30 percent, and save taxpayers $18 billion in energy costs.

Calling this action a “triple win: a win for environment, a for the economy, and for the American taxpayer,” White House Senior Advisor Brian Deese told reporters that this executive order will “raise the bar” beyond previous actions the President has taken to confront climate change head-on.

One reason is that it’s not just federal agencies that will commit to cutting carbon pollution. Several major federal suppliers, such as Lockheed Martin, General Electric, and IBM announced new voluntary commitments to cut their own emissions as well. With suppliers and agencies jointly shrinking their carbon footprints, the White House estimates that greenhouse gas emissions will drop by 26 million metric tons – 5 million from the private sector, 21 million from the public sector. In total, this is the equivalent of taking 5.5 million cars off the road for a year.

A new scorecard will allow citizens to keep track of how individual suppliers are doing on greenhouse gas management.

CREDIT: whitehouse.gov

Deese said these were new, “very ambitious goals,” beyond what the companies would do normally. He noted that IBM, for example was committed to cutting energy-related greenhouse gas emissions 35 percent by the end of the decade against 2005 levels.

He said the administration was “very confident” that this progress would continue past the end of the President’s term because these goals make financial sense for the agencies that will be implementing them.

When Obama rolled out his Climate Action Plan in 2013, he noted that the federal agencies had already cut their emissions by 15 percent since 2009, and pledged to have the government powered by 20 percent renewable sources by 2020.

In 2009, the President signed an executive order that directed agencies to “increase energy efficiency” as well as “measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities.”

A year later, he set the goal more specifically: a 28 percent cut in direct greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and a 13 percent drop in indirect emissions. The White House estimated that doing this through a combination of energy efficiency, cutting petroleum usage, and boosting renewables would avoid between $8 and $11 billion in energy costs.

The Pentagon has been pursuing a smaller energy footprint for years, as it saves money and saves lives. Operationally, some of the worst threats are attacks on convoys bringing fuel to forward operating bases. If those bases can stop relying on a loud diesel generator in lieu of a quiet renewable power source, it can help protect lives. When domestic bases consume less energy through efficiency, EVs, and renewable power, there is more room in the budget for other priorities.

It’s starting to work. In Fiscal Year 2013, the Defense Department’s total energy use had fallen to its lowest level on record (records began in 1975). DoD’s energy consumption is massive even on a global scale, with nearly 300,000 buildings on 500 installations across the globe. The EIA, which reported the data, noted the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan as one cause. It also highlighted lower government building energy use since the 2007 energy bill set initial goals – energy intensity had dropped 17 percent in FY 2013 compared to 2003.

Outdoor LED lights could save the U.S. more than $6 billion per year, by using 80 percent less energy than the incandescents they would replace.

The Department of Energy has conducted several gateway demonstration projects in museums to see if LED lights could handle environments that demand high-quality lighting. For the most part they did, with thousands of dollars in energy savings in one demonstration gallery at the Smithsonian American Art Museum alone, earning back the investment within 18 months.

One blind spot in federal carbon emissions, however, is taxpayer-owned oil, gas, and coal extracted from public lands. According to a new report from the Center for American Progress, emissions from federal lands and waters could have accounted for nearly a quarter of the country’s total energy-related emissions in 2012. The real number may never be known, however, because the Interior Department, which is in charge, does not have a comprehensive plan to measure and cut emissions from public lands energy extraction.

CREDIT: Shutterstock

Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions flatlined globally in 2014, while the world economy grew. The International Energy Agency reports that this marks “the first time in 40 years in which there was a halt or reduction in emissions of the greenhouse gas that was not tied to an economic downturn.”

The IEA attributes this remarkable occurrence to “changing patterns of energy consumption in China and OECD countries.” As we reported last month, China cut its coal consumption 2.9 percent in 2014, the first drop this century. China is aggressively embracing energy efficiency, expanding clean energy, and shuttering the dirtiest power plants to meet its planned 2020 (or sooner) peak in coal use. As a result, Chinese CO2 emissions dropped 1 percent in 2014 even as their economy grew by 7.4 percent.

At the same time, the Financial Times points out “In the past five years, OECD countries’ economies grew nearly 7 percent while their emissions fell 4 percent, the IEA has found.” A big part of that is the United States, where fuel economy standards have reversed oil consumption trends – and renewable energy, efficiency, and natural gas have cut U.S. coal consumption.

All this “provides much-needed momentum to negotiators preparing to forge a global climate deal in Paris in December,” explained IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, who was just named the next IEA Executive Director. “For the first time, greenhouse gas emissions are decoupling from economic growth.”

CREDIT: IEA, Financial Times

The IEA notes that in 40 years of CO2 data collection, the three previous times emissions have flatlined or dropped from the prior year “all were associated with global economic weakness: the early 1980’s [due to the oil shock and U.S. recession]; 1992 and 2009.”

Remember the pre-Paris pledges we already have: China to peak in CO2 emission by 2030 (or, likely, sooner), EU to cut total emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and U.S. “to cut net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.” That means there is a very real prospect for a game-changing global deal coming out of Paris this year.

Such a deal would not will “not get us onto the 2°C pathway,” as Christiana Figueres, the top UN climate official, and others have explained. But it would get us off the catastrophic 6°C path and lead to a permanent decoupling of GDP and CO2.

And that would give the next generation a realistic chance at coming close to a 2°C path in the 2020s and 2030s. That’s when stronger action will become more viable as it becomes harder to deny the painful reality of just how dire our situation is – and as the sped-up deployment of clean energy required for countries to meet Paris commitments make achieving 2°C even more super-cheap.

You know an invention has its drawbacks when even the guy who invented it says he’s sorry he did so.

That would be John Sylvan, inventor of the easy-to-use Keurig coffee maker-an invention deemed ” the most wasteful form of coffee ” on the planet.

Sylan says he regrets the creation largely due to its severe ecological impact. The Keurig uses disposable plastic coffee pods, called “K-Cups,” which are not easily recyclable or biodegradable.

“I don’t have one,” Sylvan said of the Keurig. “They’re kind of expensive to use. Plus it’s not like drip coffee is tough to make.”

Convenience-obsessed America is the world’s largest coffee consumer. Nearly 85 percent of adults in America drink coffee. According to the National Coffee Association, nearly 1 in 5 adults drink single-cup-brewed coffee in a single day.

Last year, Keurig Green Mountain sold a whopping 9.8 billion K-Cups-enough to circle the Earth more than a dozen times. Keurig says it wants all K-Cups to be recyclable by 2020, but by then it could be too late.

Egg Studios CEO Mike Hachey created the viral video ” Kill the K-Cup ” last month, which highlights the fact that 13 billion K-Cups went into landfills last year.

“Do you feel OK contributing to that?” Hachey asks.

K-Cups are not the only culprits affecting the environment. America represents only 5 percent of the world’s population, but generates nearly a quarter of the world’s trash.

Many everyday items that we take for granted have a significant impact on Mother Earth. Here are a few humble household supplies that hurt the environment more than you’d expect:

1. Anti-bacterial soap

These small quanitities then end up in streams and other bodies of water. They can disrupt algae’s ability to perform photosynthesis and build up in fatty tissues of animals higher up in the food chain.

2. Lawn mowers

“Lawn and garden equipment really does add to air pollution,” Cathy Milbourn, spokeswoman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), told ABC last year. “People can reduce the impact it has by using [lawn equipment] in the early morning or in the late afternoon. Or perhaps not at all.”

3. Tea bags

According to a report by Which? Gardening, teabags produced by the some of the top tea manufacturers-including Twinnings, Tetley and PG Tips-are only about 75 percent biodegradable.

While most teabags are made with paper fiber, they also include plastic polypropylene-an ingredient that makes teabags heat-resistant but is not fully biodegradable.

Whitney Kakos, the sustainability manager for Teadirect, says the use of polypropylene is an ” industry-wide practice.” There are also the luxurious silken (basically plastic) tea bags. Supposedly of higher quality and visually appealing, these bags are actually harmful to consumers and contribute to landfill waste.

4. Plastic bottles

The national recycle rate for PETs, or bottles made with polyethylene terephthalate, is only 23 percent-which means 80 percent of plastic water bottles end up in landfills. And even if we were on our environmentally best behavior, not all plastic bottles placed in designated containers are recycled because only certain types of plastic can be recycled in limited municipalities.

5. Microbeads

According to a recent study by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, these tiny pieces of plastic find their way down our drains through filtration systems to the ocean. Soaking up toxins like a sponge, they then contribute to the plastic pollution of water bodies, potentially starve coral reefs of proper food and negatively affect other marine organisms.

6. Disposable razors

Add that to the higher environmental cost of production using raw materials and the water used while actually shaving and you’ve got one of the most wasteful bathroom products around.

7. Paper cups

Every year, Americans toss out more than 80 billion single-use cups, thanks to our morning coffee runs. These cups are also coated with low-density, heat-resistant polyethylene that is not biodegradable. In addition to these cups’ heading for a landfill and taking more than 20 years to decompose, the very process of making them is extremely harmful to the environment. Production consumes forests and large volumes of water, and expels dirty water.

8. Wooden chopsticks from restaurants

But despite taxes levied in 2006 and warnings of government regulations to monitor production in 2010, disposable chopstick use, production and discard is on the rise and continues to devastate forests in China at an alarming rate.