Earth Wise

A look at our changing environment.

You are here: Home / Archives for Earth Wise

Earth Wise

Disease On Coral Reefs

By Leave a Comment

The warming oceans have led to bleaching events in coral reefs around the world, but bleaching is not the only problem corals face.  Disease outbreaks are also becoming more frequent, severe, and widespread.

Many factors are contributing to the problem, including pollution and nitrogen runoff from fertilizers and coastal sewer and septic systems.  However, the key culprit is likely the steadily increasing ocean temperatures, which are the cause of coral bleaching.  Elevated water temperatures can cause coral polyps to expel the algae that sustains them and gives them color. 

According to scientists, bleaching makes corals more susceptible to illness.  In the Caribbean, a coral disease hotspot, about 80% of coral cover has disappeared, largely from outbreaks of “white band disease”, so called because of a white band of dead tissue that forms in affected corals.  Two crucial reef-building species, elkhorn and staghorn coral, are now nearing extinction in the regions.  The reef extending along the Florida coastline is the third largest reef ecosystem in the world and nearly 35% of it has been lost to disease.

Estimates are that disease outbreaks have wiped out at least 6% of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia.  In that region, diseases are more prevalent in areas where corals were damaged by fishing and other human activity because wounded coral provides an entry point for pathogens and bacteria.

In the face of climate change and mounting disease outbreaks, scientists are scrambling for solutions to stave off catastrophe.  Assisting the migration of hardier coral species and breeding so-called “super corals” are among the strategies being pursued.  It is unknown whether these and other forms of intervention can be used on a wide enough scale to really make a difference.

**********

Web Links

As Disease Ravages Coral Reefs, Scientists Scramble for Solutions

Photo, posted November 29, 2012, courtesy of Robert Linsdell via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Electric Cars In Norway

By Leave a Comment

Norway has long been a world leader in sales of electric vehicles.  The country only has 5.3 million people, so the absolute numbers cannot compete with those of large countries.  Despite that, it wasn’t until the first quarter of last year that Germany became the leader in number of electric cars sold in Europe and Germany has 15 times the population of Norway.

In percentage terms, almost one-third of all new cars sold in Norway last year ran on batteries.  The country offers generous subsidies for buyers who opt to go electric.  The government has set a goal of having all new cars be emission-free by 2025.  Last year, three of the top five most popular new car models were electric:  the Nissan Leaf, the BMW i3, and the Tesla Model X.

Tesla’s Model 3, which has shattered all records for electric car sales in the United States, has yet to go on sale in Norway.  When the car becomes available there in the next few months, it is expected to generate very high sales figures.

The 31% market share for electric cars in Norway far exceeds that of most other countries.  In the United States, for example, plug-in cars account for only about 2% of new car sales.  Only Hong Kong and Iceland are also currently above 5% electric.

Norway’s role in all of this is rather convoluted.  The country has copious hydroelectric power resources that provide virtually all of its electricity.  Thus, electric cars in Norway are truly clean, green vehicles.  On the other hand, Norway is the 15th largest producer of oil in the world and gets about 17% of its GDP from oil exports.  Tackling climate change must ultimately deal with the emissions Norway continues to export.

**********

Web Links

Photo, posted October 3, 2018, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Problem Of Microplastics

By Leave a Comment

In recent years, there have been multiple reports of microplastic contamination seemingly everywhere:  in the ocean, in lakes and rivers, in beverages and foods, and in the bodies of birds, fish, and even people.  As the world tries to come to grips with this growing problem, there are many things that we simply don’t know.

Microplastics are usually formed by the breakdown of larger pieces of plastic.  Shopping bags and cups degrade into microplastics.  Microfiber clothing generates microplastics in washing machines.  And some manufacturers still intentionally add microplastics to personal care products like toothpaste and facial scrubs.

Technically, a microplastic is any piece of plastic measuring five millimeters in size down to one micron – which is one thousandth of a millimeter.  But there can be even smaller plastic particles classified as sub-microplastics and even nanoplastics.

A real concern is that it is not actually clear how dangerous microplastics are for living organisms.  We know that aquatic and terrestrial species – including humans – can and do absorb microplastic particles, but whether there is actual toxicity and the nature of any detrimental effects is not yet well understood.

Another real problem is that it is actually not easy to distinguish microplastics from other particles in a given sample.   When you are looking at a particle that is smaller than a millimeter in size, it is not easy to tell whether it is a grain of sand, a bit of cellulose from a plant, or a microplastic.  There are reliable and definitive ways to analyze samples for microplastics, but they are not as simple and commonplace as just looking through a microscope.

Microplastics are a rapidly growing problem and we don’t even really know how big and how bad the problem is.

**********

Web Links

How dangerous is microplastic?

Photo, posted January 10, 2015, courtesy of Daria Nepriakhina via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Wildlife And The Border Wall

By Leave a Comment

The border between the United States and Mexico is nearly 2,000 miles long, stretching from San Ysidro, California to Brownsville, Texas.  Discontinuous barriers currently cover approximately 650 miles of our southern border. As the particulars of how to better secure the remaining 1,350 miles of border are worked out, one thing is abundantly clear: extending physical barriers would negatively impact wildlife and the environment.

The Trump Administration has called for a 1,000-mile wall, which would cut across land that includes important habitats for wildlife.  According to an article signed by nearly 3,000 scientists, this plan would “threaten some of the continent’s most biologically diverse regions” by inhibiting species movement and triggering flooding. The paper, which was published in the journal Bioscience, highlights how more than 1,500 native animal and plant species would be affected by the wall, including 62 that are listed as endangered or vulnerable.

An extended border wall would not only impede movement of many wildlife species but it would also put pressure on creatures already in peril, such as the Mexican gray wolf and the Sonoran pronghorn.  Other at risk animals include the ocelot, black bear, and desert bighorn sheep. 

According to researchers, extending the border wall could cause problems for low-flying birds and insects. Even plants, including the endangered wildflower Zapata bladderpod and the threatened whiskerbush cactus, are particularly at risk.

According to a 2011 study, bird-watching and other forms of ecotourism in the Lower Rio Grande Valley brought in more than $344 million in economic activity and approximately 4,400 jobs. 

Preserving our natural heritage must be part of this national security discussion. 

**********

Web Links

Nature Divided, Scientists United: US–Mexico Border Wall Threatens Biodiversity and Binational Conservation

Photo, posted December 14, 2014, courtesy of Tony Webster via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Bigger Is Better For Wind Energy

By Leave a Comment

Bigger is almost always better for wind power.  Bigger wind farms are better than smaller wind farms and bigger wind turbines are better than smaller ones.

The biggest turbines currently available produce nearly 10 MW of power, which is enough to supply over 2,000 homes with electricity.  A wind farm with just a few of these turbines could produce enough electricity for a small town.  A big wind farm, like the giant 1,550 MW Alta Wind Energy Center in California can generate enough power for a small city.

Vestas Wind Systems, an industry leader based in Denmark, has announced a 10 MW turbine that will be ready for installation in two years.  The rotor diameter of the giant machine is 538 feet and the blades sweep out an area of 227,000 square feet, the size of nearly 4 football fields.

Not to be outdone, General Electric is developing a 12 MW offshore wind turbine that will stand 850 feet tall and sweep out an area of more than 400,000 square feet.  GE estimates that its 12 MW turbine will achieve nearly twice the capacity factor of its 6 MW turbine.

Companies are building bigger and bigger wind turbines because they are more cost effective.  The capacity factor, which is the actual energy production divided by the potential energy production, goes up as the turbines get bigger and more efficient.  In terms of dollars spent to produce a given amount of power, larger windfarms are less expensive to build than smaller ones.  A wind farm of 200-500 MW capacity is about 40% cheaper per MW capacity than a 25 MW wind farm.

When it comes to wind energy, there is no doubt that bigger is better.

**********

Web Links

Wind Energy — Where Bigger Is Better

Photo, posted February 14, 2012, courtesy of Aaron Warner via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Labeling Of GMO Foods

By Leave a Comment

American consumers will soon be able to discern whether or not foods contain genetically-modified ingredients.  The USDA’s so-called ‘National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard’ will be required for foods that have been altered in a way that doesn’t occur naturally. The mandatory compliance date is January 1st, 2022. 

While this does sound like great news, there are some major drawbacks.  The new guidelines use the uncommon term “bioengineered” instead of “genetically-modified” or “GMO.” The guidelines also allow the disclosure of bioengineered (or B.E.) ingredients in several formats: as text, a symbol, a phone number (that consumers can call for more info), or a digital link printed on the packaging.  Companies are allowed to use a QR code that asks consumers to “scan here for more food information.”  Scanning the QR code will bring consumers to a website where the GMO disclosure can be found. 

Advocates of the various labeling options say it’ll make it easier and faster for companies to comply with the new guidelines.  But critics worry consumers will find it confusing and restrict access for those without smartphones.  They say that companies who elect to use a QR code or phone number should be required to include the word “bioengineered” on their packaging.

Another drawback is that products won’t have to be labeled as ‘bioengineered’ if they’ve been processed to the point where their bioengineered DNA can’t be detected.  Examples include refined beet sugar, soybean oil, and high fructose corn syrup.  

The fight over the labeling of GMO foods has raged for many years.  But this labeling mandate falls short of consumer expectations by hiding the information about GMOs instead of disclosing it. We should expect better. 

**********

Web Links

Government lays out the rules for labeling for genetically modified foods

Photo, posted August 24, 2015, courtesy of Rob Bertholf via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Bee Friendly Amsterdam

By Leave a Comment

Scientists around the world have been sounding the alarm for years about the decline of bees and other pollinators that are crucial to the growth of crops.   One place where this trend has been bucked is in Amsterdam.  The diversity of wild bee and honeybee species in the Dutch capital has actually increased by 45% since 2000.

The city attributes this success to creating bee-friendly environments including the installation of so-called insect hotels.  There has also been a ban on the use of chemical pesticides on public land.

Four years ago, Amsterdam set a goal to convert half of all public green spaces to native plants including species that produce flowers and fruits that provide nourishment for bees.  Developers in Amsterdam are encouraged to install green roofs on new buildings which reduce reliance on heating and cooling systems and also create habitat for wildlife.

Residents can request to have a 16-inch strip of pavement adjacent to their homes removed in order to plant shrubs, flowers or climbing vines.  When a new highway was built in the area in 2015, local activists planted wildflowers along the sides of the road that otherwise would have been left with only gravel or grass.  This practice has spread to other major routes and along dikes and railways and is referred to as the Honey Highway.

All of these efforts seem to be having a positive effect.  An initial survey was conducted in 2000 to establish a baseline.  A 2015 survey of pollinators found 21 bee species not previously documented in the city.  The rest of the Netherlands has not done as well, and the Dutch government has recently introduced a pollinator strategy to revive bees, butterflies and other insects crucial to the country’s food crop.

**********

Web Links

Bees are dying at an alarming rate. Amsterdam may have the answer.

Photo, posted December 28, 2006, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Misconceptions About Electric Cars

By Leave a Comment

Tesla’s Model 3 was one of the best-selling cars in the United States last year, eclipsing all but a handful of sedans.  This was the first time that an electric car had that honor and is indicative of how electric cars are finally becoming mainstream.  A host of other new electric models from multiple manufacturers will be the entering the market over the next couple of years.

Despite all of this progress, there is still a great deal of misinformation about electric cars.  A new study commissioned by Volkswagen revealed some of the widespread misconceptions about the vehicles.

Some people believe that electric cars can’t be driven through puddles.  Nearly one in five people believe that electric cars slow down as the battery depletes.  Many people believe that electric cars are fundamentally less safe than gas-powered cars.

More generally, people are unaware of how far current electric cars can drive on a charge.  More and more models can go 200 and even over 300 miles between charging sessions.  People also don’t know how quickly cars can charge up either.  Fast chargers like Tesla’s Superchargers can add 200 miles worth of charge in about 20 minutes.  And people don’t know what it costs to charge electric cars.  In most places, it is only a fraction of what it costs to drive the same distance using gasoline.

Despite their limited knowledge about electric cars, the 2,000 people surveyed in Britain were positively disposed towards them with nearly 6 in 10 saying that they would like to own an electric car some day and would even consider one as their next vehicle.

Electric cars will become more familiar and less exotic as more and more of them are on our roads and highways.

**********

Web Links

Major misconceptions prevent drivers from buying electric cars, study claims

Photo, posted April 6, 2018, courtesy of Brian Doyle via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/electric-cars-misconceptions-battery-charging-safety-volkswagen-study-results-a8700536.html

Droughts And Hydropower

By Leave a Comment

Recent droughts in several western states have led to well-publicized problems including wildfires, loss of trees, and damage to crops.  A lesser-known impact of drought conditions has been increases in emissions of carbon dioxide and harmful air pollutants from power generation.

When hydropower runs low in a drought, western states tend to ramp up power generation – and therefore emissions – from fossil fuels.   According to a new study from Stanford University, droughts caused about 10 percent of the average annual carbon dioxide emissions from power generation in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington between 2001 and 2015.

Water is used in electricity generation both directly for hydroelectric power and indirectly for cooling in thermoelectric power plants.  When water for hydropower comes up short because of drought conditions, natural gas or coal-fired power plants are brought online to pick up the slack.

These drought-induced shifts in energy sources led to an estimated 100 million tons of carbon dioxide across 11 western states between 2001 and 2015.  That is the equivalent of adding 1.4 million vehicles to the region’s roadways.  California, whose legislature has mandated that the state be carbon-free by 2045, contributed about half of this total.  Washington, which is considering a similar mandate, contributed nearly a quarter of the total.

Western states in recent years have suffered intense droughts that scientists expect to become more common as global warming continues to intensify.   The new study indicates that in regions where clean, reliable hydropower has been an important part of the energy mix, it will be increasingly necessary to provide clean backup energy sources in order to meet emission reduction targets.

**********

Web Links

Droughts boost emissions as hydropower dries up

Photo, posted March 7, 2016, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Collecting Clean Water From The Air

By Leave a Comment

Clean water is an essential requirement for human life and there are many places where it is a scarce commodity.   In the world’s deserts, getting water to people requires feats of engineering and irrigation that can be cumbersome and expensive.

Researchers at Ohio State University have produced a couple of new studies that explore options for gathering water from fog and condensation that are based on principles of biomimicry:  copying strategies already in use by plants and animals.

The researchers looked at how cactus, beetles and desert grasses all collect water condensed from nighttime fog, gathering droplets from the air and filtering them to roots or reservoirs.

The cactus they studied collects water on its barbed tips before guiding droplets down conical spines to the base of the plant. They learned that conical shapes gather more water than do cylindrical shapes.  This is because of a physics phenomenon called the Laplace pressure gradient.

The beetles they studied collect drops of water on waxy, water-repellent bumps on their backs.  The water then slides towards the beetle’s mouth on the flat surface between the bumps.  Based on this, the researchers experimented with structures that include multiple hydrophilic cones with spaces in between where water droplets can coalesce.

From grasses, they learned that grooved surfaces move water more quickly than ungrooved surfaces – in fact, about twice as much.

The work so far has been on a laboratory-level, but the researchers envision scaling up to structures in the desert that can gather water from fog or condensation and supplement public systems or wells either on a house-by-house basis or on a community-wide basis.  Copying cacti, beetles and grasses could supply clean water to people in the desert.

**********

Web Links

Collecting clean water from air, inspired by desert life

Photo, posted February 7, 2010, courtesy of Remko van Dokkum via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

A Disastrous Year

By Leave a Comment

The number and economic impact of natural disasters around the world have increased dramatically over the past 30 years.  In dollar terms, the amount has actually more than doubled.  While 2017 and especially 2011 hold the records for worldwide economic damage, 2018 was pretty disastrous in its own right, totaling at least $160 billion.

The year was dominated by costly wildfires in California and tropical storms in the United States and Asia.   According to a recent report by the reinsurance company Munich Re, the Camp and Woolsey fires in California alone caused losses of $21.7 billion, $16.5 billion of which was insured.

Overall, insurance companies paid out $80 billion in damage claims from natural disasters last year.  This was less than the $140 billion in 2017 but is still double the 30-year average.

Losses from wildfires have increased dramatically in recent years and summers continue to get hotter and dryer, a likely consequence of climate change.  These mounting costs bring into question whether people can continue to build in high-risk wildfire areas without dramatic changes in materials and the aggressive use of other protective measures.

Twenty-nine natural disaster events in 2018 caused more than a billion dollars in damage each.  Tropical storms including hurricanes Michael and Florence in the United States and three Asian typhoons caused $57 billion in damage.

A severe drought in Europe that set off major wildfires and caused agricultural losses caused $3.9 billion in losses.  Only about $280 million of this damage was covered by insurance companies since farmers in Europe don’t typically purchase insurance against drought.  For them, 2018 was truly a disastrous year.

**********

Web Links

Natural Disasters Caused $160 Billion in Damage in 2018

Photo, posted July 26, 2018, courtesy of Bureau of Land Management California via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Can Germany Meet Its Energy Goals?

By Leave a Comment

Germany has been a global leader in efforts to decarbonize its massive economy.  A national initiative known as Energiewende – or clean energy transition – has been in place since 2010 and relies heavily on renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and energy demand management.

The program has involved some of the most aggressive deployment of renewable energy sources in the world.  Germany was the first country to install 1 GW of solar energy and still has the 5th largest amount of solar power in the world despite actually being a country with fairly limited sunshine.  Germany has nearly 30,000 wind turbines, most of which are onshore, unlike many other countries in northern Europe.  Over the past five years, government support and cost to consumers for the shift to clean energy have totaled over $180 billion.

However, despite these efforts, Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions have not declined as rapidly as expected, even though nearly 40% of the country’s electricity now comes from renewable sources.

This lack of expected success comes as a shock to the environmentally conscious German population, nearly 90% of which supports the program.

There are two major problems Germany faces.  One is that Germany is Europe’s largest producer of coal, which still generates more than a third of the country’s power.  The other is that Germany’s large auto industry is still married to gas- and diesel-fueled cars and emissions from the country’s cars are a big problem.

The Energiewende program was driven by political will and investment certainty.  It is unclear whether Germany can muster these forces again.  The Merkel government has dragged its feet on environmental issues in recent years.  It remains to be seen what effect shifting political power in Germany will have.

**********

Web Links

Carbon Crossroads: Can Germany Revive Its Stalled Energy Transition?

Photo, posted August 15, 2011, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Saved By The Trees

By Leave a Comment

The island of Kokota, part of the Zanzibar Archipelago off the coast of Tanzania, is tiny – only one square kilometer and home to just 500 people.  For centuries, its residents subsisted by harvesting the islet’s natural resources, including its trees.

By the early 21st century, the deforestation had become unsustainable and the islanders faced a crisis.  Fisheries were depleted, and rivers ran dry.  The changing climate brought rising sea levels, more erratic rainfall, and coral bleaching in the surrounding waters.  The situation looked hopeless.

But in recent years, the island has come back from the brink of ruin.  Reforestation efforts began in 2008 on the larger island of Pemba and on Kokota itself, led by a Pemba local and a Canadian tree planter who formed the non-profit Community Forests International.  Since then, nearly 2 million trees have been planted on the two islands.  Enthusiastic volunteers on Kokota usually help plant trees during the rainy season, when water is plentiful.

Community Forests International, along with spearheading the tree planting effort, also built Kokota’s first school, and installed rainwater storage tanks for the community.

The conservation group is now devising ways for Kokota to make more money by diversifying its agriculture with crops that grow well in its climate including spices like cloves, cinnamon, and nutmeg.  They are also helping locals to grow more and different vegetables in their gardens.

Small, poor communities are often the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as drought, powerful storms, and depleted fisheries.  Tiny Kokota provides an example of an environmental comeback.  Fighting climate change requires economic solutions along with environmental solutions.  For this one tiny island, it  appears to have been saved by the trees.

**********

Web Links

This island was on the brink of disaster. Then, they planted thousands of trees.

Photo, posted July 18, 2015, courtesy of Marco Zanferrari via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

A New Way to Make Hydrogen

By Leave a Comment

Many people consider hydrogen to be the fuel of the future, both for powering vehicles and for storing energy generated by renewable sources.   Hydrogen itself is a clean and green fuel.  Generating energy from it using fuel cells results in only water as a byproduct.

The biggest problem with hydrogen is that the most economical way to produce it and therefore the way most hydrogen is produced today, is by reforming natural gas, which is a process that generates carbon emissions.

The desirable way to make hydrogen is to produce it by breaking apart water into its hydrogen and oxygen components, a process known as electrolysis.   There are many ways to do it, but none of them to date measures up in terms of efficiency, cost, and longevity.

Researchers at the University of Toronto have recently developed a new catalyst that uses abundant, low-cost elements to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.  The catalyst is made from copper, nickel, and chromium, all of which are more abundant and less costly than platinum, which is the usual electrolysis catalyst.

The new catalyst performs well under pH-neutral conditions, which means it could even work on seawater without incurring the expense of desalination.  The Toronto researchers also believe their catalyst could be used as part of a process to make hydrocarbon fuels from hydrogen and CO22.  Their group is among the five finalists in the Carbon XPrize competition, which has a grand prize of $7.5 million for finding a way to convert waste CO2 into fuel.

Finding a low-cost, energy-efficient, and reliable way to make hydrogen out of water will be a big deal if it can be done on an industrial scale.

**********

Web Links

U of T researchers discover low-cost way to produce hydrogen from water

Photo, posted July 23, 2015, courtesy of Magnus Johansson via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Cloning Ancient Redwoods

By Leave a Comment

During the 19th and 20th centuries, many of the world’s largest and oldest tress were cut down for their lumber.   Some of these coast redwoods were 3,000 years old and measured 35 feet in diameter.

Today, giant stumps of these ancient redwoods dot the landscape from Oregon to northern California and are a remnant of the old-growth forest that once stretched across much of the Pacific Northwest.

An organization called the Archangel Ancient Tree Archive is dedicated to reestablishing ancient redwood forests to help combat climate change.  Coastal redwoods are not only huge but can grow an average of 10 feet a year.  One of these enormous trees can sequester 250 tons of carbon dioxide over its lifetime, more than 200 times the amount for an average tree.

While many experts thought that the giant stumps were lifeless, arborists at Archangel collected DNA from the stumps of five giant coast redwoods, all larger than the largest tree living today.  They then used this genetic material to grow dozens of saplings, which are clones of the ancient trees, in a process that takes about two-and-a-half years.

To date, the Archangel Ancient Tree Archive has planted nearly 100 of these saplings in the Eden Project garden in Cornwall, England, a couple of hundred in Oregon, and most recently, has planted 75 in the Presidio National Park in San Francisco.

According to arborists at the nonprofit organization, these saplings have extraordinary potential to purify our air, water, and soil for generations to come.  Their hopes are that the new San Francisco ‘super grove’ will be allowed to grow unmolested by manmade or natural disasters and thus propagate forever.

**********

Web Links

Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods From Their Massive Stumps

Photo, posted April 8, 2013, courtesy of Michael Balint via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Food Production And Climate Change

By Leave a Comment

According to a University of Oxford study recently published in the journal Science, food production is a major driver of climate change as it’s responsible for 26% of all greenhouse gas emissions.  But the research team found that the environmental impact of different foods varied greatly. 

Meat and other animal products are responsible for 58% of all food-related greenhouse gas emissions, despite only providing approximately one-fifth of the calories we consume.  The researchers found that beef and lamb in particular have the most damaging effect on the planet, responsible for half of all greenhouse gas emissions from animal agriculture. 

These findings echo recommendations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about how individuals can reduce their carbon footprint through diet.  The IPCC suggests we consume less meat and dairy products, consume more locally-sourced seasonal foods, and throw less food in the trash.  

Avoiding meat and dairy products can reduce an individual’s carbon footprint from food by two-thirds.  The effects of doing so include everything from conserving water and preserving biodiversity to reducing pollution and deforestation. 

Interestingly, the same food can have major differences in terms of environmental impacts.  For example, beef raised on deforested land is responsible for 12 times as many greenhouse gas emissions as that raised on natural pastures.  But even the most climate-friendly meat options are still responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the highest-impact vegetable proteins, like beans and nuts. 

Big differences can also be made by avoiding chocolate and coffee produced from deforested lands.  

To learn more about the climate impact of your diet, follow the link to the ‘Climate Change Food Calculator’ on our website: Earth-Wise-Radio.org. 

**********

Web Links

Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers

Climate change food calculator

Photo, posted June 21, 2011, courtesy of USDA NRCS Montana via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Sustainable Plastics

By Leave a Comment

According to the United Nations, plastic accounts for up to 90% of all the pollutants in the ocean. Conventional plastics take hundreds of years to decay, so all the plastic that gets into the oceans piles up and endangers marine life and pollutes the environment. Unfortunately, there are few comparable, environmentally friendly alternatives.  

An often-proposed solution is bioplastics, which are not made from petroleum and degrade quickly.  The downside of bioplastics is that growing the plants or bacteria used to make the plastic requires fertile soil and fresh water, which are scarce commodities in many places.

One such place is Israel.  So, researchers there at Tel Aviv University have developed a process to make a bioplastic polymer that doesn’t require land or fresh water.  The new polymer is derived from microorganisms that feed on seaweed.  It is biodegradable, produces zero toxic waste and recycles into organic waste.

The polymer is called polyhydroxyalkanoate, or PHA for short.  The raw material is multicellular seaweed, cultivated in the ocean.  These algae are eaten by single-celled microorganisms, which also grow in salty seawater and produce a polymer that can be used to make bioplastic.  PHA is already produced in commercial quantities, but it is currently made from plants that require agricultural land and fresh water.  The new process would enable countries with limited fresh water, such as Israel, China and India, to switch from petroleum-based plastics to biodegradable plastics.

Plastics from fossil sources are one of the world’s biggest pollution problems.  The new study shows that it is possible to produce bioplastic completely based on marine resources in an environmentally-friendly process. 

**********

Web Links

Sustainable ‘plastics’ are on the horizon

Photo, posted March 14, 2015, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Your Children’s Yellowstone

By Leave a Comment

Yellowstone National Park was the first national park in the US and according to some sources, the first in the world.  It is the home of charismatic megafauna and stunning geysers that attract over four million visitors a year.  It is the only place in the United States where bison and wolves can be seen in great numbers.  And it is changing.

Over the next few decades of climate change, Yellowstone will quite likely see increased fire, less forest, expanding grasslands, shallower, warmer waterways, and more invasive plants.  All these things will alter how and how many animals move through the landscape.   Ecosystems are always changing, but climate change is transforming habitats so quickly that many plants and animals may not be able to make the transition at all.

Since 1948, the average annual temperature in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem has gone up by 2 degrees Fahrenheit.  On balance, winter is 10 days shorter and less cold.  The Northern Rockies snowpack has fallen to its lowest level in eight centuries. Summers in the park are warmer, drier, and increasingly prone to fire.

Non-nutritious invasive plants like cheatgrass and desert madwort have replaced nutritious native plants.  When plants like these take over, they suck moisture out of the ground early so that bison and elk cannot be sustained throughout the summer.

The behavior of elk and other animals is already changing, with many staying outside the park to nibble lawns and alfalfa fields.  In turn, wolves go where the elk go.   Forests and waterways are changing as well.

The rapid changes going on at Yellowstone mean that the park that our children and grandchildren will visit in the future is likely to be a very different one from the Yellowstone we remember.

**********

Web Links

In Yellowstone National Park, warming has brought rapid changes.

Photo, posted September 7, 2016, courtesy of Mike Yang via Flickr.  

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Wildfire Pollution

By Leave a Comment

California’s record-breaking wildfires this past season have been an unmitigated disaster with respect to loss of life, property, impact on human health, and in multiple other ways.  And as if all of that was not bad enough, the impact on carbon emissions into the atmosphere was equally catastrophic.  The wildfires were deadly and cost billions of dollars but were also terrible for the environment and for the public’s health.

According to estimates from the U.S. Department of the Interior, the California wildfires released emissions equivalent to about 68 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  That is equal to the emissions from generating one year’s worth of electricity in the state, or about 15% of the total annual emissions in the state of California.

It is a vicious circle in which the changes to the climate that have lengthened the fire season and shortened the precipitation season are creating additional contributions to the warming of the climate.

Over the past century, California has warmed by about 3 degrees Fahrenheit.  That extra-warmed air sucks water out of plants and soils, resulting in trees, shrubs, and rolling grasslands that are dry and primed to burn. That vegetation-drying effect compounds with every additional degree of warming.  Plants lose their water more efficiently as temperatures get higher.

The result is that wildfires are increasing in size both in California and across the western United States. Fire experts at Columbia University estimate that since the 1980s, the warming climate has contributed to an extra 10 million acres of burning in western forests – an area about the size of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined.

It’s a bad situation that is getting worse.

**********

Web Links

California’s 2018 Wildfires Have Emitted A Year’s Worth of Power Pollution

Photo, posted October 11, 2017, courtesy of Bob Dass via Flickr. 

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Support For A Green New Deal

By Leave a Comment

Shortly after the November election, activists held a sit-in at Nancy Pelosi’s office calling for a Green New Deal – a plan to transform the U.S. energy economy in order to mitigate the effects of climate change as well as address various issues of economic justice.   While a number of Congress people have pledged to back the creation of a select committee to develop such a plan, it remains a political football and it remains to be seen whether anything will come of the idea.

There appears to be much less reticence on the part of voters, at least according to a survey conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication at the end of November.  The survey gave a brief explanation of the Green New Deal and asked respondents “How much do you support or oppose this idea?”

The result was that 81% of registered voters either “strongly” or “somewhat” supported it.  Support was stronger among Democrats at 92%, but a majority of Republicans were also in favor.  Some 57% of self-identified conservative Republicans even thought it was a good idea.

The Green New Deal would accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy.  The goal would be to generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources within the next 10 years; upgrade the nation’s energy grid, buildings, and transportation infrastructure; increase energy efficiency; invest in green technology research and development; and provide training for jobs in the new green economy.

Even though most Americans have strong support for the ideas of the Green New Deal, it is quite uncertain whether such an initiative could become a reality, given that very influential special interest groups – notably the fossil fuel industry – will be fighting it tooth and nail.

**********

Web Links

81% of Voters Support a Green New Deal, Survey Finds

Photo, posted March 19, 2012, courtesy of Kate Ausburn via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

WAMC Northeast Public Radio

WAMC/Northeast Public Radio is a regional public radio network serving parts of seven northeastern states (more...)