Earth Wise

A look at our changing environment.

You are here: Home / Archives for Climate Change

Climate Change

Indonesian Deforestation

By Leave a Comment

Deforestation is defined as the intentional destruction of trees and other vegetation without reforesting or allowing the forest to regenerate itself. 

In Indonesia, industrial agriculture, primarily for the production of palm oil, is a major driver of deforestation.  But, according to researchers at Duke University, its impact has diminished  proportionately in recent years as other natural and human causes have emerged. Their peer-reviewed findings were recently published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

According to the study’s lead author, large-scale plantations were responsible for more than half of Indonesia’s deforestation in the late 2000s, peaking between 2008-2010 when an average of 1.5 million acres of forest was lost annually.  The expansion of the massive plantations was responsible for 57% of the forest loss. Between 2014-2016, an average of more than 2 million acres of forest was lost annually, but plantation expansion only accounted for 25% of this figure.  While the overall rate of deforestation continued to grow, other factors were responsible for most of it.

Conversions of forests to grasslands rose sharply in 2015 and 2016 when El Nino caused severe droughts and forest fires. Small-scale farming, often overshadowed by industrial agriculture, was also found to play a bigger role, accounting for 25% of all forest loss. 

Indonesia has experienced some of the highest rates of deforestation.  Its forests absorb and store vast amounts of climate-warming carbon dioxide, help prevent erosion and flooding, and provide habitat to thousands of species.  Understanding the varied causes of Indonesian deforestation should help conservationists and policymakers better address the problem.

************

Web Links

Palm oil not the only driver of forest loss in Indonesia

Photo, posted March 26, 2018, courtesy of Achmad Rabin Taim via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

More Renewables Without Storage In Texas

By Leave a Comment

Texas has a Texas-sized appetite for electricity and relies most heavily on natural gas, coal and nuclear power to get it.  But in recent times, wind power has grown tremendously in the Lone Star State and it has already leapfrogged past nuclear power.  Coal could be the next domino to fall.

In the past few years, solar power has become competitive with wind in terms of price.  Texas is a large, coastal state in the sunny southwestern U.S. and has significant solar resources.  As a result, the amount of solar power in Texas is now growing rapidly.

In order for a combination of solar and wind power to address the bulk of electricity demand in Texas, there needs to be a way to provide reliability that these intermittent sources don’t necessarily provide.  Energy storage is a solution that ultimately is likely to be part of most electricity grids, but currently it is still expensive on a utility scale.

A new study from Rice University looked at the complementarity of solar and wind power in Texas.  Complementarity refers to balancing the output of solar and wind systems.  The peak performance of wind and solar occurs at very different times in different regions of the state.  The study suggests that the right mix of solar and wind systems in the right parts of Texas could provide a continuously reliable energy system.  On both a yearly and daily basis, wind and solar power resources in Texas complement each other in terms of peak performance.  It is a matter of locating the solar power and wind farms in the right places.

With the Texas solar industry really starting to boom, there is a real opportunity to integrate far more renewable energy into the Texas grid.

**********

Web Links

More Renewables with Less Energy Storage: Texas Shows How

Photo, posted June 8, 2018, courtesy of Laura Lee Dooley via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Saving Beaches With Seagrass

By Leave a Comment

Almost a quarter of the Gross Domestic Product of places around the Caribbean Sea is earned from tourism.  Preserving the beaches in the region is an economic imperative.  With increasing coastal development, the natural flow of water and sand is disrupted, natural ecosystems are damaged, and many tropical beaches simply disappear into the sea.

With such high stakes, expensive coastal engineering efforts such as repeated replenishing of sand and the construction of concrete protective walls are common strategies.  Rising sea levels and increasingly powerful storms only increase the threat to tropical beaches.

Researchers from The Netherlands and Mexico recently published a study in the journal BioScience on the effectiveness of seagrass in holding onto sand and sediment along shorelines.

Seagrasses are so-named because most species have long green, grass-like leaves. They are often confused with seaweeds but are actually more closely related to flowering plants seen on land. Seagrasses have roots, stems and leaves, and produce flowers and seeds. Seagrasses can form dense underwater meadows and are one of the most productive ecosystems in the world. Seagrasses provide shelter and food to an incredibly diverse community of animals, from tiny invertebrates to large fish, crabs, turtles, marine mammals and birds.

The researchers performed measurements of the ability of seagrass along Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula coastline to keep sand in place and prevent erosion.  They found that the amount of erosion was strongly linked to the amount of vegetation.  Quite often, seagrass beds have been regarded as a nuisance, rather than a valuable asset for preserving valuable coastlines.  The study opens opportunities for developing new tropical beach protection schemes in which ecology is integrated into engineering solutions.

**********

Web Links

Seagrass Saves Beaches and Money

Photo, posted October 13, 2010, courtesy of NOAA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Climate Change And The Polar Vortex

By Leave a Comment

This winter has seen some brutally-cold weather in many places, some of it record-breaking.  Predictably, some climate-change deniers point to this as evidence that the climate is not warming at all.  They are quite wrong.

For starters, it is essential to understand the difference between climate and weather.  Climate is the average weather patterns in a region over extended periods of time.  Weather is the short-term fluctuations in temperature, precipitation, barometric pressure, wind, and so forth.  There can be extremes in weather of many types in a given climate region including very cold weather in a warming climate.

The recent cold weather events in the U.S. stem from the flow of Arctic air into southern regions.  Such flows are impacted dramatically by the behavior of the jet stream.  These high-altitude east-to-west winds are driven by temperature differences between cold arctic air and warm tropical air and play a huge role in our weather. 

The Arctic has seen extremely unusual warming due to the changing climate, weakening and fracturing the polar vortex, which is a persistent low-pressure area near the pole.   The changing air flow from the Arctic causes the jet stream to take wild swings.  When it swings further south, it causes cold air to reach farther south.  These swings tend to hang around for a while, leading to extended periods of cold weather in the winter and, actually, extended periods of warm weather or even droughts in the summer.  Studies have predicted that extreme, deadly weather events could increase by as much as fifty percent by 2100.

As more Arctic air flows into southern regions, North America can expect to see harsher winters.  The warming climate doesn’t always lead to warmer weather.

**********

Web Links

Why cold weather doesn’t mean climate change is fake

Photo, posted January 30, 2019, courtesy of Kyle 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Smog And Solar Power

By Leave a Comment

China has been struggling with some of the worst air pollution in the world.  Beijing frequently sits under a brown blanket made of exhaust gases from industry, cars and coal fires, which dump harmful particulate matter, soot, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the air.

The human health consequences are severe.   According to the World Health Organization,air pollution contributes to about 1.6 million premature deaths in China each year.  World-wide, air pollution is implicated in over 7 million deaths annually.

Faced with this air pollution crisis, China has undertaken a wide variety of measures to improve its air and curb carbon dioxide emissions alongthe way.  Among other things, China has invested heavily in the deployment of solar power and has plans for ever greater expansion of solar power in the future.

A study by researchers at ETH in Zurich looked at the impact of China’s air pollution on the production of solar energy.  The smog in China’s cities reduces the amount of solar radiation that reaches the ground and therefore significantly reduces the power output of solar energy systems. According to the study, solar radiation would increase by an average of 11% nationwide as a result of strict air pollution control measures.  In some places, cleaning up the air would result in 26% more energy production.

China’s electric power industry is the world’s largest electricity producer, having passed the United States in 2011.  Two-thirds of the electricity in China still comes from coal, which, apart from the serious climate and health consequences associated with its use, continues to make it more difficult to switch to clean solar power.  Much work remains to be done.

**********

Web Links

Fighting smog supports solar power

Photo, posted February 7, 2014, courtesy of Flickr. 

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Science And False Beliefs

By Leave a Comment

There are sizeable numbers of people who hold to beliefs that run counter to overwhelming contrary evidence. Flat Earthers and Holocaust deniers are well-known examples and, more recently, people – some of them in high places – who reject the evidence for climate change.

New research published in the journal Open Mind by developmental psychologists at UC Berkeley suggest that feedback, rather than hard evidence, boosts people’s sense of certainty when learning new things or trying to tell right from wrong.  People’s beliefs are more likely to be reinforced by the positive or negative reactions they are exposed to than by logic, reasoning, and scientific data.

People’s learning habits can limit one’s intellectual horizons.  According to the study, if you think you know a lot about something, even though you don’t, you’re less likely to be curious enough to explore the topic further and will fail to learn how little you know.

This phenomenon plays out in social media and cable-news echo chambers and explains how some people are easily duped by charlatans.  Receiving positive feedback for what they are saying can make people believe they know more than they actually do.  This confidence makes them less likely to seek out and learn more information about the subject, as well as take into account contradicting opinions or facts.

Another factor is that what influences people’s certainty is that their confidence tends to depend on what they heard most recently rather than on long-term cumulative data.  A few pieces of recent information tend to get much more attention than an extensive body of data.  If a crazy theory is able to make a correct prediction a few times, people tend to get fixed in their belief in that theory and be less open to other information.

**********

Web Links

Here’s Why People Advocate False Beliefs, Conspiracy Theories Despite Evidence

Photo, posted February 2, 2007, courtesy of Tim J. Keegan via Flickr. 

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Melting Ice In Greenland

By Leave a Comment

The Greenland ice sheet is the second largest ice body in the world after the Antarctic ice sheet.  It covers over 660,000 square miles, more than twice the size of the state of Texas.  But it is melting.

According to a new study published in the journal Nature, the Greenland ice sheet is melting faster today than at any point in the last 350 years.  A team of U.S. and European researchers analyzed more than three centuries of melt patterns in ice cores from western Greenland. They then linked this historical data to modern observations of melting and runoff across the entire ice sheet.

According to the researchers, from an historical perspective, today’smelt rates are off the charts.  There is a 50% increase in total ice sheet melt water runoff since the start of the industrial era and a 30% increase since the 20th century alone.

Over the last 20 years, melt intensity has increased 250 to 575 percent compared to pre-industrial melt rates. The period from 2004-2013, the most recent decade analyzed, experienced a more sustained and greater magnitude of melt than in any previous 10-year period in the 350-year record.

The Greenland ice sheet is the largest single contributor to global sea level rise.  It is adding 72 cubic miles of meltwater to the world’s oceans every year.

The melting of the Greenland ice sheet is accelerating which is a frightening prospect.  If the sheet were to melt in its entirety, global sea levels would rise by 23 feet.  The world needs to do whatever it can to keep that doomsday scenario from happening.

**********

Web Links

Greenland Ice Sheet Melting At Fastest Rate in 350 Years

Photo, posted September 8, 2014, courtesy of Marco Verch 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...)