Earth Wise

A look at our changing environment.

You are here: Home / Archives for companies

companies

Climate Promises | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The United Nations climate change conference that recently took place in Egypt is an annual event.  Last year, the conference was in Glasgow, Scotland, and the participants – heads of state and business leaders – produced a long list of promises aimed at fighting global warming.  How have the countries and companies making those promises done so far?  Unfortunately, not very well.

Participants made pledges for progress in several major areas.

Countries promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions faster, but only 24 countries out of the 140 participants have actually done so.

Countries agreed to expedite the deployment of clean energy and the phasing out of government subsidies for fossil fuels.  There has been considerable progress on green power, but coal use actually reached record highs this year primarily because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which caused natural gas prices to spike.

Countries pledged $100 billion a year to help poorer countries shift to cleaner energy sources.  There has been lots of effort in this area, but the target has not been met and it isn’t clear that all the money is going where it is supposed to.

More than 100 countries pledged to slash methane emissions, but most nations are only getting started.

More than 130 countries pledged to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030.  Deforestation is slowly declining, but not fast enough to meet the goals of the pledge.

An important goal for this year’s climate conference was to try to find a way to not just set admirable and valuable climate goals, but to actually accomplish them.  It isn’t easy, but it is essential.

**********

Web Links

Countries Made Bold Climate Promises Last Year. How Are They Doing?

Photo, posted July 25, 2009, courtesy of Wagner T. Cassimiro via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Electrifying Delivery Vehicles | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Most of the buzz about electric vehicles relates to passenger cars as the auto industry is making a major transition away from gasoline power.  Recently, pickup trucks have started to get some attention as well as Ford’s electric version of the F-150 truck has hit the streets and the long-awaited Tesla Cybertruck will be introduced next year.  There hasn’t been as much talk about delivery vehicles, but there should be.

There are about 15 million delivery vehicles in the U.S., and they are a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.   The post office alone has a quarter million of them.  Such vehicles are especially attractive candidates for electrification.  Most travel relatively consistent and short routes, which makes it easier for companies to be able to charge them and keep them charged.

Electrifying delivery vehicles in cities is especially important because the vehicles travel into and through residential neighborhoods, spreading pollution and particulates as they go.

Some provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act provide credits for the purchase of commercial vehicles.  Light-duty vans and trucks qualify for a credit of as much as $7,500.  Medium- and heavy-duty trucks qualify for credits as high as $40,000.  In addition, substantial tax credits are available for the installation of charging equipment.

According to a study by the Rocky Mountain Institute, sixty percent of new truck sales could be electric by 2030.  By 2035, the trucking industry could cut its emissions in half.

American companies are already stepping up to the plate.  Amazon plans to deploy 100,000 electric delivery vehicles from new automaker Rivian.  Walmart, UPS, FedEx, and others have also committed to electrified trucks.

**********

Web Links

The Climate Bill Will Electrify More Delivery Vans and Trucks

Photo, posted August 1, 2021, courtesy of Ivan Radic via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Tepary Beans | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Tepary beans are an ancient crop native to the northern part of Mexico and the southwestern part of the U.S..  They have been grown in those places by native peoples since pre-Columbian times.  They are still grown in Native American reservations in Arizona’s Sonoran Desert.  One can purchase them from some small farms in that region. 

What sets tepary beans apart from other beans is that they are among the most drought- and heat-tolerant legume crops in the world.  They can be grown without irrigation under conditions that are not viable for other crops.  They can be consumed by people like many other kinds of beans, and they can also provide forage for livestock with better nutrition content than many other plants.  They seem to be a very attractive option for a crop in the changing climate.  What is lacking, at present, is large supplies of tepary seeds to be planted.

Researchers at Texas A&M have been funded to bring tepary beans into modern cropping systems and diets.  The goal is to develop tepary bean cultivars with high biomass and yield that are still well-suited to drought and heat conditions.  Getting the beans to the point of widespread commercialization will take several years.  The end result should be of interest to pulse growers, seed industries, and food companies across the U.S.

Tepary beans are higher in fiber and protein than most other beans.  They come in several different colors, each of which has unique flavor and texture characteristics.  The white ones have a naturally sweet flavor.   The brown beans are slightly nutty in flavor and are similar to pinto beans.  If the Texas program is successful, we may all be eating tepary beans some day.

**********

Web Links

Tepary Beans Offer Producers A Low-Input, Climate-Resilient Legume Alternative

Photo, posted August 25, 2017, courtesy of Katja Schulz via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Space Tourism And The Climate | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Space tourism is human space travel for recreational purposes.  A few well-known billionaires have taken rocket rides in recent years and at least a dozen companies are at the vanguard of what they are expecting to be a burgeoning industry.  If space tourism truly takes off – pun intended – it could be a serious threat to the climate and the environment.

Black carbon – essentially soot – is emitted when fossil fuels, including rocket fuels, are burned.  Black carbon absorbs light from the sun and releases thermal energy, making it a powerful climate warming agent.  At lower altitudes, black carbon quickly falls from the sky, remaining in the atmosphere for only a matter of days or weeks.

Rockets are another story entirely.  They dump black carbon into the stratosphere as they blast into space, and up there black carbon is 500 times worse for the climate and sticks around for several years.

A detailed study by researchers at University College London looked at the climate impact of present-day space launches compared with the potential massive expansion of launches from a large space tourism industry.

The overall result is that current space launches are not a significant source of emissions, but space launches would become incredibly significant if projections of tourist space flights proved to be true.  Currently, there are roughly 100 space launches a year world-wide.  If that number becomes thousands, the impact on the climate would be substantial.

The same researchers looked at the ozone impact of rocket launches and reached a similar conclusion.  The current impact of spaceflights is not very significant, but a massive increase in launches could have a major impact on atmospheric ozone concentrations.

Space tourism may be exciting, but it also could be very dangerous for the planet.

**********

Web Links

Space Tourism Poses a Significant ‘Risk to the Climate’

Impact of Rocket Launch and Space Debris Air Pollutant Emissions on Stratospheric Ozone and Global Climate

Photo, posted May 30, 2020, courtesy of Daniel Oberhaus (2020) via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Race For American Lithium Mining | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The auto industry is making a massive transition from gas-powered cars to electric cars.  The exploding electric vehicle market has set off what some call a global battery arms race.  Battery manufacturers are urgently trying to source the raw materials needed to make batteries, which presently include cobalt, nickel, graphite, and lithium.  There is encouraging progress in reducing and even eliminating cobalt and nickel from electric car batteries, but so far lithium seems to be essential.

The International Energy Agency has named lithium as the mineral for which there is the fastest growing demand in the world.  Estimates are that if the world is to meet the global climate targets set by the Paris Agreement, at least 40 times more lithium will be needed in 2040 compared with today.

According to the US Geological Survey, the US has about 9 million tons of lithium, which puts it in the top 5 most lithium-rich countries in the world.  Despite this, our country mines and processes only 1% of global lithium output.  Most of the rest comes from China, Chile, and Australia.  Being dependent upon these foreign sources is a serious concern for national security.

There is only one operational lithium mine in the US at present.  Multiple companies are pressing to get more mining projects in operation, including sites in North Carolina and Nevada.  But there are serious environmental problems associated with lithium mining and there is considerable local opposition to establishing the mines.

The US wants to be a leader in the global race to build the batteries that will power the green transition but it is a complicated situation that combines both undeniably important benefits as well as very real dangers.

**********

Web Links

Powering electric cars: the race to mine lithium in America’s backyard

Photo, posted January 18, 2022, courtesy of Ivan Radic via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Phasing Out Disposables | Earth Wise      

By Leave a Comment

Humans generate a remarkable amount of garbage.  According to the World Bank, humans produce 4.5 trillion pounds of trash every year, with at least 33% of this garbage not managed in an environmentally-safe manner. By 2050, global garbage generation is expected to reach nearly 7.5 trillion pounds a year. 

Globally, an average of 1.6 lbs of waste is generated per person per day.  While high-income countries only account for 16% of the global population, they are responsible for about 34% of the world’s waste. 

But almost everything humans throw away was bought from a company.   Whether it was the packaging or the product itself, we purchased it from somewhere.  There’s a growing movement to hold the companies responsible for the trash they produce. 

Faced with increasing consumer consciousness, many companies are stepping up and announcing initiatives to reduce their waste.  Starbucks is one of them.  The company’s white logo-emblazoned paper cups and clear plastic cups are instantly recognizable symbols of the brand.  But these ubiquitous cups are disposable and also serve as a symbol of our throwaway society. 

By the end of next year, Starbucks is planning to allow customers to use their own personal mugs at every location in the U.S. and Canada.  By 2025, the company wants every customer to be able to use either their own mug or to borrow a ceramic or reusable to-go mug.  This borrow-a-mug program is currently being tested in eight different markets around the globe. 

In lieu of regulation mandating corporate responsibility for waste, we will have to hope that more companies do the right thing.

**********

Web Links

Starbucks is planning to phase out its iconic cups

Photo, posted June 11, 2010, courtesy of Sunghwan Yoon via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

A Solar-Powered Target Store | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Many companies have made sustainability commitments of various types. Environmental organizations have urged big-box and grocery stores to install solar panels on their rooftops and parking lots thereby reducing their energy usage and expanding the country’s supply of renewable energy.  These places occupy large areas and therefore are capable of supporting large solar arrays.

According to a report by two environmental advocacy groups, rooftop solar panels on retail stores could generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of nearly 8 million U.S. homes.

Target Stores are one of the retailers that has been making an effort to be a greener company.  Target has installed solar panels on about 25% of its approximately 1,900 stores.  The Target store in Vista, California, about 40 miles north of San Diego, is the company’s most sustainable store.  It already had solar panels on its rooftop, powering a portion of the store.

But now it has installed massive carports topped with solar panels high above its parking lot.  With these panels, this Target can now produce enough renewable energy to power the entire store, from its refrigeration to its heating and air conditioning. Adding in some of the other energy-saving features of the store, Target expects to produce 10% more energy than the store needs, which it will return to the local power grid.  This is Target’s first net-zero energy store.

Target is not the only big retailer going solar.   Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Walmart all have been installing solar panels on some of their rooftops.  Even some restaurants are trying to reach sustainability goals with solar panels.  This is a trend that hopefully will continue to grow.

**********

Web Links

Target looks to massive solar panels in a California parking lot as a green model to power its stores

Photo, posted June 30, 2014, courtesy of Mike Mozart via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Carbon Capture And The Infrastructure Bill | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The trillion-dollar infrastructure bill contains a variety of provisions related to energy and the environment.  Among them is authorization for more than $12 billion for carbon capture technologies, including direct air capture and demonstration projects on coal, natural gas, and industrial plants and supporting carbon dioxide infrastructure.

Inclusion of this provision has largely been driven by energy companies, electrical utilities, and other industrial sectors.  The strongest proponents have been fossil fuel companies.  The reasons are fairly clear.

Support for carbon capture and storage (or CCS) technologies would yield billions of dollars for corporate polluters while allowing them to continue to burn fossil fuels.  To date, CCS technology has not progressed very far.  It is very expensive and has done little to reduce emissions. 

The strongest argument against directing significant resources into CCS for the power sector is that the plummeting costs of wind and solar energy have made renewable energy sources competitive with or cheaper than burning fossil fuels to generate electricity.  Adding expensive carbon capture equipment to a power plant only makes the economics of using fossil fuels worse.

The infrastructure bill does promote direct air capture technology, which is literally pulling carbon dioxide out of the air independent of any industrial activities generating it.  Given the world’s progress on reducing emissions, direct air capture technology may be an essential part of the global strategy to combat climate change.  If infrastructure funds largely go in that direction rather than for propping up fossil fuel companies, they may prove to be of great value.

**********

Web Links

Fossil Fuel Companies Are Quietly Scoring Big Money for Their Preferred Climate Solution: Carbon Capture and Storage

Photo, posted March 15, 2021, courtesy of Michael Swan via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Massachusetts And Energy Policy | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The transition to a renewables-based energy future continues to accelerate, but there are still many forces that can slow it down.  Government policy has a major role to play.  At the moment, the federal government is trying to prop up the fossil fuel industry with financial incentives and rampant deregulation.  So more than ever, innovative policies at the state level are essential drivers for revolutionizing the energy system.

One state where policy is trying to make a big difference is Massachusetts, which has created the Clean Peak Energy Standard or CPS, finalized and approved in late March and now taking effect.   A clean peak standard is a regulatory tool to reduce the costs and environmental impact of periods when electricity demand is highest, and generation tends to be the most polluting.  The CPS requires electric retailers to procure a minimum percentage of their annual electricity sales from renewable generation or energy storage.  That minimum amount will increase each year.

The CPS is formulated to incentivize better utilization of clean energy technologies to supply power when energy demand is high.  The problem is that there are times when the sun is not shining and the wind isn’t blowing, but energy demand is at its highest.  The solution is to use energy storage technologies that can supply power when it is needed.  Furthermore, storage can be relied upon during times of extreme weather that cause power outages.

Massachusetts has already started using energy storage in its grid.  The small town of Sterling installed an energy storage system in 2016 that provides crucial backup power to the police station and emergency dispatch center, thereby keeping first responder operations running even during extended power outages.

**********

Web Links

Massachusetts is setting the benchmark for nationwide clean energy transformation

Photo, posted March 30, 2012, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Global Emissions And The Coronavirus Shutdown | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

With so much of industry and personal activity curtailed by coronavirus shutdowns across the globe, it is no surprise that greenhouse gas emissions have declined.  According to new research published in the journal Nature Climate Change, average daily global greenhouse gas emissions declined 17% by early April compared to 2019 levels.

If the reopenings around the world continue and the world actually reaches pre-crisis levels by the middle of June, total CO2 emissions for the year would likely end up lower by about 4%.   If various restrictions continue until the end of the year, total global emissions could decline by 7%.

The study analyzed emissions estimates for three levels of coronavirus shutdowns and across six sectors of the economy.  It looked at trends in 69 countries, all 50 U.S. states, and 30 Chinese provinces, representing in total 86% of the world’s population and 97% of global CO2 emissions.

For the first 4 months of the year, emissions from industry declined 19%, the power sector 7%, and public buildings and commerce 21%, compared to last year.  Unsurprisingly, home energy use actually went up by about 3%.

The findings of this study only represent the effects of a short-lived decline in emissions.  As economies open back up, there is no doubt that greenhouse gas emissions will rise back to pre-Covid-19 levels.

The study also reveals that making real changes in emissions will require more than just behavior changes.  Despite billions of people staying home, companies shut down, planes grounded, and cars off the road, we still managed to pump more than 80% of the usual amount of greenhouse gases into the air for the first quarter of the year.

**********

Web Links

Global Emissions Fell 17 Percent Due to Coronavirus Shutdowns

Photo, posted May 7, 2020, courtesy of the MTA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Renewable Energy And The Post-COVID World | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

As is the case for virtually all sectors of the global economy, the short-term prospects for wind and solar power look pretty grim.  Lockdowns, social distancing requirements, and financial upheavals have put many new projects on ice and have halted production at factories making solar panels and wind turbines.  Sales of home solar have struggled as people have put off spending during the economic slowdown.

Ironically, the shutdowns aimed at reducing the spread of the Coronavirus have led to renewable sources accounting for an increased share of power generation.  Global energy demand has plummeted and, because of the low cost of solar and wind power, sources like coal and nuclear power have been curtailed in favor of the renewables.  The dramatically reduced demand has pushed oil and gas prices to historic lows and has left fossil fuel companies struggling to find storage space for the glut of product.

When the world emerges from the pandemic, the question is whether renewable energy will end up on a faster track than before or will end up in a long-term slowdown.  The answer will depend to large extent on the choices political leaders make.

Leaders will unquestionably be designing economic recovery packages.  Such packages could accelerate the shift towards wind and solar power, or they could prop up the fossil fuel economy.  Unfortunately, leaders are prone to be motivated by lobbyists more than by the greater needs of society.  The global economic upheaval represents a real opportunity to change the pace of efforts to address climate change.  Whether that change is a positive one or a negative one is just another looming question facing society when we emerge from the pandemic.

**********

Web Links

How Renewable Energy Could Emerge on Top After the Pandemic

Photo, posted April 12, 2020, courtesy of Jeremy Segrott via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Metal From Plants | Earth Wise

By 2 Comments

Large amounts of metal in soil are generally bad for plants.  But there are about 700 species of plants that thrive in metal-rich soils.  These plants don’t just tolerate minerals from soil in their bodies but actually seem to hoard them to ridiculous levels.

In areas where soils are naturally rich in nickel, typically in the tropics and Mediterranean basin, plants have either died off or have adapted to become nickel loving.  Slicing open a tree with this adaptation produces a neon blue-green sap that is actually one-quarter nickel, which is far more concentrated than the ore that typically feeds commercial nickel smelters.

A group of researchers from the University of Melbourne and other institutions is investigating whether this phenomenon is not just interesting but might also be of real commercial value.  They established a plot of land in a rural village in Borneo and have been harvesting growth from nickel-hyper accumulating plants.  Every six to twelve months, a farmer shaves off one foot of growth from these plants and either burns or squeezes the metal out.  After a short purification, they end up with about 500 pounds of nickel citrate, potentially worth thousands of dollars on international markets.

Phytomining – extracting minerals from hyper-accumulating plants – cannot fully replace traditional mining techniques.  But the technology could enable areas with toxic soils to be made productive and might allow mining companies to use plants to clean up their former mines and waste while actually collecting some revenue.

There are other plants that suck up cobalt, zinc, and similarly crucial metals.  With growing demand for metals, perhaps it is time to harvest them on the farm.

**********

Web Links

Down on the Farm That Harvests Metal From Plants

Photo courtesy of the University of Queensland.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Companies Promise Climate Action | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

A growing number of major corporations are making promises on climate and the promises are getting more ambitious and for faster action.  More companies are disclosing their carbon emissions and more of those companies have emissions reduction targets. 

There has also been an acceleration in the rate at which companies set so-called science-based targets, which are specific, measurable carbon reduction goals that align the company with the Paris Agreement.  Among the hundreds of companies with such targets are Coca-Cola, Nike, Best Buy, Walmart, and Hilton Hotels.  According to one analysis, the number of Fortune 500 companies with concrete, ambitious carbon targets quadrupled in the past four year to 23%.

Environmental advocates have been pressuring companies for decades, but companies seem to be far more proactive now despite the fact that the U.S. government has largely dropped the ball on climate issues.

The reasons include the fact that the effects of climate change are becoming clearer to companies.  Wildfires, rising sea levels, droughts and other aspects of the crisis both make headlines and affect business operations.

Meanwhile, solar and wind energy have gotten significantly cheaper, making it more attractive for companies to shift away from fossil fuels.

At the same time, investors are increasingly asking companies to act on climate issues.  Consumers, employees, and the general public are increasingly demanding action and even children are adding to the pressure to act.

Making these commitments is one thing; following through on them and sticking to them is another.  There are real concerns that there is a great deal of green-washing going on among companies trying to project a favorable image.  In any case, if companies really want to lead on climate, they need to put their money where their mouths are.

**********

Web Links

Better Late Than Never? Big Companies Scramble To Make Lofty Climate Promises

Photo, posted June 22, 2016, courtesy of Mike Mozart via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Jet Fuel From Acetone | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Acetone is a common organic solvent.  It is used to make plastic, fibers, drugs, and other chemicals.  It is commonly used by consumers as nail polish remover.  Acetone is a manufactured chemical, but it is also found naturally in the environment in plants, among other places. There are now companies that produce acetone entirely by fermentation of plant feedstocks, such as corn.

Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory have now developed a process by which acetone can be converted into a fuel additive that can improve the performance of petroleum-based jet fuel, providing both environmental and economic benefits.

The process takes biomass-derived acetone and converts it to isophorone, which they produce by a process called photochemical cycloaddition that creates more complex hydrocarbons.  They then use ultraviolet light to convert the isophorone into cyclobutane, which is a type of hydrocarbon with high energy density that is suitable for aviation fuel applications.

Acetone itself is quite volatile and is unsuitable for fuel applications.  It also cannot be added directly to any fuel supply since it can dissolve engine parts and o-rings.  Cyclobutane, on the other hand, is a safer and more energy-dense fuel that can be a replacement for additives that require high-pressure hydrogen treatment in their synthesis.  Currently, most hydrogen is produced by a process that generates carbon dioxide.  The new conversion process does not result in carbon emissions.

According to the Los Alamos researchers, their process can result in a domestically generated product that will provide environmental benefits, create domestic jobs, improve U.S. energy security, and further U.S. global leadership in bioenergy technologies.

**********

Web Links

Acetone plus light creates a green jet fuel additive

Photo, posted December 18, 2007, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

China And Rare Earth Mining

By Leave a Comment

Rare earth elements are a crucial part of much of modern technology.  Everything from computers to X-ray machines and aircraft engines needs one or more rare earth elements for magnets, lenses, and other functions.  The world’s tech giants such as Apple, Huawei, and Tesla depend on suppliers of rare earths.

Rare earth elements are not actually rare, but they are very expensive to extract in ways that are not extremely harmful to the environment.  China has been a major source of these elements since its rare earth mining industry took off in the 1990s.  The removal of rare earths from the earth’s crust, using a mix of water and chemicals, has caused extensive water and soil pollution.

Today, concrete leaching ponds and plastic-lined wastewater pools dot the hills of Southeast China.  Large wastewater ponds sit uncovered and open to the elements in many places.  Landslides or barrier failures can spill contaminated contents into waterways or groundwater.

Local and federal officials in China have started to shut down illegal and small-scale rare earth mining operations and have embarked on a cleanup of polluted sites.  The rare earth mining cleanup operation is part of wider efforts across China to address severe problems of water, air and soil pollution.

China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology estimated that the cleanup bill for southern Jiangxi Province could amount to more than $5 billion.  Many environmental experts and local officials say that the cost of the cleanup should not be shouldered by the Chinese government alone, but also by the rare earth industry and the global companies and consumers that benefit from rare earth technology.  As rare earth mining efforts start up elsewhere around the world, it is important not to repeat the mistakes made in China.

**********

Web Links

China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

Photo, posted April 21, 2019, courtesy of John Beans via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Climate Change And The Bottom Line

By Leave a Comment

Large companies around the world are facing up to the fact that climate change could substantially affect their bottom lines within the next five years.  Shareholders and regulators have been applying pressure to companies to disclose the specific financial impacts they could face as the planet warms and companies are increasingly making those disclosures.

A non-profit charity called CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project) runs the global disclosure system for investors, companies, cities, states, and regions to manage their environmental impacts.  In 2018, more than 7,000 companies submitted reports to CDP and, for the first time, CDP explicitly asked firms to try to calculate how a warming planet might affect them financially.

Analysis of the reports from 215 of the world’s 500 largest corporations revealed that these companies alone potentially faced roughly $1 trillion in costs related to climate change in the decades ahead unless they took proactive steps to prepare. 

Climate-related risks range from extreme weather that could disrupt supply chains to stricter climate regulations that could hurt the value of coal, oil, and gas investments.  Technology companies like Google’s parent company, Alphabet, Inc., face increased costs to cool energy-hungry data centers as temperatures rise.

In all, the world’s largest companies estimated that at least $250 billion of assets may need to be written off or retired early as the planet heats up.  Previous studies, based on computer climate modeling, have estimated that the risks of global warming, if left unmanaged, could cost the world’s financial sector between $1.7 trillion to $24.2 trillion in net present value terms.

**********

Web Links

Companies See Climate Change Hitting Their Bottom Lines in the Next 5 Years

Photo, posted February 29, 2016, courtesy of Ben Nuttall via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Climate Change And Insurance

By Leave a Comment

While there are still some people who remain dubious about the reality of climate change, insurance companies are not among them.  And, in fact, insurers are warning that climate change could make coverage for ordinary people unaffordable.

Munich Reinsurance, the world’s largest reinsurance firm, blamed global warming for $24 billion in losses from California’s recent wildfires.  Such costs could soon be widely felt as premium rises are already under discussion with insurance companies having clients in vulnerable parts of the state.

With the risk from wildfires, flooding, storms and hail increasing, the only sustainable option for the insurance industry is to adjust risk prices accordingly.  Ultimately, this may become a social issue.  Affordability of insurance is critical because if rates go up too much, many people on low and average incomes in some regions may no longer be able to buy insurance.

The great majority of California’s 20 worst forest fires since the 1930’s has occurred since the year 2000 driven by abnormally high summer temperatures and persistent drought. The reinsurance giant analyzed decades of data with climate models and concluded that the fires are likely driven by climate change.

It isn’t just wildfires.  Insurance premiums are also being adjusted in regions facing an increased threat from severe convective storms whose energy and severity are driven by global warming.  These include parts of Germany, Austria, France, southwest Italy, and the U.S. Midwest.

Linking extreme weather events to climate change is a bit like attributing the performance of a steroid-using athlete to drug use.  The connections are clearer in patterns than in individual disasters.  But the pattern these days is pretty clear.

**********

Web Links

Climate Change Could Make Insurance Unaffordable for Most People

Photo, posted June 12, 2013, courtesy of Jeff Head via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Building For Climate Change

By Leave a Comment

The manifestations of climate change are creating increasingly familiar images:  floodwaters rising up house windows, charred buildings in the wake of wildfires, and homes and businesses demolished by storm winds. As these sorts of calamities become ever more common, changes to how houses are built are going to be necessary.

How can homes become more resilient against severe and unpredictable weather?

Research at Carlton University’s Sprott School of Business looks at this issue.

As an example, houses can be framed and finished in certain ways that help protect them from wind and flooding.  But such methods are currently only happening in the custom-build fringes of the housing sector.  Widespread adoption will require, at the minimum, significant changes to building codes.

Revising building codes is not an easy matter.  The codes themselves are highly technical and complex, and beyond that, the process Is often politicized.

Even simple things like hurricane ties, which are small pieces of hardware that prevent a roof from lifting during a severe wind are not now included in building codes.  Insurance companies support their use as inexpensive protection for houses.  But even though the overall cost is relatively minor, the building industry pushes back at the additional expense.

The need to reduce carbon emissions has created a push for sustainable housing.  But the increasingly erratic weather means that houses also need resilience and adaptation.  These features will inevitably add costs and incorporating them into building codes requires producing convincing business cases.

The U.S. experienced 394 natural catastrophe events last year costing $225 billion in damage.  Finding ways to make homes and businesses more resilient is not just a good idea; it is essential.

**********

Web Links

How to Start Weather-Proofing Homes for Unpredictable Weather

Photo, posted June 12, 2008, courtesy of U.S. Geological Survey 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.

WAMC Northeast Public Radio

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