Earth Wise

A look at our changing environment.

You are here: Home / Archives for emissions

emissions

Carbon In The Ocean | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

New research from the University of Exeter in the UK reveals that the world’s oceans soak up more carbon than previously believed.  Previous estimates of the movement of carbon between the atmosphere and the oceans did not account for the temperature differences between the water’s surface and a few meters below.

The new model includes this factor and finds that there is a significantly higher flux of carbon into the oceans.

The study calculated carbon dioxide fluxes from 1992 to 2018 and found that at certain times and locations there was up to twice as much CO2 contained in the ocean as determined from previous models.

The temperature differences between the surface of the ocean and the water at a depth of a few meters is important because the amount of carbon dioxide that can be absorbed in water depends very strongly on the temperature of the water.   Anyone with a home soda maker knows this well as the devices always work much better with refrigerated water than room temperature water.

The difference in ocean carbon dioxide uptake measured from satellite data and calculated in the new modeling amounts to about 10% of global fossil fuel emissions, so it is a very significant revision.  The revised estimate for carbon dioxide uptake actually agrees much better with an independent method for calculating the amount of carbon dioxide in the oceans.  Those measurements came from a global ocean survey performed by research ships over decades.

Now that two so-called big data estimates of the ocean sink for CO2 agree pretty well, there is greater confidence that we understand this important aspect of the planet’s carbon cycle.

**********

Web Links

Ocean carbon uptake widely underestimated

Photo, posted December 30, 2012, courtesy of Jerome Decq via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Land Use Change And Flooding | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Land use change refers to the conversion of a piece of land’s use by humans from one purpose to another. Land use change is commonly associated with biodiversity loss and increased greenhouse gas emissions.  But how does land use change impact water cycles? 

According to researchers from the University of Göttingen in Germany, IPB University, and BMKG (both in Indonesia), the expansion of monocultures, such as rubber and oil palm plantations, leads to more frequent and more severe flooding.  The researchers explain the increase in flooding “with a complex interplay of ecohydrological and social processes, including soil degradation in monocultures, the expansion of oil palm plantations into wetlands, and the construction of flood protection dams.” 

For the study, which was recently published in the journal Ecology & Society, the research team interviewed nearly 100 Indonesian farmers, villagers, and decision-makers in Sumatra.  The team supplemented its research with data on precipitation, river and groundwater levels, soil properties, and regional mapping. 

During large-scale land use change – like plantation expansions – newly-compacted soil causes rainwater to runoff as opposed to being absorbed.  As more plantations are established in floodplains, the owners try to control flooding on their land by building barriers.  But these dams often lead to increased flooding on neighboring lands.  This understandably triggers social tensions between other farmers and plantation owners.     

In order to reduce the negative impact of land use change on the water cycle, the research team suggests soil protection and improved planning – especially in floodplains – would be a good place to start.  

**********

Web Links

Land use change leads to increased flooding in Indonesia

Photo, posted October 8, 2018, courtesy of Artem Beliaikin via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Dangers Of Negative Emissions Technologies | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Reducing carbon emissions is not easy and there are plenty of people who don’t even want to try for various reasons, generally related to their perceived economic interests and convenience.  As a result, there is a great deal of interest in so-called negative emissions technologies or NETs.   These are methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that NETs will play a role in mitigating the effects of climate change and meeting international goals.

The most widely studied approaches to negative emissions technology are bioenergy with carbon capture and storage – which entails growing crops for fuel, and then capturing and burying the CO2 produced from burning the fuel; planting more forests; and direct air capture, which involves actually pulling CO2 out of the air and storing it – probably underground. 

A new study published in Nature Climate Change points out that none of these technologies has even been tried at the demonstration scale, much less at the massive levels required to make a dent in current CO2 emissions. 

Their analysis of the biofuel and reforestation strategies show that each would take up vast land and water resources already needed for agriculture and nature.  Air capture uses less water than the other two approaches, but still uses quite a bit and even more energy, which if supplied by fossil fuels, would offset the benefits of carbon capture.

Negative emissions technologies may well play an important role in combating climate change, but it is essential that we understand what the consequences will be from implementing them.  We need to know the pitfalls that could arise.  It would be a major mistake to simply count on NETs to be some kind of silver bullet.

**********

Web Links

Remove CO2 from the air? Don’t bet on it before examining costs, researchers say

Photo, posted January 11, 2008, courtesy of Al Pavangkanan via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

A New Carbon Capture Technique | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Carbon dioxide emissions by electricity generating plants, fossil-fuel burning vehicles, and industry produce about 2/3 of the greenhouse gases driving climate change.  Without decreasing these emissions, the earth will continue to get warmer, sea levels will continue to rise, and the world will face more droughts, floods, wildfires, famine and conflict.

Electrification of vehicles and reliance upon renewable energy sources will ultimately drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels and the resultant emissions, but that transition may take too long to reverse the direction of climate change.  In the meantime, there is a great need to find effective and efficient ways to capture emissions from fossil fuel plants. 

Recent research at the University of California, Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and ExxonMobil has developed a new technique for carbon capture.  The technique makes use of metal-organic framework (or MOF) technology.  An MOF, modified with nitrogen-containing amine molecules, captures CO2 and then low-temperature steam is used to flush out the CO2 either to be used or sequestered underground.

Experiments demonstrated the technique to have a six-times greater capacity for removing CO2 from the flue gas of a refinery than current amine-based technology.  It selectively removed 90% of the emitted CO2. 

There is a relatively limited market for captured CO2, so power plants using the capture technology would likely pump the CO2 into the ground, or otherwise sequester it.  The cost of doing this sort of emission scrubbing would have to be facilitated by government policies, such as carbon trading or a carbon tax, which would provide the necessary economic incentive for doing carbon capture and sequestration.

**********

Web Links

New technique to capture CO2 could reduce power plant greenhouse gases

Photo courtesy of UC Berkeley.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Vehicle Electrification On The Rise | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Nearly 70% of U.S. oil consumption is for transportation and transportation accounts for 28% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.  Therefore, technology improvements in transportation that can reduce emissions are a key element of combating climate change.  The highest impact strategy is the electrification of the transportation sector, and it is definitely accelerating.

Demand for electric vehicles is growing for multiple reasons.  These include long-term cost savings, tax incentives, declining battery costs, and greater environmental awareness.  This year, about 2.7 percent of global passenger vehicle sales will be for electric vehicles.  It is still a fairly small number, but that number is growing rapidly.  It is expected to be 10% in 2025, 28% in 2030, and more than half of all vehicle sales by 2040.  By that year, more than 30% of passenger vehicles on the road worldwide will be electric.  The numbers for electric buses, delivery vans and trucks, mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles are expected to be even higher.

The environmental impact of electrification will be significant in reducing carbon emissions and pollution in general.  Electric vehicles already reduce oil demand by a million barrels a day.  By the year 2040, they will displace nearly 18 million barrels of oil a day and reduce CO2 emissions by 2.5 billion tons per year.

Electric cars still face challenges.  They are still more expensive than gas-powered cars, but their cost-benefit analysis is changing rapidly as technology improvements and volume efficiencies drive down the cost of battery packs.  Analysts predict that electric vehicles will achieve price parity with internal combustion vehicles in as soon as two years but in any case within the next ten years.

**********

Web Links

Electrification of transportation sector nears tipping point

Photo, posted May 7, 2020, courtesy of Mark Vletter via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Climate Change And The South Pole | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

According to a study led by researchers at Ohio University, the South Pole has warmed more than three times the global average over the past 30 years.  While the warming was driven by natural tropic climate variability, the researchers argue that rising greenhouse gas emissions likely intensified the warming. 

The climate in the antarctic has some of the largest ranges in temperature during the year.  Some regions, like most of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, experienced warming during the late 20th century.  But the South Pole, which is located in the remote and high-altitude interior of the continent, actually cooled until the 1980s.  The South Pole, as the study highlights, has warmed substantially ever since. 

For the study, which was recently published in the journal Nature Climate Change, the researchers analyzed climate models and weather station data at the South Pole.  They found that, between 1989 and 2018, the South Pole had warmed by 1.8 degrees Celsius.  This warming trend of 0.6 degrees Celsius per decade is three times the global average. 

According to the study, the robust warming of the Antarctic interior has been mainly driven by the tropics.  Warm ocean temperatures in the western tropical Pacific Ocean have altered the winds in the South Atlantic, increasing the delivery of warm air to the South Pole.  These atmospheric changes are an important part of what’s driving the climate anomalies in the region.

But the researchers argue that the warming trends are unlikely a result of natural climate change alone.  The effects of anthropogenic – or human-caused – climate change in addition to the natural changes have combined to make this one of the strongest warming trends globally.    

**********

Web Links

Extreme warming of the South Pole

Photo, posted February 7, 2011, courtesy of Eli Duke via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

More Carbon Dioxide From Thawing Permafrost | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet.  Stories about the loss of polar ice and hundred-degree temperatures in Siberia have become commonplace.  One of the most troubling aspects of the warming Arctic is the thawing of permafrost.  Permafrost is ground that remains frozen for at least two years; some of it has been frozen for tens or hundreds or even thousands of years.  Found under a layer of soil, permafrost is composed of rock, soil, sediments, and varying amounts of ice.  It stores the carbon-based remains of plants and animals that froze before they could decompose.  Permafrost covers almost a quarter of North America, but it is starting to thaw.

Scientists estimate that there are more than 16,000 billion tons of carbon locked away in Arctic permafrost, which is almost double the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere.  Climate models predict that the warming of the Arctic could lead to 5 to 15% of that carbon to be emitted as carbon dioxide by the year 2,100, which would be enough to raise global temperatures by 0.3 to 0.4 degrees Celsius.

New research has increased this estimate because it includes a key pathway for CO2 to enter the atmosphere that earlier models ignored.   When carbon from thawing permafrost escapes into Arctic lakes and rivers, it is oxidized by ultraviolet and visible light and it then escapes into the atmosphere as CO2.  This process is known as photomineralization and is estimated to raise permafrost-related CO2 emissions by 14%.

Recent studies project that with every 1-degree Celsius increase in temperature, 1.5 million square miles of permafrost could be lost through thawing.

**********

Web Links

Climate Models Underestimate CO2 Emissions from Permafrost by 14 Percent, Study Finds

Photo, posted July 7, 2014, courtesy of NPS Climate Change via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Side Effects Of Geoengineering | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

As the world struggles to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the global climate, some researchers are exploring proposals to deliberately engineer climate changes to counteract the warming trend.  One of the most widely discussed approaches is to shade the Earth from a portion of the sun’s heat by injecting the stratosphere with reflective aerosol particles.  Proponents of this idea point out that volcanoes do essentially the same thing, although generally for only a limited amount of time.  Particularly large eruptions, such as the Krakatowa eruption of 1883, wreaked havoc with weather around the world for an entire year.

Schemes to launch reflective aerosols – using planes, balloons, and even blimps – appear to be quite feasible from the standpoint of physically accomplishing them. But this says nothing about the political, ethical, and societal issues involved.  The point is that such an approach could indeed lower global temperatures and thereby potentially offset the warming effects of greenhouse gases.

A study by scientists at MIT looked at what other effects such a solar geoengineering project might have on the climate.  Their modeling concluded that it would significantly change storm tracks in the middle and high latitudes.  These tracks give rise to cyclones, hurricanes, and many more ordinary weather phenomena.

According to the study, the northern hemisphere would have weakened storm tracks, leading to less powerful winter storms, but also stagnant conditions in summer and less wind to clear away air pollution.  In the southern hemisphere, there would be more powerful storm tracks.

Aside from turning the world’s weather patterns inside out, solar geoengineering would do nothing to address the serious issue of ocean acidification caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels.

As many have pointed out, playing the geoengineering game would have many unintended consequences.

**********

Web Links

Study: Reflecting sunlight to cool the planet will cause other global changes

Photo courtesy of MIT.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Mangrove Trees And Climate Change | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Mangrove trees are small trees that grow in coastal saline or brackish water at tropical and subtropical latitudes.  Many mangrove trees can be identified by their dense tangle of prop roots.  These roots make the trees appear as if they are standing on stilts above the water.  The tangle of roots allows mangrove trees to handle the daily rise and fall of tides and to slow the movement of tidal waters.  

Mangrove forests provide many ecosystem services, including stabilizing the coastline by reducing erosion from storm surges, waves, and tides.  The intricate root system of mangrove trees are attractive to fish and other species seeking food and shelter from predators.  Mangrove forests also store large amounts of carbon.     

But according to a new study recently published in the journal Science, mangrove trees won’t survive sea level rise by 2050 if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t reduced.  

Using sediment data from 78 locations over the last 10,000 years, an international team of scientists led by Macquarie University in Australia estimated the chances of mangrove trees survival based on the projected rates of future sea-level rise.

When sea level rise rates exceeded 6 millimeters per year, which is similar to estimates under high-emissions scenarios for 2050, researchers found that mangrove trees were unlikely to keep pace with the rising water levels.  But when the annual increase was 5 millimeters or less – which is the projected low-emissions scenario this century – mangrove trees are much more likely to survive. 

These findings underscore the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate rapid sea level rise.  The future of mangrove trees may depend on it.  

**********

Web Links

Mangrove trees won’t survive sea-level rise by 2050 if emissions aren’t cut

Photo, posted December 17, 2012, courtesy of Edward Stojakovic via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Turning Dead Trees Into Biomass Energy | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

California has suffered from numerous large wildfires in recent years.  The two largest in the past century took place in 2017 and 2018, and just these two alone burned nearly 750,000 acres, destroyed over 1,200 structures, and killed 24 people.

Apart from the fires, drought, the warming climate, and bark-beetle infestations have killed 147 million California trees since 2013, most of them along the spine of the Sierra mountains.  These dead trees represent a significant danger in forthcoming fire seasons as they threaten to burn with enormous intensity.

There are now biomass projects in California that thin trees in overcrowded forests and remove dead and diseased trees and turn them into wood chips to supply community biomass facilities that burn them to produce heat and electricity.

Proponents say these projects help rebuild rural communities by creating jobs, while at the same time reducing fire risk. 

There are critics of these programs who claim that they are damaging and destroying ecosystems.    They also point out that burning forest fuels emits 50% more carbon than burning coal and three times as much as burning natural gas.  This is true of biomass in general but is mitigated by the fact that it in principle the carbon can be recaptured by new forest growth.

However, the dominant argument about emissions is that wildfires emit far more carbon dioxide than biomass plants, or much of anything else, for that matter.  In 2018 alone, California wildfires released 50% more carbon dioxide than California’s entire industrial sector.  So, reducing the extent of wildfires is a big deal for many reasons.

**********

Web Links

In California, A Push Grows to Turn Dead Trees into Biomass Energy

Photo, posted August 24, 2016, courtesy of the USDA via 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.

Planting Trees and Climate Change | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Forests are among the most important natural carbon sinks.  Trees remove carbon from the air and store it in their trunks, branches, and leaves, and transfer part of it into the soil.  But in some regions, these natural carbon sinks are starting to weaken due to deforestation, forest degradation, and the impacts of climate change.  This problem has led some climate mitigation projects to focus on increasing the overall number of trees on the planet. 

But, according to a paper recently published in the journal Science, “we can’t plant our way out of climate change.”  That’s the simple message from Restoration Ecologist Karen Holl and University of São Paulo Professor Pedro Brancalion to anyone who thinks planting one trillion trees will reverse the effects of climate change.  They say planting more trees is only one piece of the puzzle.  Any initiatives like 1t.org or the Trillion Tree Campaign must be done carefully and be accompanied by commitments to long-term management.

Tree plantings can provide many environmental benefits, including improving water quality, biodiversity, and increasing shade.  But trees can sometimes have undesirable impacts, such as harming native species and ecosystems or reducing water availability, depending on where and how the trees are planted.

The authors suggest four principles that should guide forest enhancement initiatives: reduce forest clearing and degradation, balance ecological and social goals, view tree plantings as one part of a multifaceted solution, and plan, coordinate and monitor the work. 

While tree plantings can clearly be part of the solution, slowing the pace of climate change requires a comprehensive approach that must start with burning less fossil fuels.

**********

Web Links

Challenges in tree-planting programs

Planting trees is no panacea for climate change

Photo, posted December 1, 2019, courtesy of Akuppa John Wigham via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Benefits Of A Zero-Emissions Boston | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Many countries, states, and cities around the world have set goals to become carbon neutral, typically by the year 2050.  These goals are based on the desire to mitigate the effects of climate change that are steadily increasing as a result of the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  But reducing emissions is not just a way to combat climate change, it can also be a major contributor to improved public health.

The City of Boston has set a goal to become carbon neutral by 2050.  A new study by the School of Public Health at Boston University published in the journal Environmental Research Letters looked at the consequences of eliminating fossil fuel emissions in the greater Boston area.

According to their modeling, eliminating emissions would save 288 lives a year by reducing fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses.   The resulting decrease in medical costs and lost and reduced work could save $1.7 billion a year in Suffolk County and $2.4 billion a year for the entire 75-square-mile zone modeled in the study.

The study looked at the amounts of two air pollutants known to harm human health:  PM2.5 (particulates with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns) and ozone.  They compared the current levels of these pollutants to what would be present when contributions from motor vehicles, generators, rail, industry, oil- and gas-burning, shipping and boating, and residential wood fires were eliminated.

The study focused on the City of Boston’s climate action plan, but actions taken by Boston will not take place in a vacuum.  Many cities across the region are taking similar actions.  The overall results will come from the collective actions across New England.

**********

Web Links

A Zero-Emissions Boston Could Save 288 Lives and $2.4 Billion Annually

Photo, posted August 31, 2019, courtesy of Eric Kilby via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Danger Of Relying On Future Technology | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The need to mitigate the effects of climate change has been a global focus for about 40 years and has seen ever-changing views on what actions are needed.  The historical record has been defined by over-reliance on promises of new technology to solve climate change.  Looking to future technology to save the environment has been an excuse to postpone necessary action and avoid inconvenient changes in how we do things.

A study at Lancaster University in the UK published in Nature Climate Change exposes how such promises have raised expectations of more effective policy options becoming available in the future and have enabled the continued politics of inadequate action and skirting around the truth.

Even after four decades, rather than acting forcefully to reduce emissions, we are hoping that nuclear fusion power, giant carbon sucking machines, ice-restoration using vast numbers of wind-powered pumps, and spraying particulates into the atmosphere can address the climate crisis rather than dramatic changes in fossil fuel use.

The researchers mapped the history of climate targets in five phases.  Early on, the focus was on improved energy efficiency, large-scale enhancement of carbon sinks, and nuclear power.  Next, the focus was on cutting emissions with efficiency, fuel switching, and carbon capture and storage.  After that, bioenergy was the major focus.  Then, global carbon budgeting and potential negative emission technologies.  Currently, the focus is on temperature outcomes rather than emission targets.

Each novel promise competes with existing ideas and downplays any sense of urgency.   The researchers conclude that putting our hopes on yet more new technologies is unwise.  The time to act is now.

**********

Web Links

Why relying on new technology won’t save the planet

Photo, posted February 13, 2019, courtesy of Jonathan Cutrer via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Methane-Eating Bacteria And Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

One of the great concerns about the warming Arctic temperatures is that thawing permafrost will release alarming amounts of methane into the atmosphere.  Organic material in the permafrost begins to decompose when temperatures rise, and methane is released in the process.

Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.  Methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide, but it is more efficient at trapping radiation.  Pound for pound, the comparative impact of methane is more than 25 times greater than carbon dioxide.

A new study, published by scientists at Purdue University, has discovered a type of methane-oxidizing bacteria living in upland Arctic soils that could potentially be reducing the amount of methane emitted by decomposing permafrost.

The findings of the research indicate that the net greenhouse gas emissions from the Arctic may be much smaller than previously modeled because of the increased productivity of a type of bacteria known as high affinity methanotrophs, or HAMs.  This group of bacteria uses atmospheric methane as an energy source.  The emissions from wetlands will potentially be very large, but the contribution from the uplands will be mitigated by the bacteria.

Organic-rich soils, including permafrost, comprise only 13% of the Arctic land area and are the major source of methane emissions.  The other 87% of the region is dominated by mineral-rich soils that support HAMs.  Because of this, overall methane emissions continue to be less than climate models have predicted.

While this is good news, the researchers warn that Arctic emissions overall will continue to increase as shown in other studies.

**********

Web Links

Methane-Eating Bacteria Could Help Decrease Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Thawing Arctic Tundra

Photo, posted July 12, 2016, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Small-Scale Climate Solutions | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

In order to meet international climate targets, we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half over the next decade and reach net-zero by mid-century.  Achieving this will require unprecedented and rapid changes in how energy is supplied, distributed and used.

Researchers at several European universities collected data on a wide variety of energy technologies at different scales and tested how well they performed in accomplishing an accelerated low-carbon transformation. 

Large-scale, costly, non-divisible or so-called lumpy technologies, such as utility-scale generation, nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, high-speed transportation, and whole-building retrofits are often seen as the most effective way to achieve emission-reduction goals. A key finding of their study is that low-carbon technologies that are smaller scale and can be mass deployed are more likely to enable a faster transition to net-zero emissions.

So-called granular options include solar panels, electricity storage batteries, heat pumps, smart thermostats, electric bikes, and ride-share services.  These options scale not by becoming larger but by replicating.

Small-scale options are quicker to deploy, their technologies have shorter lifespans and are less complex, so innovations and improvements can be brought to market more rapidly.  They are also more widely accessible and help create more jobs, giving governments a sound basis for strengthening climate policies.

However, smaller-scale technologies are not a panacea.  There are no small-scale replacements for industrial plants and other kinds of major infrastructure, but in many different contexts, they can outperform larger-scale alternatives as a means of accelerating the low-carbon transformation.

**********

Web Links

Smaller scale solutions needed for rapid progress towards emissions targets

Photo, posted April 8, 2019, courtesy of the City of St Pete via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Electric Cars And The Environment | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

There are articles in the media all the time questioning whether electric cars are really better for the environment than those powered by fossil fuels.  The usual argument is that once emissions from vehicle production and electricity generation are taken into account, electric cars are no greener than gas cars, or even worse for the environment.  Of course, these arguments tend to be made by oil companies and their supporters.

A new study by three European universities looked at this very issue in detail. They carried out a life-cycle assessment in which they not only calculated greenhouse gas emissions generated when using cars, but also in the production chain and waste processing.

Their conclusions are that under current conditions, driving an electric car is better for the climate than conventional gasoline cars in 95% of the world.  The only exceptions are places like Poland, where almost all electricity comes from coal-fired plants.

Average lifetime emissions associated with electric cars are up to 70% lower than gas cars in countries like Sweden and France and about 30% lower in England.

It is important to note than in a few years, even inefficient electric cars will be less emission-intensive than gas cars because electricity generation is becoming less carbon-intensive all the time.  The study projects that by 2050, half of the world’s cars will be electric resulting in carbon dioxide emission reductions of 1.5 billion tons.

The study states that the idea that electric cars could increase emissions is a myth.  The detailed study has run the numbers for all around the world and even in the worst-case scenario, there would be a reduction in emissions in almost all cases.

**********

Web Links

Electric cars better for climate in 95% of the world

Photo, posted February 13, 2019, courtesy of Guillaume Vachey via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Last New York Coal Plant Closing | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The last coal-fired power plant in New York State is closing.  The plant, located in Barker, about an hour’s drive from Buffalo, employs 44 people.  The plant’s closure is an early test of New York’s new climate law, which is one of the most ambitious in the country.  The law is supposed to transform the state’s energy grid to carbon-free by 2040. 

Coal plants across the country are going offline, priced out by natural gas and targeted by regulations and incentives aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Coal plant closures bring common challenges:  lost tax revenues and jobs as well as efforts to retrain workers and clean up sites.  Every plant has a specific place in a community, and each community has its own story.

The new climate law is supposed to create thousands of new jobs, including high-paying union jobs like the ones the employees in Barker are losing.  But jobs are scarce in the northwest corner of the state where Barker is located.

The state government has recently issued rules that would make it easier to get permission to build renewable energy sites, including wind turbines and solar farms, allowing applicants to bypass zoning rules and other local regulations.  But residents of rural towns have environmental and aesthetic concerns about these potential new energy plants.

In 2010, the United States had 580 coal-fired power plants providing 45% of the country’s electricity. By March 2018, there were fewer than 350 plants and coal’s market share had dropped to 30%.  At this point, there are about 224 plants producing 18% of the country’s power.  The writing is on the wall for coal power.

**********

Web Links

New York’s Last Coal-Fired Power Plant Is Closing

Photo, posted March 13, 2018, courtesy of Joed Viera via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Shutting Down Pollution | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

With much of the country shut down as the coronavirus forces people to stay at home, there has naturally been a drastic reduction of traffic on roads and highways.   And with that decrease, there has been a dramatic reduction in pollution as well.

A satellite that detects emissions in the atmosphere linked to cars and trucks has observed huge declines in pollution in major metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Seattle, New York, Chicago, and Atlanta.

Los Angeles is infamous for its rush-hour traffic but that has pretty much ceased to exist. Similar changes can be seen in the San Francisco Bay Area, where nearly 7 million residents have been ordered to shelter in place.  New York City is less dependent on car travel than in other metro areas, but the shutdown of office buildings, schools, and restaurants has nonetheless resulted in a substantial reduction of traffic on the streets of the city.

While this sudden decline in air pollution over U.S. cities has some near-term health benefits, those benefits are likely to be fairly minor in the big picture.  When the coronavirus outbreak subsides and people are allowed to leave their homes and go back to their normal lives, air pollution will most certainly rebound to previous levels.  In any event, studies have shown that long-term exposure to air pollution has a larger impact on public health than any transient events.

Having much cleaner air for a while is certainly a good thing, but this shutdown is not a sustainable way to reduce air pollution and the long-term effects of the coronavirus crisis will certainly not be positive.

**********

Web Links

Traffic and Pollution Plummet as U.S. Cities Shut Down for Coronavirus

Photo, posted March 15, 2020, courtesy of Tom Collins via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Online Shopping And Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

These days, consumers have multiple choices for how to shop for even the most mundane products.  There are both traditional and online ways to buy most so-called fast-moving consumer goods, such as cleaning supplies and packaged foods.  Price, quality, convenience, and time-frame guide our choices.

In the past, these things were always purchased by going to “Bricks & Mortar”, that is, physical retail stores. But now, we can order them from physical stores and have them delivered directly by the store – which is known as “Bricks & Clicks” – or we can order them online from an e-tailer and have them delivered by a parcel delivery company or the post office, so-called “Pure Play” online purchasing..

The carbon footprint of these three approaches depends on multiple factors according to a new study published in Environmental Science and Technology.  The study looked at the impact of transport, warehouse storage, delivery, and packaging.

Overall, the greenhouse gas footprints per item purchased at Bricks & Mortar were higher than those of Bricks & Clicks but lower than that of Pure Players.  But the results were highly dependent upon how many items were actually being purchased, and where the consumers lived.  The type of items also mattered.  For example, clothing purchased from a pure-play online source is much more likely to be returned than if purchased in a store.

Bricks & Mortar shoppers could reduce their footprint by 40% by walking or biking to stores, and Pure Players could cut emissions by 26% by switching to electric vehicles for the delivery of products from parcel distribution centers to consumers’ homes.

**********

Web Links

Comparing greenhouse gas footprints of online versus traditional shopping

Photo, posted July 15, 2017, courtesy of Elaine Smith 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...)