If you’re in North America right now, there’s a decent chance wildfire smoke is affecting you. Here in New York, the air quality is rather awful, so many people are rushing to buy air purifiers. While we have recommended some of the best air purifiers, we know price is a consideration. And while many retailers rush to apply misleading “discounts” to air purifier models, there are some deals out there to be had if you know where to look.

We haven’t personally tested every model on this list, but the selections presented here represent discounts below the products’ usual prices. And we’ve stuck to reputable brands with solid reputations because you definitely want your air purifier to actually purify the air if you’re going to shell out your cash to get it.

LEVOIT Air Purifier for Home Bedroom $39 w/ coupon (Was $49)

Levoit

SEE IT

This very simple air purifier relies on a dual-filter HEPA system to pull particulates out of the air. It can handle a roughly 130-square-foot space and operates extremely quietly. With the coupon applied, this is the cheapest it has been in some time. So, if you’re looking for a simple, quiet solution to clean up the air in your office or bedroom, this is a solid deal.

BISSELL® air280 Max WiFi Connected Smart Air Purifier with HEPA & Carbon Filter Large Room $189 (Was $299)

Bissell

SEE IT

If you want a larger model that will handle a much bigger space, Bissell’s whole-home solution is considerably cheaper now than a month ago. It can handle spaces up to 1,350 square feet with one air change per hour. Put it in a smaller room, and it’ll refresh the air even more often.

More air purifier deals

We expect a lot of people are buying a lot of air purifiers right now, so these deals might not hang around as long as the smoke in the air. iI you see something you want in stock, we say snag it.

• Dyson – Pure Cool Purifying Fan TP01 $329 (was $429)
• Shark HP102PET Clean Sense Air Purifier for Home $149 (was $239)
• LEVOIT Air Purifiers for Home Large Room Up to 1900 Ft $154 (was $189)
• LEVOIT Air Purifiers for Home Large Room, Smart WiFi $399 (with coupon, was $499)
• hOmeLabs 4-in-1 Compact Air Purifier $26.99 (was $69.99)
• LEVOIT Air Purifiers for Home Large Room, Covers Up to 3175 Sq. Ft $269 (was $299)
• Filtrete Air Purifier, Large Room with True HEPA Filter $108 (was $179)
• Nuwave Oxypure Air Purifier Pro for Extra Large Room $549 (was $599)
• Shark HE402 Air Purifier 4 True HEPA Cleans up to 1000 Sq. Ft $219 (was $349)
• Honeywell HHT270 Air Purifier, Small Rooms $40 (was $65)
• LEVOIT Air Purifiers for Bedroom Home $42 (was $49)
• LEVOIT Air Purifiers for Home Large Room $269 (with coupon, was $299)
• LEVOIT Air Purifiers for Home Large Room Bedroom Up to 1110 Ft $118 (was $139)
• LG – PuriCare 818 Sq. Ft. Smart HEPA AeroTower Air Purifying Fan $299 (was $549)
• Blueair – Blue Pure 211i Max 635 Sq. Ft HEPASilent Smart Extra-Large Room Air Purifier $279 (was $349)
• Insignia™ – 497 Sq. Ft. HEPA Air Purifier $169 (was $249)
• Levoit – PlasmaPro 400s Smart 403 Sq. Ft True HEPA Air Purifier $249 (was $289)
• Filtrete – 310 Sq. Ft. Smart Air Purifier for Large Rooms $199 (was $349)
• Filtrete – 150 Sq. Ft. Smart Air Purifier for Medium Rooms $149 (was $284)

The post These air purifiers are actually on sale right now at Amazon and Best Buy appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The use of plastic across all facets of human life has grown more and more pervasive in the last few decades, resulting in a surge in global environmental pollution. More than half of the amount of plastic produced from 1950 to 2017 became plastic waste, which harms ecosystems, livelihoods, and food security around the globe. In the United States alone, about 35.7 million tons of plastic were generated in 2018. Exploring potential alternatives to conventional petroleum-based plastics, like bioplastics, is necessary to mitigate pollution and reduce the waste stream.

Bioplastics are usually made from extracted starches, oils, and sugars from renewable sources such as corn and sugarcane—like poly(lactic acids) or PLAs. Others are made from polymers produced by microorganisms, like polyhydroxyalkanoates or PHAs. PLA, one of the most commonly used bioplastics, has similar functionalities to conventional plastic and is considered to be recyclable, biodegradable, and compostable. “Biodegradable” means that it can be degraded naturally by microorganisms, while “compostable” means it is biodegradable in industrial composting operations. However, new research shows that PLA might not be as environmentally friendly as initially thought.

[Related: Why the recycling symbol is part of a ‘misinformation campaign’.]

Because PLA is applied extensively in single-use items and often touted as an alternative to conventional plastics, the authors of a recent PLOS One study looked into the biodegradability of textiles made of PLA in marine waters. The authors found that PLA showed no sign of environmental degradation even after spending 428 days under natural marine conditions. If consumers are buying PLA thinking it’s an ecological solution to plastic items since it biodegrades under normal conditions, they are being misled, says Sarah-Jeanne Royer, visiting scholar at the UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography who was involved in the study.

She adds that PLA is only compostable under specific high-temperature conditions that “cannot be found in nature.” Therefore, the material needs to be properly disposed of and composted to be biodegradable. PLA may be industrially compostable, but since it doesn’t degrade easily in the environment, it demonstrates the potential to be a marine pollutant. The authors conclude that the common practice of referring to industrially compostable materials as “biodegradable plastic” could mislead consumers and increase the amount of plastic waste in the environment.

There is a tendency to assume that bioplastics are biodegradable since they are made from biological materials. However, if they are designed to mimic the structure of conventional plastics, they can last in the environment just as long. In fact, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) discourages the use of “bioplastic” and instead pushes for “bio-based polymer” to avoid misleading individuals that any polymer derived from biomass is inherently environmentally friendly.

Royer says potentially misleading terminology about what is biodegradable or not can affect the environment. Some consumers may think of “biodegradable” and “compostable” as interchangeable, but these materials can often end up in the waste stream just like conventional plastic items. To avoid misconceptions, companies promoting PLA can inform consumers how to use and dispose of their products and let them know the conditions under which the material will biodegrade. “This information should not be hidden and hard to find,” says Royer. “The right labeling is important as it is counterproductive to buy PLA and then discard it in the wrong way.”

In general, a material should be tested under different conditions and scenarios to assess its biodegradability, says Royer. More importantly, it must be tested “under realistic scenarios, such as the natural environment, where these types of materials might end up.” For instance, PLA can be biodegradable under composting facilities, while cellulose-based textile fibers can biodegrade under normal oceanic conditions, she adds.

[Related: Earthworms can break down bioplastic, for better or for worse.]

While the idea of bioplastics can be promising, they’re not the end-all solution. Addressing plastic pollution does not mean using more biodegradable and compostable plastics, but rather, generating less waste in general. Royer says PLA is used for single-use items most of the time, something consumers should avoid using at all costs. 

“Creating a product needs a lot of energy and resources, and using it only a few minutes and then discarding it does not make any sense,” she adds. “If consumers really need to buy a biodegradable bioplastic, then they should make sure to have access to composting facilities, which is not always easy.”

The post A popular ‘compostable’ bioplastic isn’t as biodegradable as it seems appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Best Overall		Temtop M2000 2nd		SEE IT	The ability to test many things in one device, with consistent results and audible alerts, makes this monitor our top pick.
Best Smart		Atmotube Pro Portable		SEE IT	Impressive accuracy, and handy app alerts, help this keychain-sized monitor work well across a wide variety of temperatures and humidity.
Best Indoor Outdoor		Davis Instruments AirLink		SEE IT	This multienvironment-friendly unit offers easy-to-read graphs and charts, Weatherlink.com integration, and compatibility with Davis weather stations.

Nothing beats a breath of fresh air, but air can be contaminated by chemicals, soot, wildfire smoke, and other forest fire byproducts, making an air quality monitor a valuable tool. Even those with the best noses can have difficulty telling how good their local air is, especially with odorless gasses and “Volatile Organic Compounds” (VOCs) from products or processes lurking, so what are you to do? You could call in an air quality professional … or you can begin to do your own tracking with one of our picks for best air quality monitors.

• Best overall: Temtop M2000 2nd
• Best smart: Atmotube Pro Portable
• Best indoor outdoor: Davis Instruments AirLink
• Best portable: Sensirion SPS30
• Best budget: Temtop P20

How we selected the best air quality monitors

Largely, selecting the best air quality monitors was more a matter of hitting the research shelves than the shopping cart button. With such a product, the customer sentiment and manufacturer-supplied specs really mean a lot less than in-depth product analysis from researchers and experts that were able to compare consumer-facing products with laboratory-grade equipment. This results in a thin product selection, but I was able to identify five air quality monitors that I can confidently recommend.

The best air quality monitors: Reviews & Recommendations

What is the best air quality monitor? The best air quality monitors have been tested from official sources and come in various shapes, styles, and working methods. While the Temtop M2000 2nd Generation is the top pick for air quality monitor, due to its ease of use and robust testing ability, our four other monitors might be right for you depending on your circumstances. In any event, these five air quality monitors have both proper testing and current availability in the market.

Best overall: Temtop M2000 2nd Generation

Temtop

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: The Temtop M2000 2nd Generation tests for a wide variety of pollutants, has built-in calibration, and includes an audible alarm.

Specs

• Measures: CO2, HCHO (formaldehyde), PM2.5/PM10, Temp., Humidity
• AQ-SPEC report: High consistency
• Type: Handheld 

Pros

• Tests many things all in one device
• High consistency across many devices
• Has an audible alarm for when levels rise too high
• Tried and tested by several school systems

Cons

• Doesn’t work in temperatures below freezing

The Temtop M2000 2nd Generation is a relatively easily operated handheld air quality monitor that has been widely used. It has been used by the New York State Education Department, and the United Federation of Teachers has used it to measure carbon dioxide levels in schools in efforts to fight Covid-19.

The 2nd Generation product improves upon the original Temtop M2000 by adding a data export feature. This is really useful because, as mentioned by the AQ-SPEC report, where the Temtop M2000 2nd Generation suffers losses in accuracy, it makes up for it with high levels of consistency. Even across multiple Temtops, the reading levels should be consistently similar in the same situation. This means that you can pinpoint exactly when contaminant levels have started rising, even if you have to have a replacement device.

I’m also particularly pleased that it attempts a calibration system. While the accuracy, consistency, and difficulty for average users feel a bit daunting, the system’s overall capabilities are more than enough to begin with. Part of the calibration process being that you leave the device outside for lengthy periods is also annoying but manageable.

In reality, the main concern is the device’s limited capabilities during the colder months. Without being able to function below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the supposed “indoor-outdoor” nature of the device is cut off for many months of the year for those of us too far North or South of the equator. Luckily, in-home monitoring will still work year-round.

Finally, if you like the look of the M2000 2nd Generation, but are looking for something quite a bit cheaper, our budget choice also comes from Temtop. The Temtop P20 has reduced features but also a reduced price tag.

Best smart: Atmotube Pro Portable 

Atmotube

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: The Atmotube Pro attaches directly to your backpack or belt clip and alerts your phone directly when there’s a problem.

Specs

• Measures: PM1/PM2.5/PM10, VOCs, Temp., Humidity, Barometric Pressure
• AQ-SPEC report: High accuracy, high precision
• Type: Wearable

Pros

• Impressive accuracy counts
• Handy app alerts
• Works well across a wide variety of temperatures and humidities
• Keychain size

Cons

• Shorter battery life than hoped for

The Atmotube Pro Portable is a keychain-size air quality monitor that won’t take up much space and can be put just about anywhere or come with you. All of the data collected will be at your fingertips via the Atmo app, available free for Android and iOS devices.

The app will give you your personal stats, access to personal and global maps, and a personalized series of articles to help you understand air quality. You can also export your device’s data as a CSV file for further analysis.

According to the Atmotube’s AQ-SPEC results, the device is quite accurate, ranging from 86% to 98% across various conditions. The AQ-SPEC report also notes that the device is highly consistent across various environmental conditions, saying that heat and humidity had “minimal effect” on the device’s precision. Despite its small size, the Atmotube Pro delivers at a high level.

One of the bigger disappointments with the Atmotube Pro is the battery life. As expected of such a small device, the battery is also quite tiny. When the device is set to take measurements only once every 30 minutes, you can squeeze about a week out of the little battery. However, when you crank that up just a notch, the battery dies much more quickly. This is very unfortunate when using a device that, by its very nature, you want to set up and forget about. Fortunately, if the device isn’t meant to be mobile, you can keep it plugged into the charger while it is running.

Best indoor outdoor: Davis Instruments AirLink

Davis Instruments

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: The AirLink is made for both indoor and outdoor usage, provides beautiful charts, and works well with other Davis Instruments systems.

Specs

• Measures: AQI, Temp., Humidity, Dew Point, Heat Index
• AQ-SPEC report: Highly accurate for PM1.0/PM2.5, but not for PM10, consistent
• Type: Indoor or outdoor

Pros

• Weatherlink.com integration
• Easy-to-read graphs and charts
• Installs easily both indoors and out
• Integrates into your Davis weather station

Cons

• Poor PM10 reading

The Davis Instruments AirLink comes with a heavy-duty body that can be conveniently placed in indoor or outdoor environments. If you want it in your house, place the machine on a desk or table. It has four safety feet to reduce the chances of it sliding off smooth surfaces. Alternatively, mount it outside (near an outlet) and attach the provided weather-resistant cover.

If you’re into more than just air quality monitoring, you’ll really appreciate the extra things the AirLink tracks, such as dew point and heat index. You’ll also be happy to note that it will connect with weatherlink.com and can integrate with your other Davis weather station products. These services are also available on your phone via the WeatherLink app.

I really appreciate that the output looks professional but still feels closer to what you might expect from a cable weather station than what your average lab coat wearer would be reading. The only thing I was disappointed with is that, as per the AirLink’s AQ-SPEC report, the PM10 readings weren’t too accurate. Really, though, this is just a small trade-off for a good home system and typical consumers will be more than happy with this machine.

Best portable: Sensirion SPS30

SENSIRION

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: The Sensirion SPS30 is a no-frills machine dedicated to particulate matter testing.

Specs

• Measures: PM1.0/PM2.5/PM4.0/PM10
• AQ-SPEC report: High precision
• Type: Portable

Pros

• Small size
• 8-year lifetime
• Long-term stability and contamination-resistance
• Moddable

Cons

• Drab UI makes interpreting data difficult

If you want to feel like you’re really in the lab, the Sensirion SPS30 might be right up your alley. Right from the moment I opened the company’s product introduction video, I felt instantly reintroduced to the lab environment I once came from.

Where this really shines is the Sensirion SPS30’s great moddability. For example, some users are soldering them on bikes for CanAirIO, a citizen science project dedicated to building a citizen network for monitoring air quality worldwide. The simple USB port connection and loads of data quickly generated by the device lend it to lots of projects. Other possibilities include pairing it with air conditioners, smart home devices, HVAC equipment, and more.

Where this “lab environment feel” really doesn’t shine is the UI. If you’ve ever worked with in-company software or any niche data-collection devices, you probably already know what I mean. You sure get a lot of data, but it isn’t going to look beautiful or come easy to read. Check out the company’s demonstration video for an up-close look at the graphs provided by the machine before deciding whether to purchase.

As for the Sensirion SPS30’s AQ-SPEC report, the key thing to know is that the device is highly precise across temperatures and humidity levels. While PM1.0 and PM2.5 levels were highly accurately measured in field and laboratory testing, PM10 levels were shown to be highly inaccurate in the field trials.

Best budget: Temtop P20

Temtop

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: This budget solution will take care of all of your basic air quality monitoring needs.

Specs

• Measures: PM2.5, Temp., Humidity
• AQ-SPEC report: Higher precision at low temperatures
• Type: Desktop or mountable

Pros

• Highly accessible interface
• Everything needed for wall mounting included
• Can double as a nice desk or wall clock
• Exportable data

Cons

• Limited pollutants measured, but still great for price
• Low battery life

Considering that a laboratory-grade air quality tester can cost thousands of dollars, it would seem impossible to make a competitive one in the two-digit range. However, with Temtop’s P20, that isn’t true.

The Temtop P20 can measure PM2.5 pollutants. While it’d be nice to measure other pollutants or even other sizes of particulate matter, doing one thing well is quite impressive for the budget tier. The P20’s AQ-SPEC report tells us that the machine’s precision is most accurate when the local temperature is lower. That being said, the measurements indicate an accuracy of over 90% for most conditions at 68 degrees Fahrenheit.

You’ll probably enjoy having the Temtop P20 around, as it is also a rather nice LCD screen clock. To take a bit of the mystery out of the reading counts, a cute smiley face interprets the PM2.5 levels as good, fair, or poor. Another smiley face interprets your local humidity levels in a similar manner.

While the device can be mounted on the wall and includes the screws needed to do so, I recommend using the back stand and using it as a desk monitor. On the wall, the numbers, time, and smiley faces will probably prove somewhat tricky to see clearly. This will also help you keep it plugged into a charger because the battery only lasts for about 6-8 hours on a single charge.

Finally, those of you interested in data will rejoice. Much like the Temtop M2000 2nd Generation, our top choice of air quality monitor, the Temtop P20 has USB connectivity to export the collected data in CSV format. 

Things to consider before buying the best air quality monitors

One thing to note from the current research is that air quality monitors for public usage are still an emerging market. As such, there are a lot of claims about accuracy that are either demonstrably false or haven’t been thoroughly checked by scientists or any actual regulatory board. With all of this in mind, here are the key things to remember when buying an air quality monitor:

Target pollutant

In a fantasy world, an air quality monitor could sniff out any potential harm in the air and let you know. Unfortunately, air quality monitors in the real world must be designed to target specific contaminants. While it is never a mystery what pollutants an air quality monitor tracks—as they are nearly always prominently displayed in the specs and ads—you may find yourself overwhelmed with a few new terms. Here’s a quick mini-guide to get you up to speed on air pollution vocab:

PM: PM stands for “particulate matter” and measurements of it can tell you how many liquid or solid particles of varying sizes are in your air. The particles are measured in microns, given after the “PM.” For example, PM2.5 tests for the amount of particles that are approximately 2.5 microns in your air. The makers of the Atmotube report that PM1 particles are typically emissions from factories and vehicles, PM2.5 particles usually come from fires and combustion, and PM10 particles are from pollen, mold, and fine bits of old plants and insects. You’ll find that PM2.5 is a common measurement taken by portable air purifiers.

AQI: This stands for Air Quality Index and is a popular, but somewhat outdated, method for measuring air quality. Essentially, the AQI measures pollutant levels for a wide variety of substances, gives them each a score from 0-500, and reports the highest one. It doesn’t matter if only one pollutant is high or if several are, only the top one is getting reported. Still, the data is historically known and the conversions for each pollutant can still be useful. If you want to play around with the system, a handy AQI calculator is available for you.

VOCs: These are “Volatile Organic Compounds” and largely come from human sources. The EPA warns that sources of these contaminants include household cleaners, building materials, and standard office equipment. They also have found that these pollutants are consistently found in much higher concentrations in indoor settings. VOCs are a big part of why our recommended floor cleaners focused so heavily on ingredients. Certain high-end air purifiers, such as the Dyson Purifier Humidify+Cool Formaldehyde, are specifically equipped with sensors attuned to these byproducts we bring into our homes as we upgrade furnishings and electronics, etc.

Scientific usage

Before making any purchase of something as important as an air quality monitor, be sure to check out how the product is perceived by experts. That can be as simple as running a Google search with “site:.edu” or “site:.gov” followed by the product name or trawling through the depths of the “Air Quality Sensor Performance Evaluation Center” (AQ-SPEC) website.

AQ-SPEC provides comprehensive data on air sensors after real-world field trials. While AQ-SPEC reports explicitly state that they are not an endorsement of a particular monitor, the evaluations are free for the manufacturer if the sensors are “low-cost” and meet basic selection criteria. As a result, simply bothering to submit a sensor for an AQ-SPEC report is a sign of a manufacturer’s good faith in their product.

All of the air quality monitors on our list have a detailed AQ-SPEC report. Unfortunately, these reports can be a bit dense and read more like a Ph.D. journal submission than a consumer-facing report. I’ve attempted to condense these reports down into the relevant bits, but if you’ve got any interest, you’re highly encouraged to parse through them yourself as well.

Accuracy & consistency

Accuracy and consistency feel very similar at a glance but affect our perceptions of an air quality monitor in big ways. As you might be able to gather from a recent analysis by the Berkeley Lab, accuracy is going to be difficult to maintain. However, high consistency will make these machines still quite valuable sources of information for your home.

Part of this comes down to calibration, which laboratory equipment undergoes frequently. Take the humble pH machine, for example. Back in my lab days, I remember calibrating this machine nearly every day I would use it, using specialized liquid solutions. Now imagine calibrating something that measures air … at home. It appears that cheap calibration is on the way, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be easy or reliably done by the average person.

The result is that we have to expect some loss of accuracy when high-quality calibration isn’t feasible. Depending on what is being measured, this might not necessarily be too much of a problem. For example, your home thermometer is likely about 1 degree off, but it is still enough to tell you that you have a fever. The key is getting something accurate enough for your purposes.

Perhaps more important is consistency. While several consumer-grade air quality monitors have a bias, especially after being run for multiple days, if that bias is consistent, we can still get extremely useful information. For example, if your reading for Carbon Dioxide suddenly skyrockets above what you are used to getting, you know you have a problem.

FAQs

Final thoughts on the best air quality monitors

• Best overall: Temtop M2000 2nd
• Best smart: Atmotube Pro Portable
• Best indoor outdoor: Davis Instruments AirLink
• Best portable: Sensirion SPS30
• Best budget: Temtop P20

Getting a high-quality air quality monitor doesn’t have to be for laboratory professionals alone. While the world of personal air quality monitoring is still emerging, there are still some great products out there. Combining the most stringent testing circumstances with ready commercial availability produced a list of exactly these five air quality monitors, so we’re sure customers will find satisfaction from something on this list.

Why trust us

Popular Science started writing about technology more than 150 years ago. There was no such thing as “gadget writing” when we published our first issue in 1872, but if there was, our mission to demystify the world of innovation for everyday readers means we would have been all over it. Here in the present, PopSci is fully committed to helping readers navigate the increasingly intimidating array of devices on the market right now.

Our writers and editors have combined decades of experience covering and reviewing consumer electronics. We each have our own obsessive specialties—from high-end audio to video games to cameras and beyond—but when we’re reviewing devices outside of our immediate wheelhouses, we do our best to seek out trustworthy voices and opinions to help guide people to the very best recommendations. We know we don’t know everything, but we’re excited to live through the analysis paralysis that internet shopping can spur so readers don’t have to.

The post The best air quality monitors in 2023 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Best for large rooms		Mila Smart Air Purifier		SEE IT	This all-purpose smart air purifier adapts to room size and comes with a carbon monoxide detector and sleep and white noise modes.
Best HEPA		Coway Tower True HEPA Air Purifier		SEE IT	This HEPA model features four layers of filtration in a stylish design.
Best for allergies		InvisiClean Aura II Air Purifier		SEE IT	Certified to keep you safe from dangerous levels of ozone gas.

Air purifiers suck in pollen, dust, smoke, other allergens, and even viruses—pummeling them and then circulating clean, filtered air. It sounds simple enough, but not all purifiers are created equal, and there isn’t one that’s right for every person. Your particular environment and the size of your home are huge factors in choosing the best option for you. Is allergy season wreaking havoc on your sinuses? Do you live in a smoggy city? Has wildfire smoke been wafting through, blanketing everything in an unnatural haze? In short, even the finest filters aren’t guaranteed to fix all that ails you and your home. But if you’re wondering whether air purifiers are really worth it … we think so. They can help distribute cleaner air, and that’s always a good thing, considering the link between air quality and health. So, read on as we clear the air on what we think are the best air purifiers.

• Best overall: Dyson Purifier Humidify+Cool Formaldehyde
• Best for large rooms: Mila Smart Air Purifier
• Best for small rooms: LEVOIT Air Purifier for Home Bedroom
• Best for quiet: Blueair Blue Pure 311i Max
• Best HEPA: Coway Tower True HEPA Air Purifier
• Best with UV light: Germ Guardian True HEPA Filter Air Purifier
• Best for allergies: InvisiClean Aura II Air Purifier
• Best for smoke: Alen BreatheSmart 75i
• Best portable: WYND Smart Plus Personal Portable Air Purifier
• Best budget: LEVOIT Air Purifier for Home, Core 300

How we chose the best air purifiers

As pet owners and parents, we’ve experienced our fair share of smells and toxins—and that’s just from inside the house. To create this list of the best air purifiers, we relied on peer recommendations, critical reviews, online research, user impressions, and plentiful personal testing. We also examined what each air purifier claims to eliminate from the air, HEPA square footage, and MERV ratings.

The best air purifiers: Reviews & Recommendations

Pollen, pet dander, smells, smoke, germs, and other airborne goblins are no match for the best air purifiers. This list includes quiet air purifiers, ones that double as humidifiers, and even ones that claim they can help with a majority of airborne pathogens.

Best overall: Dyson Purifier Humidify+Cool Formaldehyde

Tony Ware

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: This three-in-one smart device automatically adapts to changes in air quality and humidity.

Specs

• Recommended room size: 400 square feet
• Dimensions: 36.66 x 11.02 x 12.23 inches
• App connectivity: Yes
• Max decibels (dB): 59.8 dB

Pros

• Connectivity with Siri and Alexa
• Three products in one
• Air quality reporting

Cons

• Expensive

Between its TikTok- and Insta-famous Airwrap multistyler to its line of powerful vacuums, Dyson has made a name for itself in sucking—which we don’t mean negatively. The Dyson Purifier Humidify+Cool Formaldehyde proves yet again that Sir James Dyson really knows what he’s doing when it comes to pushing air out and in. This air purifier uses an intelligent sensing system and Air Multiplier technology to purify, humidify, and cool the air. You don’t even need to touch the stylish, distinctive unit—it automatically senses and reacts to changes in air quality and humidity (we’ve watched one enthusiastically spring to life time and time again after a particularly aggressive sauté session in the kitchen). It even features a solid-state sensor to detect and destroy formaldehyde emitted by household items—a boon if you’re in a newly renovated/refurbished space, as fresh carpet and new mattresses are emitting odd things.

You don’t have to worry about airborne baddies getting re-released into the air since the entire purifier-humidifier is fully sealed to the HEPA H13 standard. If you love numbers, neat tech, and data, this machine will tickle your brain when it reports your air quality in real time on the LCD screen and DysonLink app (which you can use to tweak/schedule usage). The filters are low-maintenance and easy to replace, and the machine features a deep-clean cycle to get rid of mineral build-up and bacteria that may be lurking in the water system. Although it’s almost $1,000, you’re getting three devices for the cost of one. Talk about smart.

Best for large rooms: Mila Smart Air Purifier

Mila

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: This mold- and carbon monoxide-detecting air purifier comes in different filter configurations for custom air purification.

Specs

• Recommended room size: 1,000 square feet 
• Dimensions: 12 x 12 x 15 inches
• App connectivity: Yes
• Max decibels (dB): 62 dB but lowers to 24 dB while in room

Pros

• Stylist
• Small
• Carbon monoxide, mold detection, and white noise machine built-in

Cons

• Reviews note excessive air quality notifications

This classy, app-controllable large room air purifier adapts to the size of whatever room it’s placed in. It also looks great in any room it’s placed in. The filter has 45 square feet of HEPA, and with 447 CADR, it’s effective in rooms up to 1,000 square feet. Additional features include a sleep mode and white noise so that it won’t interfere with your sleeping habits. The device also features a carbon monoxide detector. It will monitor your room’s humidity and let you know if it detects any mold. If you’re not a fan of notifications, disable them if you go with the Mila—reviewers note that the Mila app sends lots of alerts.

Best for small rooms: LEVOIT Air Purifier for Home Bedroom

Levoit

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Take this lightweight, compact air purifier from room to room to experience dual-filter, three-stage filtration in your entire home.

Specs

• Recommended room size: 161 square feet
• Dimensions: 6.69 x 6.69 x 10.43 inches
• App connectivity: No
• Max decibels (dB): 52 dB

Pros

• Aromatherapy
• Dual-filter, three-stage filtration
• Specifically targets hay fever

Cons

• Not for large homes

The Levoit promises to help relieve allergies, congestion, and sneezing and is our pick for the best small air purifier. Although we can’t vouch for the unit’s specific efficacy against rhinitis, we can vouch for the fact that it has three filters (one more than most other units): HEPA for dust, pollen, and dander; carbon for odors; and polyester for lint and hair. One fun additional feature is that this one has an aromatherapy option if you’d like a little lavender to help lull you to sleep at night.

Best for quiet: Blueair Blue Pure 311i Max

Tony Ware

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Particles down to .1 microns are no match for this quiet-but-powerful air purifier.

Specs

• Recommended room size: Up to 929 square feet
• Dimensions: 19 x 12.5 x 12.5 inches
• App connectivity: Yes
• Max decibels (dB): 50 dB

Pros

• Removes particles down to .1 micron
• Stylish
• App connectivity

Cons

• Reviews note occasional problems with auto-sensing

Blueair makes svelte cylinders with Scandinavian style packed with highly effective electrostatic and mechanical filtration. The Blue Pure 311i Max is HEPASilent but deadly … against microbes in the air. This stylish, small air purifier features five fan speeds and a one-touch auto mode with a fine particles (PM 2.5) sensor to monitor concentration and adjust speed according. This air purifier can clean a 387-square-foot room in 12.5 minutes and a 929-square-foot space in 30 minutes (there are both larger and smaller models, so something for every home). And, it snags all those particles (99.97% of them down to 0.1 micron) all nearly undetected, clocking in at 23 dB on low/night mode—louder than a quiet natural area with no wind but softer than a whisper. And it never runs above 50dB, which makes it QuietMark certified and perfect for a bedroom, TV room, any room … plus it’s only 8 pounds, so it’s easy to move around while you decide between your study and your yoga studio (or realize it’s easiest to buy two).

Is it working? We barely hear it. But we also don’t hear ourselves sneezing and wheezing and complaining about our watery eyes, so we’re going with yes. If we need more confirmation, we can look at a five-color LED that changes according to Air Quality Index (AQI), or we can reference an app that gives insight into indoor vs. outdoor pollution and lets you control mode, tweak LED Brightness, set a schedule, and more (assuming the 311i Max and your phone are connected to WiFi). And if we don’t want it to be working, Google Assistant and Alexa compatibility let us turn it off with voice commands if our phone isn’t convenient. While some reviews note that the auto-sensing feature is not as accurate as they hoped, we’ve observed the Blue Pure 311i Max react firsthand thanks to a low smoke-point cooking oil incident or two. It was lively even from across a loft apartment—and helped with the post-coming odors. And the washable pre-filter fabric cover (shown above in “Stockholm Fog” color, quietly complementing some audio-video gear) meshed effortlessly with the decor to boot.

Best HEPA: Coway Tower True HEPA Air Purifier

Coway

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Stylish-meets-powerful with this True HEPA air purifier that features four levels of filtration.

Specs

• Recommended room size: 330 square feet
• Dimensions: 10.5 × 32.7 × 10.7 inches
• App connectivity: No
• Max decibels (dB): 52 dB

Pros

• Real-time air sensing
• Washable pre-filter
• Air quality indicator

Cons

• Noisier compared to other air purifiers

Multiple fan speeds, a timer, an air-quality assessor, and a filter-replacement indicator light make this the best HEPA air purifier—not just quiet and effective, but user-friendly. At just under $200, it’s neither cheap nor exorbitant for an air purifier, and it’s also aesthetically pleasing. Reviewers note that this air purifier is noisier than most.

Best with UV light: Germ Guardian True HEPA Filter Air Purifier

Germ Guardian

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: This quiet air purifier uses CARB-compliant UVC light and titanium dioxide to reduce airborne bacteria, viruses, and mold spores.

Specs

• Recommended room size: 153 square feet
• Dimensions: 10.25 x 6.75 x 21.5 inches
• App connectivity: No
• Max decibels (dB): 61.2 dB

Pros

• Quiet
• Reduces odors
• Pre-filter traps allergens

Cons

• UV light can be bad for the environment

UVC light (the most destructive of all the UVs) in an air purifier works as a UVGI—ultraviolet germicidal irradiation—disinfection method by attacking the DNA of cells floating through the air, like mold spores, viruses, and bacteria. (This means, like all other filters, it cannot do anything for particles that have settled into fabric). An activated charcoal filter reduces odors. The 22-inch purifier filters air four times per hour at maximum speed in rooms up to 153 square feet. The four fan speeds, whisper-quiet operation, and CARB compliance make this air purifier an especially good pick for allergy sufferers. California Air Resources Board (CARB) compliance means you can rest easy about its environmental footprint.

Best for allergies: InvisiClean Aura II Air Purifier

InvisiClean

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: CARB compliance plus four levels of air purification equals an exorcism for your sneezes.

Specs

• Recommended room size: 319 square feet
• Dimensions: 12.34 x 6.25 x 17.75 inches
• App connectivity: No
• Max decibels (dB): 55 dB

Pros

• Four fan speeds
• Quiet
• CARB compliant

Cons

• No auto-sensing

The four fan speeds, whisper-quiet operation, and CARB compliance make this air purifier an especially good pick for allergy sufferers. The California Air Resources Board requires purifiers to produce .050 parts per million of ozone or less, so any device with this certification keeps you safe from unsafe gas levels.

Best for smoke: Alen BreatheSmart 75i

Alen

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Detailed air quality indicators, a B7-Pure filter, and a CADR of 347 mean that this air purifier will stop smoke in its tracks.

Specs

• Recommended room size: 1300 square feet
• Dimensions: 12 x 19 x 27 inches
• App connectivity: No
• Max decibels (dB): 51 dB

Pros

• 8 colorways
• Quickly cleans large rooms
• Auto-adjusts based on air quality

Cons

• Expensive
• Little warranty

This is an easy pick for the best air purifier for smoke, thanks to its CADR of 347 (out of 450). Thanks to automatic air-quality detection, when any type of smoke is present, the unit will kick up to turbo. When no irritants are present, the device goes into energy-saving mode. Five air quality colors give you a more detailed visual indicator of air quality—other air purifiers only include three color indicators.

Best portable: WYND Smart Plus Personal Portable Air Purifier

Tony Ware

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Take clean air onto the airplane or into the office with this water bottle-sized air purifier developed by NASA and MIT engineers.

Specs

• Recommended room size: N/A
• Dimensions: 9.57 x 8.62 x 4.33 inches
• App connectivity: Yes
• Max decibels (dB): 55 dB

Pros

• Small
• iOS/Android app
• Medical-grade filter

Cons

• Expensive for size

This small-but-mighty air purifier designed by NASA and MIT engineers fits in a cup holder and can purify the air in a car in under 15 minutes—that’s eight liters of air per second. And that comes in handy in a world of wildfires and other pollutants you might encounter as you travel—something we know from experience, as one accompanied three passengers in a Honda CR-V through the smoke-heavy American West during fall 2021. And, if you like numbers, the WYND air purifier connects to an iOS/Android app to track real-time hyperlocalized data on dust and other particulates. It also enables you to switch between different purifier presets, like auto and night, control other WYND devices, and alerts you when encountering poor air quality. The included desktop kickstand accessory lets you position the air purifier to direct a clean bubble toward your face (as shown above), giving your nose and lungs instant access to medical-grade filtered air in an office or elsewhere.

Best budget: LEVOIT Air Purifier for Home, Core 300

Amanda Reed

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: This compact air purifier tackles smoke, dust, pollen, bacteria, and viruses without hurting your wallet.

Specs

• Recommended room size: 219 square feet
• Dimensions: 8.7 x 8.7 x 16.25 inches
• App connectivity: No
• Max decibels (dB): 50 dB

Pros

• Filter life indicator
• Timer
• Quiet

Cons

• Louder than other air purifiers

This cheap air purifier targets smoke, dust, and pollen, along with some bacteria and viruses. Four specialty replacement filters include a pet-allergy option and a toxin absorber for particularly smoky or smoggy areas. Like higher-end air purifiers that are more expensive, this Levoit air purifier features timer settings and a sleep mode. And the display lights can be turned off to ensure a pitch-black room when sleeping. Although the air purifier is louder than some competitors, it resembles a whooshing fan at its highest setting—if you can deal with that, this air purifier is for you.

What to consider when buying the best air purifiers

The best air purifier for you might not be the one your best friend or neighbor loves. You want a HEPA filter with a high MERV rating that’s designed to cover the amount of space you have in your particular room or dwelling. Beyond that, consider whether you want other features like pathogen-killing UV light, smart controls, and/or odor elimination. Do you need the best air purifier for pets or perhaps something portable? Air purifiers for mold or models to get rid of smoke? Air filters work only on airborne particles. To get at anything that’s settled into upholstery or rugs, you’ll need a handy vacuum, a helpful robot, or something else that offers deep-clean suction.

Size of space

There’s an alphabet soup to make sense of when choosing the best air purifier for your home. ACH (air changes per hour) correlates to the airflow of your device. It’s calculated based on the volume of your space, ceiling height, and how many cubic feet per minute the device can cover. It’s independent of other factors, e.g., the filter’s efficacy—to calculate that you need the CADR (clean air delivery rate) rating; because a HEPA filter is more efficient, its CADR rating may be lower, which is deceptive.

The most important thing to note is that an air purifier’s efficacy cannot be calculated based on square footage alone. You can find handy calculators online to determine the proper purifier for your needs, but here’s what to consider with any device: Will it successfully rid your home of odors with carbon or other comparable filters? Is it a good choice for pet owners? Does it feature UV light? Read the fine print.

HEPA

You’ve likely heard of high-efficiency particulate air, or HEPA, filters. They are a type of pleated air filter that, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, “can theoretically remove at least 99.97% of dust, pollen, mold, bacteria, and any airborne particles with a size of .3 microns.” The smaller the particle, the more penetrating and nefarious it can be. So when you’re shopping for air purifiers, check out their filters’ MERV (minimum efficiency reporting values) rating. The higher the MERV rating, the better it is at trapping the tiniest particles.

Suppose it’s the coronavirus that has you shopping for purifiers. In that case, it should be said that though a HEPA filter should be able to catch a virus of that size, there’s no conclusive proof that an air purifier can kill airborne COVID-19-carrying air droplets. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that any room housing a coronavirus patient “should be exhausted directly to the outside, or be filtered through a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter directly before recirculation.”

If your main concern about your indoor air quality is lingering food or cigarette smoke odors, make sure the model you’re considering specifically targets fumes and other volatile organic compounds. HEPA filters aren’t good at eliminating odors on their own.

The HEPA filter was initially designed to capture radioactive particles when the atomic bomb was being developed because it can capture 99.97 percent of particles as small as .3 microns, which can evade other types of filters. (This is sometimes referred to as “true HEPA,” as European HEPA standards are required to trap only 85 percent of particles.) It works by ensnaring, sieving, and rerouting irritating particles.

A HEPA air purifier is considered the gold standard, but it does have limitations. Any particle smaller than .3 microns—for example, some viruses and VOCs (volatile organic compounds) like aerosols, ammonia, and other toxins—will slip right through. Changing your filter often enough is key. A HEPA filter does a great job of capturing mold. If you don’t change the filter, the purifier can redistribute that mold back into the air.

Allergies

The best air purifiers for allergies depend on what your particular triggers are because different filters work on different-sized particles. Pet hair and pollen are large particles, dust is medium-sized, and smoke is small. A combination HEPA-carbon filter is your best bet for filtering the maximum number of irritants to help reduce your allergies.

The addition of an ionizer and UV light, if you’re comfortable with it, adds a belt to your proverbial suspenders. Because UV light does create ozone particles, we recommend choosing an air purifier with UV light that’s approved for sale in California.

Smoke

Pollutants—like smoke and soot—can aggravate asthma, irritate your eyes, and stress your lungs and heart. An intuitive HEPA purifier with multiple fan speeds, maximum air circulation, and zero ozone output is the best one for allergy sufferers and people who are sensitive to smoke. The best air purifiers for smoke have a higher CADR rating. This means your device will be better at eliminating smoke and its odor, whether you’re talking about cigarettes, cannabis, or wildfires.

FAQs

Final thoughts on the best air purifiers

• Best overall: Dyson Purifier Humidify+Cool Formaldehyde
• Best for large rooms: Mila Smart Air Purifier
• Best for small rooms: LEVOIT Air Purifier for Home Bedroom
• Best for quiet: Blueair Blue Pure 311i Max
• Best HEPA: Coway Tower True HEPA Air Purifier
• Best with UV light: Germ Guardian True HEPA Filter Air Purifier
• Best for allergies: InvisiClean Aura II Air Purifier
• Best for smoke: Alen BreatheSmart 75i
• Best portable: WYND Smart Plus Personal Portable Air Purifier
• Best budget: LEVOIT Air Purifier for Home, Core 300

In almost every category, the best air purifiers have a true HEPA filter and a carbon filter. Together, they get you the most coverage regarding the breadth of pollutants the purifier will attack. Beyond that, the most important qualities are energy efficiency and picking the right model for the size of your room. Everything else—design, whether the device is app-enabled, UV lighting—is just gravy.

Why trust us

Popular Science started writing about technology more than 150 years ago. There was no such thing as “gadget writing” when we published our first issue in 1872, but if there was, our mission to demystify the world of innovation for everyday readers means we would have been all over it. Here in the present, PopSci is fully committed to helping readers navigate the increasingly intimidating array of devices on the market right now.

Our writers and editors have combined decades of experience covering and reviewing consumer electronics. We each have our own obsessive specialties—from high-end audio to video games to cameras and beyond—but when we’re reviewing devices outside of our immediate wheelhouses, we do our best to seek out trustworthy voices and opinions to help guide people to the very best recommendations. We know we don’t know everything, but we’re excited to live through the analysis paralysis that internet shopping can spur so readers don’t have to.

The post The best air purifiers for 2023 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox. Co-published with LAist and KVPR.

The post It will cost up to $21.5 billion to clean up California’s oil sites. The industry won’t make enough money to pay for it. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist’s weekly newsletter here.

The race to electrify the world’s vehicles and store energy will require batteries — so many of them, in fact, that meeting the demand we will see by 2040 will require 30 times the amount of critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel that those industries currently use.

That presents an enormous challenge, one exacerbated by the mining industry’s alarming allegations of labor crimes, environmental destruction, and encroachments on Indigenous land. There are ways to mitigate electrification’s extractive impacts, one of which may seem obvious: Recycle every battery we make. 

Doing so would reduce the world’s need to mine these minerals by 10 percent within 16 years, because the critical materials in batteries are infinitely reusable. Eventually, a robust circular battery economy could all but eliminate the need to extract them at all.

Of course, that would require recovering every EV pack at the end of its life, a sizable undertaking as the United States prepares for hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles to retire by the end of the decade. A nascent ecosystem of startups is working toward that goal, and the Inflation Reduction Act includes tax credits to incentivize the practice. But some electrification advocates say those steps do not go far enough. While the European Union recently passed a regulation mandating EV battery recycling, there is no such law in the U.S. Proponents of a federal recycling standard say that without one, batteries that could be recycled might get left behind, increasing the need for mining and undermining electrification’s environmental benefits. 

“We need a coordinated federal response to truly have a large-scale impact on meeting our demand,” said Blaine Miller-McFeeley, a policy advocate at Earthjustice, which favors a federal recycling requirement. “If you compare us to the EU, we are woefully behind and need to move much more quickly.”

That movement would have to come from Congress, according to Miller-McFeeley. Historically, however, regulating recycling has been left up to the states and local jurisdictions. The Biden administration has instead been supporting the country’s budding EV battery recycling industry, mainly by making it good business to recover critical materials. 

The Department of Energy wants to establish a “battery ecosystem” that can recover 90 percent of spent lithium batteries by 2030. It has granted billions in loans to battery recyclers to build new facilities. Automakers are incentivized to buy those recyclers’ products, because part of the federal EV tax credit applies only to cars with batteries that include a minimum amount of critical minerals that were mined, processed or recycled in the U.S. or by a free-trade partner. Manufacturers also get a tax credit for producing critical materials (including recycled ones) in the U.S.

Daniel Zotos, who handles public advocacy at the battery recycling startup Redwood Materials, said in an email that a healthy market for recycled materials is emerging. “Not only is there tremendous value today in recycling these metals, but the global demand for metals means that automakers need to source both more mined and recycled critical minerals.”

Zotos said Redwood Materials agrees with the approach the federal government has taken. “The U.S. has in fact chosen to help incentivize, rather than mandate, recycling through provisions established in the Inflation Reduction Act, which we’re deeply supportive of.”

During a pilot project in California last year, the company recovered 95 percent of the critical materials in 1,300 lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride EV and hybrid batteries. The cost of retrieving packs from throughout the state was the biggest barrier to profitability, but Zotos said that expense will subside as the industry grows.

A tiny but growing secondary market for EV batteries is also driving their reuse. Most batteries will be retired once their capacity dwindles to about 70 to 80 percent, due to the impact on the car’s range. But they’re still viable enough at that point to sustain a second life as storage for renewable energy like wind and solar power. 

B2U Storage Solutions used 1,300 retired batteries from Nissan and Honda to create 27 megawatts hours of storage at its solar farm just north of Los Angeles in Lancaster, California. Photovoltaic panels charge the packs all day, and B2U sells the stored power to the local utility during peak demand in the evening. “There is more value in reuse,” said company president Freeman Hall, “and we’re not doing anything more than deferring recycling another four or five years.” 

Homeowners and hobbyists are embracing second-life batteries, too. Henry Newman, co-owner of the auto dismantler EV Parts Solutions in Phoenix, said customers buy his Tesla and Nissan Leaf batteries to convert classic cars or create DIY power storage at home. Any batteries that Newman can’t sell are picked up by Li-Cycle, a lithium-ion battery recycler with a plant in Gilbert, Arizona. 

Newman said dismantlers and customers seem to want to do the right thing. “I know there will be people who don’t follow regulation, but my experience in the last six to seven years is that the industry is pretty conscious of it and tries to mitigate throwing these things in the trash,” he said. A law could help prevent mishandling, but Newman worries about any overreach or added costs that would come with more regulation. 

But relying on the market to ensure proper stewardship is risky, said Jessica Dunn, a senior analyst in the clean transportation program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The recycling of cars has traditionally been a market-based environment,” she said. “But we’re dealing with a completely different system now. EV batteries are big and have a lot of critical materials in them that we need to get out of them no matter if it’s economical or not.” 

Transporting EV batteries, which can weigh more than 1,500 pounds, is expensive (as much as one-third of the cost of recycling them), dangerous, and logistically challenging. Packs can catch fire if improperly handled, and they are classified as hazardous material, which requires special shipping permits. If the battery is in a remote location or is damaged, a recycler could deem it too much trouble to retrieve without a mandate to do so.

Dunn also said that not all batteries contain enough valuable materials for it to make financial sense to go through the trouble of recovering them. While most EV batteries currently contain high-value cobalt and nickel, a new generation of cheaper lithium-ion-phosphate, or LFP, batteries don’t use those metals. Tesla, Ford, and Rivian all recently announced they will use LFPs in some models.

“Just because there aren’t nickel and cobalt in them doesn’t mean that the lithium isn’t something that we should be recovering,” said Dunn. Redwood Materials said it collects lithium-ion phosphate batteries and uses the lithium within them to assemble new battery components, and that they collect all battery packs no matter their condition.

Finally, without guidelines in place, viable batteries may not be repurposed before being recycled, which Dunn said undermines their sustainability. “You’ve already put all that literal energy — and the environmental impacts that go along with that — into manufacturing these batteries,” she said. “So if you can squeak an extra five to 10 years out of them, that’s a really good option.” 

With the U.S. poised to see about 165,000 electric vehicle batteries retire in 2030, Dunn said the time to ensure no batteries are stranded is now. “We’re not seeing a big wave now, but that’s coming, and so we need to be prepared for that.”

There has been some federal movement toward a recycling requirement. The 2021 bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed the Department of Energy to establish a task force to develop an “extended battery producer responsibility framework” to address battery design, transport, and recycling.

Extended producer responsibility, or EPR, is the approach that the EU took in its battery regulation that passed last December. EPR puts the onus on the manufacturer to ensure that what they produce is properly repurposed and then recycled, either by compelling them to pay for the recycling or to handle it themselves. 

Thirty-three states have such laws, covering 16 products ranging from mattresses to packaging. “It is a paradigm shift for how waste is managed in the United States,” said Scott Cassel of the Product Stewardship Institute. But Congress has never passed such a law. 

EV battery recycling might be the issue that could garner bipartisan support for one. Access to critical materials is a foreign policy and national security issue: China processes more than half the world’s lithium and cobalt, which means a steady domestic supply from recycling would help alleviate dependency on a geopolitical rival. 

Building out the infrastructure to dismantle, recover, and process battery materials could also create thousands of jobs, an accomplishment most lawmakers are happy to align themselves with.  

Republican senators alluded to both benefits when supporting the bipartisan Strategic EV Management Act of 2022, which passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act last year. It requires multiple agencies to work on guidelines for “reusing and recycling” batteries from vehicles retired from the federal fleet. 

Republican Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee said in a statement that the bill would ensure agencies could “reap the full economic benefits of EV investments … and do so in a manner that lessens our dependence on communist China.” 

These laws set in motion efforts to design recycling frameworks, but the timelines to develop them span years. In the meantime, a few states are weighing their own mandates. “The states don’t want to wait for any of these bills to move,” Cassel said. “They’re ready to act right now.”

In California, a Senate bill would require battery suppliers to ensure that all “vehicle traction batteries” be recovered, reused, repurposed, or recycled. The bill passed unanimously this week and is headed to the Assembly. Senator Ben Allen, who introduced the bill, said there is bipartisan political and industry support for creating a framework. “You need a system in place,” he said. “That’s like saying, ‘Oh, the people will drive just fine to and from work. We don’t need traffic laws.’” 

As it has been with other clean-vehicle targets, California could be a bellwether for a standard that would eventually take hold nationally.

“We’d love to create a system that could help to inform national policy,” said Allen. “And in this case, with this industry support and bipartisan backing, there actually may be a blueprint here.”

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/technology/the-u-s-doesnt-have-a-law-mandating-ev-battery-recycling-should-it/. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

The post The US doesn’t have a law mandating EV battery recycling. Should it? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Over the past decade, public awareness about climate change has grown, albeit gradually. As more people became eco-conscious, it isn’t surprising that the demand for environmentally friendly products has increased as well. According to the 2022 Sustainable Market Share Index, sustainability-marketed products now hold about a 17.3 percent share of the consumer packaged goods market, a significant increase from 13.7 percent back in 2015. Products marketed as sustainable also grew about twice as fast as conventionally marketed products from 2017 to 2022.

With more green products entering the market, it’s important to ensure that manufacturers do not mislead consumers when it comes to environmental claims. The Federal Trade Commission made the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (or “Green Guides”) exactly for this purpose. First issued in 1992, the guide has been updated several times since then to keep marketers from making unsubstantiated claims.

[Related: How to actually recycle.]

Last month, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted a comment about the Green Guides. According to the agency, the use of the resin identification code (RIC) with the recycling symbol—the familiar three chasing arrows—constitutes a misrepresentation of claims. Even though the RIC is meant to identify a product’s unique plastic resin type, consumers generally understand it to represent a universal recycling symbol. A 2019 report from the Consumer Brands Association found that 68 percent of Americans assume any product with the resin code and recycling symbol is recyclable.

“When the plastic industry co-opted the recycling symbol to label their plastic resins, they began a decades-long misinformation campaign to convince Americans that all plastic packaging is recyclable,” says Martin Bourque, executive director of the Ecology Center and co-founder of the Alliance of Mission-Based Recyclers (AMBR). “Nothing could be farther from the truth.”

The RIC refers to the type of plastic of which there are seven in total. However, “very little plastic packaging is even marginally recyclable,” says Bourque. According to Greenpeace, only polyethylene terephthalate (PET) #1 and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) #2 can be claimed as recyclable materials. They are the only types of plastic resin widely accepted by more than 350 material recovery facilities (MRF) across the country. Even if MRFs were to accept other types of plastic, that doesn’t ensure that they will be recycled—they might simply dispose of them.

Recycling contamination occurs when recyclable items are placed in the wrong bins or non-recyclable items end up in the recycling system. Local governments and MRFs face contamination issues in their daily operations, which is associated with consumer confusion about what is recyclable or not. The Recycling Partnership, a nonprofit organization committed to building a circular economy, estimates that contamination costs the US recycling system at least $300 million annually. 

Bourque says the use of the chasing arrows with the RIC has undermined efforts at reducing plastic use, enabled even more single-use and disposable plastic packaging, and cost recyclers millions in collection, sorting, and disposal expenses. The EPA comment says that updating the recyclable claims section on the Green Guides may reduce consumer confusion and the financial burden of facilities receiving and incarcerating plastic materials they cannot recycle.

ASTM International, which administers the RIC system, revised the standard in 2013 and replaced the chasing arrows symbol with a solid equilateral triangle to bring the focus back to the purpose of resin identification and quality control before recycling. The state of California also passed SB 343 in 2021, which prohibits the use of the chasing arrows symbol on products that are not considered recyclable in accordance with statewide recyclability criteria. 

Having an equilateral triangle around the resin identification code is moderately better than the recycling symbol, says Bourque, but he recommends that California’s new labeling law be adopted on a national level since it requires any claims of recyclability (including the use of the chasing arrows symbol) to be backed up with proof.

The RIC system was not intended for consumers in the first place, but rather, for those who work in materials recovery and recycling facilities. In terms of getting more people on board with recycling, it may be helpful to establish consumer communication tools like new labels to indicate specifically whether a plastic material is recyclable or not, says Kate O’Neill, global environmental politics and governance expert and professor at the University of California, Berkeley. It may also restore trust in the system and create more effective recycling practices from consumers, she adds.

[Related: Recycling plants spew a staggering amount of microplastics.]

To increase plastic recycling rates, it’s necessary to invest in recycling infrastructure, says O’Neill. The country’s recycling infrastructure hasn’t been keeping up with today’s waste steam. Last year, the EPA announced $375 million in funding for new recycling, reuse, and waste prevention programs and initiatives—the largest investment in recycling by the EPA in 30 years.

O’Neill says creating markets for recycled plastics could also help. In 2020, California passed AB 793 which requires plastic beverage containers to contain a minimum amount of recycled content. Starting in 2022, the amount of post-consumer recycled resin in plastic beverage containers should at least be 15 percent. The requirement increases to 25 percent by 2025 and 50 percent by 2030, thereby increasing the demand for recycled resin.

Although recycling is part of the solution when addressing plastic waste, O’Neill says it can’t be the panacea. The focus should still be on reducing plastic packaging, not recycling more, says Bourque. Targeting virgin plastic production and use can reduce further waste generation. “We cannot recycle our way out of the plastic packaging crisis,” he adds. “Remember, it goes ‘Reduce, Reuse, then Recycle!’”

The post Why the recycling symbol is part of a ‘misinformation campaign’ appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

On May 25, the Supreme Court of the United States cut back the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate wetlands in another setback for the landmark Clean Water Act. In the 5 to 4 ruling, the court said that the law does not allow the EPA to regulate the discharges into the wetlands that are near a body of water, unless the wetland has a unless they have “a continuous surface connection” to those waters. 

[Related: The EPA’s roll back of the Clean Water Act could impact drinking water for millions of Americans.]

The issue before the court was the reach of the 51-year-old Clean Water Act and how courts should determine what counts as “waters of the United States” for the purposes of legal protection. In 2006, the court ruled in two consolidated cases that wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act if they have a “significant nexus” to regulated waters. Business interests and property rights groups sought to narrow the regulations in wetlands and areas that are directly connected to “navigable waters,” like lakes and rivers.

This case–Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency–concerned Michael and Chantell Sackett, a couple who wanted to build a home on what an appeals court called “a soggy residential lot” near Priest Lake in Idaho’s panhandle. The Sacketts began construction in 2007 by filling in the land, and the EPA ordered them to stop. The agency threatened the couple with fines, saying  they must return their property to its original condition. Backed by successful conservative property rights group Pacific Legal Foundation, the Sacketts sued the EPA. A dispute regarding if the lawsuit was premature reached the Supreme Court in an earlier appeal and the justices ruled that the suit could proceed in 2012. Justice Alito said that the Clean Water Act gave the EPA too much power in a concurring opinion that same year.

Thursday’s 5 to 4 majority opinion is the latest decision in a trend where the conservative-leaning court has narrowed the reach of environmental regulations. In 2022, the court restricted the EPA’s authority to curb emissions from power plants in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the EPA’s interpretation of its power went too far. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred that the Clean Water Act extends only to those “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own rights.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Brett Kavanaugh, dissented, with Kagan writing a concurring opinion. They agreed that the Sacketts should prevail, but wrote that they would have ruled for them on more narrow grounds without changing what defines “waters in the United States.”

[Related: What would America be like without the EPA?]

In his own dissent, Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “By narrowing the [Clean Water] Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.”

Wetlands are some of the most diverse and productive ecosystems on the planet and the US has roughly 75.5 million acres of wetlands. They are an important tool against slowing the pace of human-made climate change, particularly in urban areas, while protecting communities from flooding and storms. 

Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has dramatically cut pollution in America’s waterways, leading to major rebounds of fish species. Since the wetlands like those at the center of the Sackett case have a close relationship with the larger water system of streams and rivers, the court’s ruling has major potential to impact the health and quality of all waterways in the United States. 

“This decision will cause incalculable harm. Communities across the country will pay the price,” Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) President & CEO Manish Bapna said in a statement following the ruling. “What’s important now is to repair the damage. The government must enforce the remaining provisions of law that protect the clean water we all rely on for drinking, swimming, fishing, irrigation and more. States should quickly strengthen their own laws. Congress needs to act to restore protections for all our waters.”

Correction (May 30, 2023): Kagan wrote a concurring opinion, not the dissenting opinion as this originally stated. We regret the error.

The post Wetlands lose some environmental protections in new Supreme Court ruling appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Update May 25, 2023: This post has been updated with a comment from Chevron.

The already questionable $2 billion a year voluntary emissions offset market is facing even more scrutiny. An investigation by transnational corporate watchdog Corporate Accountability first reported in The Guardian found that carbon offsets from fossil fuel giant Chevron are mostly worthless—could also cause harm. The investigation found that the company relies on “junk” carbon offsets and “unviable” technologies. These actions do little to offset the company’s greenhouse gas emissions. 

The new research from Corporate Accountability found that between 2020 and 2022, 93 percent of the offsets that Chevron bought and counted towards their climate targets from voluntary carbon markets were actually too environmentally problematic to be considered as anything other than worthless or junk.

[Related: Many popular carbon offsets don’t actually counteract emissions, study says.]

Carbon offsets are tradable “rights” or certificates that allow the buyer to compensate for 1 ton of carbon dioxide or the equivalent in greenhouse gasses. These offsets are usually in the form of an investment in emissions-reducing environmental projects in other parts of the world. 

An investigation by The Guardian and Germany’s Die Zeit, and the nonprofit journalism outfit, SourceMaterial earlier this year found that the world’s leading provider of these offsets, Verra, may be making the climate worse. Verra is often used by major corporations like Shell and Disney, but over 90 percent of Verra’s most popular rainforest offset credits were discovered to be  “phantom credits” that do not result in “genuine carbon reductions.”

Carbon offsets are considered worthless or having low environmental integrity if the project is linked to a plantation, forest, or green energy project. This includes hydroelectric dams that don’t lead to any additional reductions in greenhouse gasses, or exaggerates the benefits and minimizes risks of emitting emissions, among some other factors.

Chevron often purchased offsets that focused on large dams, plantations, or forests, according to the report. It found that many of these “worthless” offsets are also linked to some alleged social and environmental harms. These harms are primarily in communities in the global south, which happen to face the most harm by the climate crisis that Big Oil helped create. 

“Chevron’s junk climate action agenda is destructive and reckless, especially in light of climate science underscoring the only viable way forward is an equitable and urgent fossil fuel phase-out,” Rachel Rose Jackson from Corporate Accountability told The Guardian.

Chevron is the second-largest fossil fuel company in the United States and its vast operations stretch north to Canada and the United Kingdom and south towards Brazil, Nigeria, and Australia. It reported over $35 billion in profits in 2022 and its projected emissions between 2022 and 2025 are equal to those from 364 coal-fired power plants per year. This is more than the total emissions of 10 European countries combined for a similar three-year period, according to the report.

[Related: BP made $28 billion last year, and now it’s backtracking on its climate goals.]

Chevron “aspires” to achieve net zero upstream emissions by 2050, largely relying on carbon offset schemes and carbon capture and storage to do this. Carbon offsets rely on environmental projects to cancel out a company’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The new report further argues that the widespread use of these worthless offsets undermines the company’s net zero aspiration. Their net-zero aspirations only apply to less than 10 percent of the company’s carbon footprint–the upstream emissions that are produced from the production and transport of gas and oil. It excludes the downstream or end use emissions that are due to burning fossil fuels.

“Any climate plan that is premised on offsets, CCS, and excludes scope 3 [downstream] emissions is bound to fail,” Steven Feit, fossil economy legal and research manager at the Center for International Environmental Law, told The Guardian. “It’s clear from this report and other research that net zero as a framework opens the door for claims of climate action while continuing with business as usual, and not moving towards a low-carbon Paris [agreement]-aligned 1.5-degree [2.7 degree] future.”

Bill Turenne, an external affairs coordinator from Chevron, added via email that Chevron believes the report is “biased against our industry and paints an incomplete picture of Chevron’s efforts to advance a lower carbon future.” The offsets reviewed in the Corporate Accountability report are “compliance-grade offsets accepted by governments in the regions where we operate,” Turenne said.

The post Chevron’s carbon offsets are mostly ‘junk,’ according to global watchdog investigation appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. It is republished with permission. Sign up for their newsletter here. 

A new report finds that methane regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency  could spur job growth in Texas as oil and gas operators measure, monitor and mitigate the harmful greenhouse gas.

While Texas officials argue the methane regulations would kill jobs, the report, published today by the Texas Climate Jobs Project and the Ray Marshall Center at the University of Texas, Austin, found that new federal methane regulations could create between 19,000 and 35,000 jobs in the state. 

Oil and gas producing regions, including the Permian Basin, would need a significant workforce to detect methane leaks, replace components known to leak the gas and plug abandoned wells. Previous research shows the methane mitigation industry is already growing.

In the absence of state methane rules, the EPA’s draft methane rule, first issued in November 2021 and strengthened in a supplemental filing last November, along with a new methane fee under the Inflation Reduction Act, will have a major impact on oil and gas operations in the Lone Star state. 

“We want to show that environmental policies are not job killers,” said Christopher Agbo, research and policy coordinator for the Texas Climate Jobs Project, an affiliate of the Texas AFL-CIO. “You can create tens of thousands of good-paying, family-sustaining union jobs while also cutting back on emissions.”

Changing the Methane Narrative 

The EPA’s methane regulations, to be finalized later this year, would reduce methane emissions 87 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The Inflation Reduction Act’s first-ever methane fee for large emitters will also start in 2024 at $900 per ton of methane and increase to $1,500 per ton by 2026.

Reducing methane emissions is one of the most effective short-term measures to slow the pace of climate change because methane traps about 80 times more heat in the atmosphere over a 20-year period than carbon dioxide.

But Texas has been a stubborn opponent of federal methane regulations. In January 2021, shortly after Biden ordered the EPA to develop new methane rules, Gov. Greg Abbott issued an executive order directing state agencies to use every legal avenue to oppose federal action challenging the “strength, vitality, and independence of the energy industry.”

After the EPA released its draft methane rule in 2021, Texas Railroad Commissioner Wayne Christian issued a statement that “anti -oil and -gas policies will kill jobs, stifle economic growth, and make America more reliant o[n] foreign nations to provide reliable energy.”

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Railroad Commission submitted joint public comments to the EPA, referring to provisions of the proposed methane rules as “burdensome,” “economically unreasonable” and “onerous.”

The new report, Mitigating Methane in Texas, seeks to change the narrative on methane regulations in Texas, concluding that the methane mitigation sector could grow rapidly as new regulations go into effect. 

Slashing methane emissions in Texas would be a mammoth undertaking. The effort would require the creation of thousands of new jobs, from deploying drones to measure emissions to decommissioning orphaned wells to installing flare systems on storage tanks.

The report authors found that to comply with methane regulations, Texas would need at least 19,000 workers and up to as many as 35,000, which would add between six and nine percent to the number employed in the oil and gas industry in 2022.

“We are the largest emitter of methane in the country,” Agbo said. “So all this funding and regulations toward methane mitigation are going to play a huge role in Texas.”

He and co-author Greg Cumpton, of the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources at UT Austin, found that methane mitigation would create long-term maintenance jobs in the oil and gas sector, including leak inspection and detection, leak repair and storage tank maintenance. Short-term replacement and abatement jobs would include replacing methane-emitting components like pneumatic controllers. 

The biggest labor demand would be in the Permian Basin, where the authors estimate addressing methane emissions would require an additional 7,556 jobs. The report authors urge new jobs in methane mitigation be unionized and protected under prevailing wage laws and other high road employment practices. 

“Part of ensuring that the jobs created in areas like the Permian Basin are good-paying jobs would be implementing Department of Labor-registered apprenticeship programs,” Agbo said. “There needs to be collaboration between labor unions, local, state and local governments, and also workforce development boards in the area.”

“A Big Growth Field”

Oil and gas operators around the world are already working to reduce methane emissions. Some turn to Austin-based SeekOps, a company that pairs sensor technology with autonomous drones to measure emissions. While many of the firm’s clients are in Europe—where methane regulations have been in effect for years—SeekOps expects its U.S. clientele to grow.

“It’s a big growth field,” said Paul Khuri, SeekOps vice president of business development. “Next year is going to be a huge year, because the IRA taxes start on Jan. 1.”

SeekOps currently has 30 employees, including data analysts, atmospheric scientists, software and hardware engineers and drone pilots. The company was founded in California but relocated to Austin to be closer to potential customers in the energy industry. 

Khuri said SeekOps clients include oil and gas companies that have voluntarily committed to emissions reductions, regardless of the local regulatory framework. He said he will be watching how the federal government enforces the new methane fees to gauge how much the methane mitigation industry could grow.

“That will be a really good indicator of where the market is going to head and see whether this will be a massive growth area,” Khuri said.

A 2021 Environmental Defense Fund report found that the methane mitigation sector was already growing rapidly. The report identified 215 firms manufacturing technology or providing services to manage methane emissions in the oil and gas industry. The number of manufacturing firms had increased by 33 percent from 2014 to 2021 and the number of service firms had increased by 90 percent between 2017 and 2021.

The EDF report found that more companies mitigating methane had employees located in Texas than any other state. Companies headquartered in Texas include Solar Injection Systems in Odessa, which manufactures solar-powered chemical injection pumps; Cimarron Energy, an emissions control company in Houston, and CI Systems in Carrollton, which commercializes infrared remote sensing technology. 

Arvind Ravikumar, an engineering professor and co-director of the Energy Emissions Modeling and Data Lab at UT Austin, said that oil and gas companies are facing pressure on multiple fronts to reign in methane emissions. More buyers of U.S. natural gas in Europe and Asia are tracking supply chain methane emissions and some utilities are seeking “certified natural gas” with lower associated methane emissions.

“Even if the EPA methane regulations were not in place, the majority of these emissions detection and reduction efforts would go on,” Ravikumar said.

Because methane emissions occur through venting and leaking, not combustion, direct on-site measurements are necessary, Ravikumar said. This bodes well for job creation.

“Methane mitigation or methane emissions detection is not something you can do remotely. You have to be on the ground,” he said. “What that means is you’re going to put a lot more people in some of the most remote, rural corners of the country.”

Ravikumar said many facets of methane measurement and accounting must still be ironed out. But he agreed the economic benefits to oil and gas producing regions of Texas cannot be overlooked.

“Having a policy that’s going to create jobs exclusively in remote parts of the country is really hard to do,” Ravikumar said. “And methane is one place where you can do that successfully.”

The post Plugging methane leaks could open up thousands of jobs in Texas appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Hakai Magazine, an online publication about science and society in coastal ecosystems. Read more stories like this at hakaimagazine.com.

In 1985, the British Antarctic Survey alerted the world that in the atmosphere high above the South Pole a giant hole was forming in the Earth’s protective ozone layer. World leaders swiftly assembled to work out a solution. Two years later, the United Nations agreed to ban the chemicals responsible for eroding the layer of the stratosphere that shields Earth from the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. Known as the Montreal Protocol agreement, it is still one of the UN’s most widely ratified treaties.

The Montreal Protocol was a win for diplomacy and the stratosphere. But unbeknown to its signatories at the time, the agreement was also an unexpected ward against climate catastrophe. As new research shows, the aptly named ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) that created the hole over Antarctica are also responsible for causing 30 percent of the temperature increase we saw globally from 1955 to 2005.

Michael Sigmond, a climate scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada is the lead author of a new study calculating the greenhouse-trapping potency of ODSs. The substances’ contribution to global warming are, he says, “larger than most people have realized.”

The Montreal Protocol regulates nearly 100 ozone-eating chemicals. Many fall under the umbrella of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals popularized in the 1930s for use in spray cans, plastic foams, and refrigeration. Compared with the array of toxic, flammable alternatives they replaced, CFCs were seen as wonder chemicals, and by the early 1970s, the world was producing nearly one million tonnes of them each year.

CFCs are inert, so they don’t react with other gases. Instead, they tend to accumulate in the atmosphere and drift wherever the wind takes them, hanging around in the air for 85 years or more. Once they reach the stratosphere, the second layer of Earth’s multilayered atmosphere, CFCs begin to break down. They’re “destroyed by being blasted apart by photons,” explains Dennis Hartmann, a climate scientist at the University of Washington who was not involved in the research. That reactive ruckus is what causes the hole in the ozone layer.

In the troposphere—the lowest level of the atmosphere, which fewer photons reach—ODSs act as long-lasting greenhouse gases. Back in 1987, scientists knew ODSs trapped some solar radiation, but they didn’t know how much. Only recently have scientists been putting together the evidence that ODSs are actually one of the most damaging warming agents of the past half century.

The effects of this warming are amplified at the poles. Sigmond and his colleagues’ work shows that if ODSs had never been mass produced—if the concentration in the atmosphere had stayed at 1955 levels—the Arctic today would be at least 55 percent cooler, and there’d be 45 percent more sea ice each September.

ODS production leveled off in the 1990s. But because they’re so long-lived, these gases are still kicking around, and the warming they cause is still increasing. Yet it could have been much worse. By banning ODSs, the Montreal Protocol unintentionally prevented 1 °C of warming by 2050.

With the Montreal Protocol, world leaders rallied around an urgent cause. In the process, we inadvertently phased out the second-largest forcer of global warming. The unanticipated benefits for the global climate, says Susann Tegtmeier, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Saskatchewan who was not involved in the study, “can be considered a very welcome and very positive side effect.”

While it’s taken a lot more negotiation and innovation to begin dislodging the main driver of climate change—carbon dioxide—the Montreal Protocol proves the power of collective action and shows how tackling environmental woes can help us in ways we didn’t expect.

This article first appeared in Hakai Magazine and is republished here with permission.

The post Fixing the ozone hole was a bigger deal than anyone realized appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article originally appeared in Grist.

In the Mon Valley of western Pennsylvania, steel was once a way of life, one synonymous with the image of rural, working-class Rust Belt communities. At its height in 1910, Pittsburgh alone produced 25 million tons of it, or 60 percent of the nation’s total. Bustling mills linger along the Monongahela River and around Pittsburgh, but employment has been steadily winding down for decades.  

Though President Trump promised a return to the idealized vision of American steelmaking that Bruce Springsteen might sing about, the industry has changed since its initial slump four decades ago. Jobs declined 49 percent between 1990 and 2021, when increased efficiency saw the sector operating at its highest capacity in 14 years. Despite ongoing supply chain hiccups and inflation, demand continues growing globally, particularly in Asia. But even as demand for this essential material climbs, so too does the pressure to decarbonize its production.

Earlier this month, the progressive Ohio River Valley Institute released a study that found a carefully planned transition to “green” steel — manufactured using hydrogen generated with renewable energy — could be a climatic and economic boon. It argues that as countries work toward achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, a green steel boom in western Pennsylvania could help the U.S. meet that goal, make its steel industry competitive again, and employ a well-paid industrial workforce.

“A transition to fossil fuel-free steelmaking could grow total jobs supported by steelmaking in the region by 27 percent to 43 percent by 2031, forestalling projected job losses,” the study noted. “Regional jobs supported by traditional steelmaking are expected to fall by 30 percent in the same period.”

In a world struggling to keep global climate change below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), the traditional coke-based process of making steel, which uses coal to power the furnaces that melt iron ore, remains a big problem. The industry generates 7.2 percent of all carbon emissions worldwide, making it more polluting than the entire European Union. Old-school steel manufacturing relies on metallurgical coal — that is, high-quality, low-moisture coal, which still releases carbon, sulfur dioxide, and other pollutants. About 70 percent of today’s steel is made that way, much of it produced cheaply in countries with lax environmental regulations. However, only 30 percent of U.S. production uses this method.

Technological improvements and pressure to reduce emissions have led to increased use of leftover, or “scrap,” steel during production. When products made of traditional, coke-based steel have reached the end of their useful life, they can be returned to the furnace and recycled almost infinitely. This reduces the labor needed to produce the same amount and quality of steel as traditional production methods, and it accounts for about 70 percent of the nation’s output.

The scrap is melted in an electric arc furnace and uses hydrogen, rather than coke, to process iron ore. It requires less energy than traditional methods, particularly if renewable energy powers the furnace and generates the hydrogen. Nick Messenger, an economist who worked on the Institute’s study, believes this approach could revitalize the Rust Belt by placing the region at the forefront of an innovation the industry must inevitably embrace.

“What we actually show is that by doing that three-step process and doing it all close to home in Pennsylvania,” he said, “each step of that process has the potential to create jobs and support jobs in the community” — from building and operating solar panels and turbines, to operating electrolyzers to produce electricity, to making the steel itself.

The study claims a business-as-usual approach would follow current production and employment trends, leading to a 30 percent reduction in jobs by 2031. A transition to hydrogen-based electric arc manufacturing could increase jobs in both the steel and energy industries by as much as 43 percent. The study calls western Pennsylvania an ideal location for this transition, given its proximity to clean water, an experienced workforce, and 22,200 watts of wind and solar energy potential.

To make it work for the Mon Valley, the study notes, manufacturers must get started as soon as possible. The quest for green steel isn’t just an ideological matter, but a question of global economic power. “There’s a huge new race, in a sense, to get in on the ground floor,” Messenger said. “When you’re the first one, you attract the types of capital, you attract the types of businesses and entrepreneurs and industries that cause that kind of flourishing boom to happen around this particular sector.” 

The Ohio Valley’s fabled steel mills may be looking, if cautiously, toward a decarbonized future. Two years ago, U.S. Steel canceled a $1.3 billion investment in the Mon Valley Works complex, citing, in part, its net-zero goals and the need to switch to electric arc steel production. Of course, the biggest challenge is that while the Mon Valley has massive wind energy potential, very little of it has been tapped. But thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, federal subsidies and tax breaks could give clean energy developers a boost.

The Biden administration has shown faith in green steel through a series of grant programs, subsidies and tax credits, including $6 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act to decarbonize heavy industry. But Europe has the advantage. Nascent projects in Sweden, Germany, and Spain dot the European Union, with the United Kingdom close behind. Some are using hydrogen, but others are experimenting with biochar, electrolysis, or other ways to power the electric arc process. 

In the United States, a company called Boston Metal is experimenting with an oxide electrolysis model, hoping to make the U.S. a leader in green steel technology. This model eliminates the need for coal by creating a chemical reaction that emulates the reaction that turns iron ore into steel. The company is in the process of commercializing its technology and plans to license it to steel manufacturers. Adam Rauwerdink, the company’s senior vice president of business development, hopes to see its first adopter by 2026.

Rauwerdink believes the world is moving away from traditional steel manufacturing and  that U.S. companies will be playing catch up if they don’t adapt. He has seen more and more companies and investors get on board in the past five years, including ArcelorMittal, the world’s second biggest steel producer. It invested $36 million in Boston Metal this year. He considers that investment a clear sign that the race for green steel is on, and it’s time for manufacturers to embrace the technology — or get left behind.

“Historically, you would have built a steel plant near a coal mine,” he said. “Now you’re going to be building it where you have clean power.”

This story has been updated to clarify that Boston Metal is still commercializing its technology.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/energy/steel-built-the-rust-belt-green-steel-could-help-rebuild-it/. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

The post Steel built the Rust Belt. Green steel could help rebuild it. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article originally appeared in Grist.

To get plastics ready for use in consumer and industrial products, companies add thousands of chemical additives that give them properties like elasticity and fire resistance. Many of these chemicals, however, are hazardous to human health and the environment, and environmental advocacy groups have long pushed for their elimination.

Those advocates scored a victory last week when parties to the Stockholm Convention — an international treaty regulating hazardous pollutants — agreed to add three new chemicals to a list of globally banned substances, including the plastic additives UV-328 and Dechlorane Plus. The move is expected to safeguard people and the natural world, although a handful of exemptions mean the chemicals will not completely disappear as a threat.

World governments “took an important step today toward protecting human health and the environment,” Sara Brosché, a science adviser for the International Pollutant Elimination Network, or IPEN, said in a statement. “But we are disappointed that financial interests caused unnecessary and dangerous exemptions that will lead to ongoing toxic exposures.”

The decision came out of a two-week-long conference in Switzerland on the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions, a series of United Nations agreements to regulate waste and hazardous chemicals. The Stockholm Convention, which will control the three new chemicals, was first passed in 2001 to phase out or restrict the global production of “persistent organic pollutants,” hazardous pesticides and industrial chemicals that don’t break down naturally. There were 12 chemicals on the original list, but it’s since expanded to cover more than 30. More than 150 countries have ratified the Stockholm Convention and are subject to its restrictions; the U.S. is not among them.

The most recently banned chemicals include a pesticide called methoxychlor, as well as two plastic additives: UV-328, which absorbs UV light and is widely used in transparent plastics products, and Dechlorane Plus, a flame retardant that’s added to plastic coatings and electrical wires. All three chemicals have been shown to persist in the natural environment and bioaccumulate up the food chain, and have been linked to health concerns ranging from neurodevelopmental damage to endocrine disruption. These concerns are particularly acute for people who work in recycling workshops, where plastics are exposed to high heat and other processes that encourage chemical leaching.   

By placing the chemicals in a category known as “Annex A,” parties to the Stockholm Convention have agreed to take steps to eliminate them from global use and production — with a handful of exemptions, in the case of the two plastic additives. Until 2044, both UV-328 and Dechlorane Plus will still be allowed in spare parts for motor vehicles and agricultural equipment, among other uses. Strangely, Dechlorane Plus will also be allowed indefinitely for use in medical imaging devices and aerospace products — even though the chemical’s production is projected to end globally by 2026 due to a national-level bans that are already on the books.

“We are quite disappointed” with the exemptions, said Jitka Straková, a project manager for the Czech nonprofit Arnika. Although there are fewer exemptions than there have been for previous chemicals, she said any ongoing use or production of UV-328 and Dechlorane Plus will harm recyclers in the developing world — especially because countries could not agree on rules for labeling contaminated products. This means that, even though the Stockholm Convention now bans the recycling of products containing UV-328 and Dechlorane Plus, recycling workers could unwittingly accept plastics containing these chemicals into their workshops.

“Exempted uses mean that the products will still be contaminating waste streams when they reach their end of life,” Straková said. A recent study she helped conduct with IPEN found alarming Dechlorane Plus contamination in and around e-waste recycling sites in Thailand, where much of the world’s plastic waste is exported. The study showed that a group of 40 Thai recycling workers had blood serum concentrations of Dechlorane Plus that were more than 39 times higher than those of a control group.

“Everyone has a right to know when toxic chemicals threaten their bodies, their food, and their health,” Thitikorn Boontongmai, toxic waste and industrial program manager for the watchdog Ecological Alert and Recovery – Thailand, said in a statement.

UV-328 contamination is also widespread, thanks to the chemical’s ubiquity in consumer products. An IPEN analysis of 28 hair accessories and toys from Russia, China, and Indonesia found UV-328 in every item. A separate study from IPEN found UV-328 in recycled plastic pellets from nearly two dozen different countries, suggesting that UV-328 travels into recycled products even if they were never meant to contain the additive.

“We are essentially losing track” of where UV-328 and Dechlorane Plus are going or what type of products they’re reaching, Strakova said. She said companies should immediately switch to safer alternatives despite the Stockholm Convention exemptions, and that countries should set strict limits for those chemicals in waste, banning them from being recycled into new products.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/regulation/more-than-150-countries-agree-to-ban-3-toxic-chemicals/. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org.

The post More toxic chemicals will be banned globally—but there’s a catch appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

On May 11, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will propose new limits on the greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants. Second only to the nation’s transportation sector, the electricity sector generates about 25 percent of all greenhouse gas pollution in the US. 

[Related: Renewable energy is climbing in the US, but so are our emissions—here’s why.]

According to the EPA, the proposal for coal and new natural gas power plants would keep up to 617 million metric tons of total carbon dioxide from spilling into the air through 2042. This is the equivalent to reducing the annual emissions of about half the cars in the United States. The EPA estimates that the net climate and health benefits of these new standards on new gas and existing coal-fired power plants are up to $85 billion through 2042.

“By proposing new standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants, EPA is delivering on its mission to reduce harmful pollution that threatens people’s health and wellbeing,” EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement. “EPA’s proposal relies on proven, readily available technologies to limit carbon pollution and seizes the momentum already underway in the power sector to move toward a cleaner future. Alongside historic investment taking place across America in clean energy manufacturing and deployment, these proposals will help deliver tremendous benefits to the American people—cutting climate pollution and other harmful pollutants, protecting people’s health, and driving American innovation.”

The new rules will likely not mandate the use of technologies that capture carbon emissions before they leave a smokestack, such as direct air capture. It will instead set caps on pollution rates that planet operators will have to meet by either using a different technology or switching to a fuel source like green hydrogen. 

The new limits represent the Biden administration’s most ambitious effort to date to roll back the pollution from the US’ second-largest contributor to climate change. It also follows the current administration’s plans to cut car tailpipe emissions by speeding up the transition to mostly elective vehicles and curb methane leaks from gas and oil wells.

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act is adding over $370 billion into clean energy programs and the administration hopes that these new actions push the US further in the fight to constrain further human-made global warming.  

[Related: At New York City’s biggest power plant, a switch to clean energy will help a neighborhood breathe easier.]

These investments and regulations could put the US on track to meet President Biden’s pledge that the US will cut greenhouse gasses in half by 2030 and stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2050. While more policies are needed to reach the 2050 target, scientists say these goals must be met by all major industrialized nations to keep average global temperatures from increasing by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit compared with pre industrial levels. Beyond that temperature tipping point, catastrophic flooding, drought, heat waves, flooding, species extinction, and crop failure will become significantly harder for humanity to handle. Earth has already warmed by two degrees Fahrenheit.

If these regulations are finalized, they would mark the first time that the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. It extends to all current and future electric plants as well. 

The plan will face steep opposition from the fossil fuel industry and Republicans and some Democrats in Congress.

Despite these proposed new regulations, Biden has also faced criticism from many environmentalists for the decision to approve the Willow oil project in Alaska this March. Environmental groups call this massive oil drilling plan by ConocoPhillips a “carbon bomb” that could produce up to 180,000 barrels of oil per day. 

Many younger voters and young climate activists say Biden broke a major 2020 campaign promise by approving Willow. With this in mind, EPA officials will announce these new regulations at the University of Maryland.

The post Power plants may face emission limits for the first time if EPA rules pass appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Back in 2021, President Joe Biden announced the administration’s new Justice40 Initiative through Executive Order 14008. The program’s aim is that 40 percent of the benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities. Investments related to climate change, clean energy, reduction of legacy pollution, and the development of water and wastewater infrastructure, among others, all fall within the initiative.

The administration doesn’t intend the program to be a one-time investment, but rather, a way to improve the distribution of the benefits of government programs and ensure that they reach disadvantaged communities. Since it was established, 19 federal agencies have released a total of nearly 470 covered programs, with three agencies joining just last month. While it’s promising that the administration recognizes the need to address long-standing equities, it’s critical to assess how they plan to make environmental justice a reality.

Marginalized and underserved communities must be prioritized to advance environmental justice

Hannah Perls, senior staff attorney at Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program (EELP), says that many of the environmental injustices around the country today are the result of a legacy of disinvestment in low-income communities. This is especially true in communities of color where “racist policies barred or discouraged public and private investment in housing, critical infrastructure, public transit, and natural spaces.”

[Related: Stronger pollution protections mean focusing on specific communities.]

These communities often face greater exposure to industrial pollution, higher health risks from deteriorating infrastructure, and more energy and housing burdens than wealthier, white communities, says Perls. They also lose out often in competitive federal funding processes—and in some cases, funding is intentionally withheld. This only reinforces existing wealth disparities. By explicitly targeting that 40 percent of federal climate investments reach these communities, the Justice 40 Initiative hopes to combat the legacy of disinvestment and equitably distribute the benefits of the transition to renewable energy, she adds.

To identify disadvantaged communities, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has put out its Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), a geospatial mapping tool that identifies overburdened and underserved census tracts across all states.

“Agencies can build upon the CEJST as needed, again on a program-by-program basis,” says Perls. “One benefit of this flexibility is that agencies can incorporate burdens specific to their jurisdiction. For example, the Department of Energy’s definition incorporates five measures of energy burden and two measures of fossil dependence.”

The CEJST is an exciting starting point that the federal government can continue to refine. That said, “environmental justice burdens don’t necessarily follow census boundaries, so there should be opportunities for communities to make the case to receive federal dollars if their community is not identified by the tool,” says Silvia R. González, director of climate change, environmental justice, and health research at the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Initiative.

How to ensure that the benefits reach disadvantaged communities

All covered programs are required to consult the community stakeholders, ensure their involvement in determining program benefits, and report data on said benefits. An established number of 40 percent provides clear guidelines and expectations for agencies. To strengthen that goal, a team of researchers and advocates recommend that the 40 percent be a minimum for direct investments in disadvantaged communities.

“A direct investment means the percentage is not just a goal that relies on counting trickle-down benefits,” says González, who was involved in the report. “The straightforward nature of a direct benefit strategy would enhance transparency and accountability to taxpayers because it is tough to measure trickle-down benefits.”

To ensure investment objectives are met, transparency in reporting and evaluation is necessary, she adds. Accountability mechanisms are a must in guaranteeing equitable, effective, and efficient implementation.

[Related: The hard truth of building clean solar farms.]

“We currently have no federal environmental justice law,” says Perls. “As a result, most of the administration’s environmental justice commitments, including the Justice40 Initiative, are established via Executive Order and are therefore not judicially enforceable.”

Fortunately, there are some ways to monitor how the government is living up to its promises. The administration recently published the first version of the Environmental Justice Scorecard, a government-wide assessment of the actions taken by federal agencies to achieve environmental justice goals. Harvard Law School’s EELP also has a Federal Environmental Justice Tracker that tracks the progress of the administration’s environmental justice commitments and other agency-specific initiatives.

Overall, experts say it’s a positive sign that the Justice40 Initiative has catalyzed critical discussions to face climate change and historical disinvestment head-on. But as with any ambitious policy agenda, the implementation will need to overcome many hurdles, says González. The most vulnerable communities tend to be those that are least resourced, and they should not get left behind. Some communities or households may be under-resourced due to language, technology, trust, and capacity barriers to programs that can help them develop financial and health resiliency. There will need to be capacity-building and technical assistance for under-resourced communities to apply for and manage these investments, she adds.

In general, there is strong potential for Justice40-covered programs to bring transformational change from the bottom up. The knowledge and lived experiences of disadvantaged communities could shape targeted investments to ensure that their needs are met. “I hope Justice40 builds a framework rooted in principles of self-governance and self-determination, direct engagement, and collaboration with communities,” says González, “instead of top-down solutions.”

The post How the US is fighting wealth disparities in climate action appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

An unsettling report released barely a year ago painted a grim picture of the plastics industry—only about 5 percent of the 46 million annual tons of plastic waste in the US makes it to recycling facilities. The number is even more depressing after realizing that is roughly half of experts’ previous estimates. But if all that wasn’t enough, new information throws a heaping handful of salt on the wound: of the plastic that does make it to recycling, a lot of it is still released into the world as potentially toxic microplastics.

According to the pilot study recently published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances focused on a single, modern facility, recycling plants’ wastewater contains a staggering number of microplastic particles. And as Wired explained on Friday, all those possibly toxic particulates have to go somewhere, i.e. potentially city water systems, or the larger environment.

The survey focusing on one new, unnamed facility examined its entire recycling process. This involves sorting, shredding, and melting plastics down into pellets. During those phases of recycling, however, the plastic waste is washed multiple times, which subsequently sheds particles smaller than 5 millimeters along the way. Despite factoring in the plant’s state-of-the-art filtration system designed to capture particulates as tiny as 50 microns, the facility still produced as many as 75 billion particles per cubic meter of wastewater.

[Related: How companies greenwash their plastic pollution.]

The silver lining here is that without the filtration systems, it could be much worse. Researchers estimated facilities that utilized filters cut down their microplastic residuals from 6.5 million pounds to around 3 million pounds per year. Unfortunately, many recycling locations aren’t as equipped as the modern plant used within the study. On top of that, the team only focused on microplastics as small as 1.6 microns; particles can get so small they actually enter organisms’ individual cells. This implies much more plastic escapes these facilities than previously anticipated.

“I really don’t want it to suggest to people that we shouldn’t recycle, and to give it a completely negative reputation,” Erina Brown, a plastics scientist at the University of Strathclyde, told Wired. “What it really highlights is that we just really need to consider the impacts of the solutions.”

Most experts agree that the most important way to minimize coating the entire planet in microplastics is to focus on the larger issue—reducing society’s reliance on plastics in general, and pursuing alternative materials. In the meantime, recycling remains an important part of sustainability, as long as both facilities do everything they can to minimize microscopic waste.

The post Recycling plants spew a staggering amount of microplastics appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Hakai Magazine, an online publication about science and society in coastal ecosystems. Read more stories like this at hakaimagazine.com.

Dead fish were everywhere, speckling the beach near town and extending onto the surrounding coastline. The sheer magnitude of the October 2021 die-off, when hundreds, possibly thousands, of herring washed up, is what sticks in the minds of the residents of Kotzebue, Alaska. Fish were “literally all over the beaches,” says Bob Schaeffer, a fisherman and elder from the Qikiqtaġruŋmiut tribe.

Despite the dramatic deaths, there was no apparent culprit. “We have no idea what caused it,” says Alex Whiting, the environmental program director for the Native Village of Kotzebue. He wonders if the die-off was a symptom of a problem he’s had his eye on for the past 15 years: blooms of toxic cyanobacteria, sometimes called blue-green algae, that have become increasingly noticeable in the waters around this remote Alaska town.

Kotzebue sits about 40 kilometers north of the Arctic Circle, on Alaska’s western coastline. Before the Russian explorer Otto von Kotzebue had his name attached to the place in the 1800s, the region was called Qikiqtaġruk, meaning “place that is almost an island.” One side of the two-kilometer-long settlement is bordered by Kotzebue Sound, an offshoot of the Chukchi Sea, and the other by a lagoon. Planes, boats, and four-wheelers are the main modes of transportation. The only road out of town simply loops around the lagoon before heading back in.

In the middle of town, the Alaska Commercial Company sells food that’s popular in the lower 48—from cereal to apples to two-bite brownies—but the ocean is the real grocery store for many people in town. Alaska Natives, who make up about three-quarters of Kotzebue’s population, pull hundreds of kilograms of food out of the sea every year.

“We’re ocean people,” Schaeffer tells me. The two of us are crammed into the tiny cabin of Schaeffer’s fishing boat in the just-light hours of a drizzly September 2022 morning. We’re motoring toward a water-monitoring device that’s been moored in Kotzebue Sound all summer. On the bow, Ajit Subramaniam, a microbial oceanographer from Columbia University, New York, Whiting, and Schaeffer’s son Vince have their noses tucked into upturned collars to shield against the cold rain. We’re all there to collect a summer’s worth of information about cyanobacteria that might be poisoning the fish Schaeffer and many others depend on.

Huge colonies of algae are nothing new, and they’re often beneficial. In the spring, for example, increased light and nutrient levels cause phytoplankton to bloom, creating a microbial soup that feeds fish and invertebrates. But unlike many forms of algae, cyanobacteria can be dangerous. Some species can produce cyanotoxins that cause liver or neurological damage, and perhaps even cancer, in humans and other animals.

Many communities have fallen foul of cyanobacteria. Although many cyanobacteria can survive in the marine environment, freshwater blooms tend to garner more attention, and their effects can spread to brackish environments when streams and rivers carry them into the sea. In East Africa, for example, blooms in Lake Victoria are blamed for massive fish kills. People can also suffer: in an extreme case in 1996, 26 patients died after receiving treatment at a Brazilian hemodialysis center, and an investigation found cyanotoxins in the clinic’s water supply. More often, people who are exposed experience fevers, headaches, or vomiting.

When phytoplankton blooms decompose, whole ecosystems can take a hit. Rotting cyanobacteria rob the waters of oxygen, suffocating fish and other marine life. In the brackish waters of the Baltic Sea, cyanobacterial blooms contribute to deoxygenation of the deep water and harm the cod industry.

As climate change reshapes the Arctic, nobody knows how—or if—cyanotoxins will affect Alaskan people and wildlife. “I try not to be alarmist,” says Thomas Farrugia, coordinator of the Alaska Harmful Algal Bloom Network, which researches, monitors, and raises awareness of harmful algal blooms around the state. “But it is something that we, I think, are just not quite prepared for right now.” Whiting and Subramaniam want to change that by figuring out why Kotzebue is playing host to cyanobacterial blooms and by creating a rapid response system that could eventually warn locals if their health is at risk.

Whiting’s cyanobacteria story started in 2008. One day while riding his bike home from work, he came across an arresting site: Kotzebue Sound had turned chartreuse, a color unlike anything he thought existed in nature. His first thought was, Where’s this paint coming from?

The story of cyanobacteria on this planet goes back about 1.9 billion years, however. As the first organisms to evolve photosynthesis, they’re often credited with bringing oxygen to Earth’s atmosphere, clearing the path for complex life forms such as ourselves.

Over their long history, cyanobacteria have evolved tricks that let them proliferate wildly when shifts in conditions such as nutrient levels or salinity kill off other microbes. “You can think of them as sort of the weedy species,” says Raphael Kudela, a phytoplankton ecologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Most microbes, for example, need a complex form of nitrogen that is sometimes only available in limited quantities to grow and reproduce, but the predominant cyanobacteria in Kotzebue Sound can use a simple form of nitrogen that’s found in virtually limitless quantities in the air.

Cyanotoxins are likely another tool that help cyanobacteria thrive, but researchers aren’t sure exactly how toxins benefit these microbes. Some scientists think they deter organisms that eat cyanobacteria, such as bigger plankton and fish. Hans Paerl, an aquatic ecologist from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, favors another hypothesis: that toxins shield cyanobacteria from the potentially damaging astringent byproducts of photosynthesis.

Around the time when Kotzebue saw its first bloom, scientists were realizing that climate change would likely increase the frequency of cyanobacterial blooms, and what’s more, that blooms could spread from fresh water—long the focus of research—into adjacent brackish water. Kotzebue Sound’s blooms probably form in a nearby lake before flowing into the sea.

The latest science on cyanobacteria, however, had not reached Kotzebue in 2008. Instead, officers from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game tested the chartreuse water for petroleum and its byproducts. The tests came back negative, leaving Whiting stumped. “I had zero idea,” he says. It was biologist Lisa Clough, then from East Carolina University and now with the National Science Foundation, with whom Whiting had previously collaborated, who suggested he consider cyanobacteria. The following year, water sample analysis confirmed she was correct.

In 2017, Subramaniam visited Kotzebue as part of a research team studying sea ice dynamics. When Whiting learned that Subramaniam had a long-standing interest in cyanobacteria, “we just immediately clicked,” Subramaniam says.

The 2021 fish kill redoubled Whiting and Subramaniam’s enthusiasm for understanding how Kotzebue Sound’s microbial ecosystem could affect the town. A pathologist found damage to the dead fish’s gills, which may have been caused by the hard, spiky shells of diatoms (a type of algae), but the cause of the fish kill is still unclear. With so many of the town’s residents depending on fish as one of their food sources, that makes Subramaniam nervous. “If we don’t know what killed the fish, then it’s very difficult to address the question of, Is it safe to consume?” he says.

I watch the latest chapter of their collaboration from a crouched position on the deck of Schaeffer’s precipitously swaying fishing boat. Whiting reassures me that the one-piece flotation suit I’m wearing will save my life if I end up in the water, but I’m not keen to test that theory. Instead, I hold onto the boat with one hand and the phone I’m using to record video with the other while Whiting, Subramaniam, and Vince Schaeffer haul up a white-and-yellow contraption they moored in the ocean, rocking the boat in the process. Finally, a metal sphere about the diameter of a hula hoop emerges. From it projects a meter-long tube that contains a cyanobacteria sensor.

The sensor allows Whiting and Subramaniam to overcome a limitation that many researchers face: a cyanobacterial bloom is intense but fleeting, so “if you’re not here at the right time,” Subramaniam explains, “you’re not going to see it.” In contrast to the isolated measurements that researchers often rely on, the sensor had taken a reading every 10 minutes from the time it was deployed in June to this chilly September morning. By measuring levels of a fluorescent compound called phycocyanin, which is found only in cyanobacteria, they hope to correlate these species’ abundance with changes in water qualities such as salinity, temperature, and the presence of other forms of plankton.

Researchers are enthusiastic about the work because of its potential to protect the health of Alaskans, and because it could help them understand why blooms occur around the world. “That kind of high resolution is really valuable,” says Malin Olofsson, an aquatic biologist from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, who studies cyanobacteria in the Baltic Sea. By combining phycocyanin measurements with toxin measurements, the scientists hope to provide a more complete picture of the hazards facing Kotzebue, but right now Subramaniam’s priority is to understand which species of cyanobacteria are most common and what’s causing them to bloom.

Farrugia, from the Alaska Harmful Algal Bloom Network, is excited about the possibility of using similar methods in other parts of Alaska to gain an overall view of where and when cyanobacteria are proliferating. Showing that the sensor works in one location “is definitely the first step,” he says.

Understanding the location and potential source of cyanobacterial blooms is only half the battle: the other question is what to do about them. In the Baltic Sea, where fertilizer runoff from industrial agriculture has exacerbated blooms, neighboring countries have put a lot of effort into curtailing that runoff—and with success, Olofsson says. Kotzebue is not in an agricultural area, however, and instead some scientists have hypothesized that thawing permafrost may release nutrients that promote blooms. There’s not much anyone can do to prevent this, short of reversing the climate crisis. Some chemicals, including hydrogen peroxide, show promise as ways to kill cyanobacteria and bring temporary relief from blooms without affecting ecosystems broadly, but so far chemical treatments haven’t provided permanent solutions.

Instead, Whiting is hoping to create a rapid response system so he can notify the town if a bloom is turning water and food toxic. But this will require building up Kotzebue’s research infrastructure. At the moment, Subramaniam prepares samples in the kitchen at the Selawik National Wildlife Refuge’s office, then sends them across the country to researchers, who can take days, sometimes even months, to analyze them. To make the work safer and faster, Whiting and Subramaniam are applying for funding to set up a lab in Kotzebue and possibly hire a technician who can process samples in-house. Getting a lab is “probably the best thing that could happen up here,” says Schaeffer. Subramaniam is hopeful that their efforts will pay off within the next year.

In the meantime, interest in cyanobacterial blooms is also popping up in other regions of Alaska. Emma Pate, the training coordinator and environmental planner for the Norton Sound Health Corporation, started a monitoring program after members of local tribes noticed increased numbers of algae in rivers and streams. In Utqiaġvik, on Alaska’s northern coast, locals have also started sampling for cyanobacteria, Farrugia says.

Whiting sees this work as filling a critical hole in Alaskans’ understanding of water quality. Regulatory agencies have yet to devise systems to protect Alaskans from the potential threat posed by cyanobacteria, so “somebody needs to do something,” he says. “We can’t all just be bumbling around in the dark waiting for a bunch of people to die.” Perhaps this sense of self-sufficiency, which has let Arctic people thrive on the frozen tundra for millennia, will once again get the job done.

The reporting for this article was partially funded by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing Taylor/Blakeslee Mentored Science Journalism Project Fellowship.

The post A fish-kill mystery in a remote Alaska village takes a toxic turn appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on The Conversation.

Plunging into the ocean or a lake is one of the great joys of summer. But arriving at the beach to find water that’s green, red or brown, and possibly foul-smelling, can instantly spoil the party.

As a toxicologist, I study health risks from both synthetic and natural substances. I’ve conducted research into early detection of harmful algal blooms, or HABs, which are an increasing threat to humans, animals and the environment.

Toxins produced during these blooms have been implicated in human and animal illnesses in at least 43 states. Scientists have estimated that in the U.S. alone, freshwater HABs cause more than US$4.6 billion in damage yearly. Here’s what to know about them if you’re bound for the water’s edge this summer.

Tiny organisms, big impacts

Algae and cyanobacteria – often called blue-green algae – are simple, plantlike organisms that live in water. They can grow out of control, or “bloom,” especially when the water is warm and slow moving. Climate change is making water bodies warmer, increasing the risk of HABs.

The other major factor that drives blooms is high levels of nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, which fertilize algae. Nutrient pollution comes mainly from agriculture, wastewater treatment plants, septic systems and fossil fuel combustion.

Sometimes these blooms contain organisms that produce toxins – an umbrella term for many poisonous substances that come from animals or plants and can make people and animals sick and adversely affect the environment. These events are called harmful algal blooms.

HABs occur throughout the U.S. and worldwide, in both saltwater and freshwater environments. They pose significant health risks to human, pets, livestock and wildlife; damage ecosystems; increase water treatment costs; restrict recreational activities; and cut into economic revenues.

People and animals can be exposed to HAB toxins through many routes. These include skin contact during activities such as swimming or boating; inhaling airborne droplets that contain toxins; swallowing contaminated water; or eating food or supplements that contain toxins. The most severe effects generally result from consuming contaminated seafood.

An array of toxins

There are numerous HAB toxins, including substances such as microcystin, saxitoxin, cylindrospermopsin, anatoxin-A and domoic acid. Each has a different action on the body, so HABs can have diverse harmful effects.

Typical symptoms of illness from exposure to HAB toxins can include stomach pain, vomiting or diarrhea; headache, fever, tiredness or other general symptoms; skin, eye, nose or throat irritation; and neurological symptoms such as muscle weakness or dizziness. Depending on the toxin, higher levels of exposure can result in tremors or seizures, respiratory distress, kidney toxicity, liver toxicity and even death.

As with many environmental exposures, children and older people may be especially sensitive to HAB toxins. People who regularly consume seafood caught in HAB-prone areas are also at risk of long-term health effects from potentially frequent, low-level exposures to HAB toxins.

Recognizing and responding to HABs

It’s not possible to tell whether a bloom is harmful just by looking at it, but there are some warning signs. If the water appears green, red, brown or yellowish in color; has a strong musty or fishy odor; has foam, scum, algal mats or paintlike streaks on the surface; or if there are dead fish or other marine life in the water or washed up on the shoreline, it’s likely that a HAB may be occurring.

If you are unsure whether a bloom is harmful or not, contact your local health department or environmental agency for guidance. As a general rule, it’s good to check with local agencies to see whether there are any relevant warnings when you go to the beach.

If you are notified of a bloom in a nearby body of water or in your public drinking water supply, the most important thing you can do to reduce your chances of getting sick is to follow local or state guidance. If you see signs of a bloom, stay out of the water and keep your pets out of the water.

It’s also important to follow local guidelines about consuming seafood caught through recreational fishing. It’s important to be aware that cooking contaminated seafood or boiling contaminated water does not destroy the toxins.

Be informed

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides resources and recommendations related to HABs and ways to stay safe. Pet owners should also learn how to protect their dogs from HABs.

Other federal agencies that offer information about HABs include the U.S. National Office for Harmful Algal Blooms and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Many states conduct HAB monitoring programs, especially in areas that are known to be vulnerable to blooms, such as western Lake Erie. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency offers HAB resources by state. Apps used by water quality managers and state officials who make management decisions about public water supply safety, including CyAN Android and CyANWeb, may contain useful information about HABs in your area.

What’s being done about HABs?

Many efforts are underway to prevent, control and mitigate HABs and provide early warnings to water system managers and health officials.

One example in the U.S. is the
Cyanobacteria Assessment Network, or CyAN, a collaborative effort across several government agencies to develop an early warning indicator system to detect algal blooms in freshwater systems. There are also several ongoing projects for HAB forecasting by region.

At the global scale, the Harmful Algal Information System will eventually include harmful algal events and information from harmful algae monitoring and management systems worldwide.

Citizen scientists can provide invaluable help by monitoring local waters. If you would like to participate, consider joining the Phytoplankton Monitoring Network or the Cyanobacteria Monitoring Collaborative, and download and use the
Cyanobacterial bloom app to report potential HABs in bodies of water you visit.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post How to keep harmful algae blooms from spoiling your vacation appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Europe’s fourth busiest airport wants to ground private jet setters for good, making an unprecedented move that could set a new industry benchmark in tackling global travel emissions. In order to achieve the high-profile goal, however, Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport has a very bumpy journey ahead of it.

Per Bloomberg, the Netherlands’ largest air hub first made headlines last month when it announced plans to shutter all night flights and private jets from its runways beginning in 2026. Schiphol is overseen by the Royal Schiphol Group, a Dutch government majority-owned company whose interim CEO said at the time they “realize that our choices may have significant implications for the aviation industry, but they are necessary. This shows we mean business.”

[Related: The FAA just made East Coast flights shorter.]

On Tuesday, Schiphol Airport representatives explained to Bloomberg that 30 and 50 percent of all its private jet flights are to holiday locales such as Cannes and Ibiza. Additionally, around 17,000 private flights passed through Schiphol last year, “causing a disproportionate amount of noise and generating 20 times more carbon dioxide emissions per passenger than commercial flights.”

A private jet can emit as much as two metric tons of CO2 during one hour of flight. And while private flights make up only four percent of global aviation carbon emissions, the richer half of humanity is still behind roughly 90 percent of all air travel pollution. Factor in the dramatic rise in private air travel, particularly since the onset of the COVID–19 pandemic, and it’s easy to see why public sentiment is turning against the notion of wealthy getaways and exclusive business jaunts.

[Related: How does a jet engine work? By running hot enough to melt its own innards.]

Many in the industry, however, aren’t thrilled by Schiphol’s new goals. One private jet charter company CEO argued to Bloomberg that their customers’ flights were mostly for “business,” while other critics argued passengers will simply transition to nearby alternative airports. The Royal Schiphol Group informed Bloomberg its closest neighbor, Rotterdam The Hague Airport, cannot accommodate the displaced flights, nor does the company plan to transfer flights elsewhere.

Royal Schiphol Group could face an uphill battle in accomplishing its goals, however. Most of its impending green goals require discussions with the company’s stakeholders—such as Delta Air Lines and France-KLM, who previously sued the Dutch government regarding caps on flights. Then there’s Transavia Airlines BV, who oversee the majority of night flights out of Schiphol. Regardless of the final outcomes, Royal Schiphol Group is still setting a very public example when it comes to raising awareness regarding air travel’s exorbitant effects on the planet, and the importance of finding solutions to these issues before it’s too late.

The post Europe’s fourth biggest airport plans to ban private jets appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Over the last four decades, global water use has increased by about 1 percent per year. This rise is driven by many factors, including population growth, changing consumption patterns, and socioeconomic development. By 2050, the United Nations Water estimates urban water demand to increase by 80 percent. As freshwater needs continue to rise in cities, the sustainable management of urban water supply becomes even more critical.

In the past two decades, over 80 metropolitan cities around the world have experienced water shortages and extreme drought. Such urban water crises are expected to occur more frequently in the near future, therefore it’s crucial to understand how they unfold, who is vulnerable to them, and how they can be addressed.

Why urban water crises occur today

Many factors contribute to the development of today’s water crises, including changing land cover and use, urban infrastructure maintenance, and climate change, says Adriana Zuniga-Teran, neighborhood design and environmental sciences expert and assistant professor of geography, development, and environment at the University of Arizona.

For instance, impervious surfaces like concrete and asphalt often replace natural porous land cover as cities grow, resulting in less precipitation infiltration, which can affect the whole hydrological cycle. In addition, cities, farms, mines, and industrial land use all consume a lot of water compared to natural landscapes. Furthermore, rich and poor countries alike face issues with aging water infrastructure, which requires a massive amount of resources to upgrade. Lastly, climate change factors in because extreme weather events can make water more polluted, scarce, and/or unpredictable.

[Related: Groundwater is an incredible resource. It’s time to treat it like one.]

In general, Zuniga-Teran says the reasons for urban water crises are, to an extent, caused by “a consequence of uncontrolled urban growth and the unsustainable use of water resources.”

Population growth is not enough to indicate water demand, because certain individuals and social groups use a lot of water (and other resources) while other groups don’t. What’s at play is the current political-economic system that makes it possible for some individuals to over consume water while others don’t even have access to it, says Elisa Savelli, a research fellow at the Uppsala University Department of Earth Sciences in Sweden.

Socioeconomic inequalities can drive water crises

According to a recent Nature Sustainability study on the metropolitan area of Cape Town, stark socioeconomic inequalities play a major role in the production of water crises. The authors built a model to account for unequal water consumption across different social groups, which allowed them to retrace who over consume water and who doesn’t. They found that privileged households with better access and financial resources are able to consume more water to use however they want to.

“We found that whilst constituting only 13 percent of the urban population, the elite consumed more than half of the city’s water, and for non-basic needs such as gardening or swimming pools,” says Savelli, who was lead author of the Nature study.

Not only did wealthier households consume more public water sources, but they also had access to private sources that aren’t controlled by municipalities, like boreholes. In comparison, informal dwellers and lower-income households constitute over 60 percent of the city population but consume only about 27 percent of the city’s water. 

“Socioeconomic inequalities can drive water shortages and crises as much as, if not more than, population growth or climate change,” says Savelli. The current political-economic system triggers the unsustainable exploitation of water sources with the objective of accumulating profit and capital, without accounting for water as a common resource, she adds.

Wealthy people generally have the infrastructure to make water available to them, so it’s easier for them to consume it. They also have larger properties to maintain, larger dwelling units, pools, and more, says Stephanie Pincetl, director of the California Center for Sustainable Communities at UCLA.

“In places like the Southwest, we need to aggressively change outdoor landscapes,” says Pincetl. In California, landscape irrigation accounts for about 50 percent of annual residential water consumption. Overall, federal and local governments have a responsibility to manage urban water supplies sustainably and equitably.

Various strategies to manage urban water supply sustainably

To ensure more sustainable management of urban water supply, Pincetl suggests establishing tiered water rates where rates are higher with more consumption. Water use budgets per household are already in some places across the country, like Orange County, California. Those who stay within their monthly water budget get a lower rate per centum cubic feet (CCF) compared to those who go over it.

A 2021 Water Economics and Policy study looked into the county’s application of tiered rates and found that water was saved for the two agencies that converted to a budget-based rate structure at multiple levels of consumption. However, Zuniga-Teran says water demand policies that aim to control human behavior might not be enough to influence the behavior of wealthy residents. After all, they may not mind paying a lot more for water.

Municipalities can also acquire water rights by buying farmlands to change the water use from agricultural to municipal, says Zuniga-Teran. Back in the 1970s, Tucson, Arizona purchased over 20,000 acres of farmland in Avra Valley to acquire water rights and preserve groundwater. Investing in education and communication programs to help individuals learn how they can contribute to sustainable water management is also important, she adds. A 2022 Sustainability study in Mexico aimed to implement an environmental education program on water conservation in 10-year-old students. The authors found that such environmental programs can improve water use and conservation.

[Related: A new climate report finally highlights the importance of our decisions.]

A major part of sustainable resource utilization is water reuse for both potable and non-potable purposes. For instance, Zuniga-Teran says households can collect greywater—excess runoff water from showers or washing machines—and harvest rainwater to use for car washing or toilet flushing. Cities could also reuse reclaimed water, or treated municipal wastewater, and send it to a drinking water treatment plant to be directed into the drinking water distribution system. Meanwhile, stormwater, or surface water from heavy rain or snow, may be used to irrigate landscapes and replenish local aquifers while reducing flooding, she adds. All these alternative water sources could be treated and used for a variety of purposes.

“Instead of building another dam or promoting water technologies, policies should seek to alter privileged lifestyles, limit water use for amenities, and redistribute income and water resources more equally,” says Savelli. “The construction of additional infrastructure would not address the root cause of water overconsumption, and in turn, this and other technocratic solutions would protract current water crises into the future.”

When it comes to sustainable urban water management, cities should prioritize low-income, marginalized communities that still experience legacies of redlining and disinvestment and are likely to suffer the impacts of climate change the most, says Zuniga-Teran. Therefore, funding engagement efforts is critical as well. “Equity has to be at the forefront of all water-related efforts,” she adds. “To address inequities, community engagement is needed to make sure all voices are heard and that programs and policies are designed to address their particular needs.”

The post Urban water crises often boil down to classism appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Although Tesla’s latest Impact Report promises that “a sustainable future is within reach,” the company’s 2022 figures show just how crucial accurate measurements are in achieving the lofty goal. Released earlier this week, an expanded dataset dramatically upped the electric vehicle maker’s total carbon footprint when compared with the prior year’s available information. The larger picture? An estimated 30.7 million tons of CO2 in supply chain emissions atop previously reported categories of pollution. That’s roughly equivalent to Serbia’s total emissions in 2021. 

[Related: Tesla employees allegedly viewed drivers’ car camera footage.]

Tesla only publicly offered how much greenhouse gas the company generated in 2021 via direct operations and EV owners charging their cars—around 2.5 million metric tons of CO2. That might seem small compared to its competitors (Ford recorded 337 million metric tons of CO2 in 2022, for example), but these segments of overall emissions are just a fraction of a company’s supply chain pollution stemming from production, transportation, and indirect operations. And while those numbers weren’t disclosed for 2021, they were for last year within Tesla’s new report.

As The Verge notes, the vast difference in numbers comes down to what companies generally choose to include in these kinds of industry reports. Carbon footprints are often broken down into three “scopes,” with Scope 1 encompassing direct company emissions (i.e. factory emissions, brick-and-mortar offices, and its own vehicles for travel and commuting). Meanwhile, Scope 2 includes emissions stemming from heating, A/C, and electricity usage in company buildings like offices. Scope 3 focuses on all the extra, indirect emissions from supply chain manufacturing alongside products’ lifecycle emissions.

Most often, businesses choose to detail only Scopes 1 and 2, as they are usually smaller than Scope 3’s numbers, even when combined. This often makes a company’s carbon footprint appear much smaller than it actually is when seen as a fuller picture; a strategy often referred to as “greenwashing.” In Tesla’s 2022 Impact Report, for instance, the first two “scopes” totaled just 610,000 metric tons of CO2—a much more palatable figure for investors and consumers than the true total of over 31 million tons.

[Related: Tesla is under federal investigation over autopilot claims.]

Still, Tesla actually making its Scope 3 data available to the public offers some much needed additional transparency within the industry. Even then, however, the company’s  combined Scope 1 and 2 numbers rose a little under four percent, year-over-year. This, as The Verge also added, came even as Tesla still worked to make its EVs less carbon-intensive. Earlier this month, Tesla revealed “Part 3” of its ongoing “Master Plan” to provide sustainable energy for the entire world, estimating it will take $10 trillion in investments to fully realize.

The post Tesla’s carbon footprint is much larger than it previously disclosed appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The oceans are inundated with plastic. Despite the numerous flashy proposed solutions, there unfortunately still isn’t any surefire way to clean it all up. One of the most buzzed about ideas—underwater vacuuming—has recently come up against intense scrutiny for its potential collateral damage to marine ecosystems and wildlife. Meanwhile, even the more delicate alternatives often hinge upon large, cumbersome surface skimmers. To tackle some of these issues, scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems (MPI-IS) have created a robotic trash collector inspired by some of the oceans’ oldest and most resilient residents—jellyfish.

Recently detailed in the research journal Scientific Advances, the team’s “Jellyfish-Bot” already shows promise in helping cleanup the copious amounts of human-generated trash littering the planets’ aquatic environments. But unlike many other underwater cleaners, the prototype is incredibly small, energy-efficient, and nearly noiseless. Additionally, the hand-sized device doesn’t need to actually physically interact with its cleanup targets. Instead, the robot takes a cue from jellyfishes’ graceful movements via six limbs employing artificial muscles called hydraulically amplified self-healing electrostatic actuators, or HASELs.

As New Atlas explains, HASELs are ostensibly electrode-covered sacs filled with oils. When the electrodes receive a small current—in this case, about 100 mW—they become positively charged, then safely discharge the current into the negatively charged water around them. Alternating this current forces the oil in the sacs to move back and forth, thus making the actuators flap in a way that generates momentum to move trash particles upward. From there, humans or other gathering tools can scoop up the detritus.

“When a jellyfish swims upwards, it can trap objects along its path as it creates currents around its body,” study author and postdoc in the MPI-IS Physical Intelligence Department Tianlu Wang explained in a statement. “In this way, it can also collect nutrients.”

Wang went on to describe how their robot similarly circulates water around it. “This function is useful in collecting objects such as waste particles,” Wang adds. “It can then transport the litter to the surface, where it can later be recycled.”

[Related: Ocean plastic ‘vacuums’ are sucking up marine life along with trash.]

Apart from generating currents, the Jellyfish-Bots’ actuators could also be divided up into separate responsibilities. In the team’s demonstrations, the prototypes could use all six of its limbs for propulsion, or rely on two of them as claws to lightly grasp targets like an N95 face mask.

The biggest drawback at the moment is simply the fact that a controlled Jellyfish-Bot still requires a wired connection for power, thus hampering its scope. Although researchers have been able to incorporate battery and wireless communications modules into the robots, the untethered versions cannot currently be directed in a desired path. Still, it’s easy to envision future iterations of the Jellyfish-Bot clearing this relatively small hurdle. If that is accomplished, then fleets of the cute cleanup machines may soon be deployed as a safe, efficient, and environmentally harmless way to help tackle one of the environment’s most pressing threats.

The post Robot jellyfish swarms could soon help clean the oceans of plastic appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article originally appeared in Grist.

A new report by the American Lung Association found that more than one in three Americans were exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution between 2019 to 2021. Released on Wednesday, the 24th annual State of the Air report grades Americans’ exposure to two of the nation’s most pervasive air pollutants: ground-level ozone, an air pollutant that forms smog, and particle pollution, also known as soot. 

The report found that while overall smog and soot pollution continues to decrease across the U.S., racial and geographic disparities are rising. As climate-fueled wildfires and drought increase and intensify, more people living in the West face potentially deadly particle and ozone pollution compared to their Eastern counterparts.

People of color were found to be 64 percent more likely than white people to breathe unhealthy air, compared to 61 percent in last year’s report. They are also 3.7 times more likely than white people to live in a county that received the American Lung Association’s lowest rating for all three pollution metrics that the group examined: ozone pollution, annual particle pollution, and short-term particle pollution. The report’s ratings were informed by national air quality standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Last year, people of color were 3.6 times more likely to live in a county that received a failing grade on all three measures.

Paul Billings, national senior vice president of public policy for the American Lung Association, said that those findings reflect the continued impact of systemic racism. Pollution sources ranging from refineries to highways are disproportionately sited in communities of color — a persistent legacy of racist housing policies such as redlining. “The benefits of clean air have not been equally shared, and in fact, we’re seeing in this report an even wider disparity than we saw last year,” he said. 

Ozone causes what experts describe as a “sunburn of the lungs,” causing shortness of breath and wheezing and increasing the risk for asthma and respiratory infections. And particulate matter pollution bypasses the human body’s natural defenses to enter the deepest part of the lungs. Even short-term exposure to fine particles — those smaller than 2.5 microns across, also known as PM 2.5 — can lead to a host of health harms, including asthma attacks and heart attacks. 

The number of people experiencing 24-hour spikes in particle pollution rose to the highest levels reported in the last decade. Close to 64 million people lived in counties with failing grades for those daily spikes, according to the report. “That’s nearly a half a million more than we saw in last year’s report,” said Billings.

One major contributor is more frequent and intense wildfires linked to climate change, which spew smoke and fine particles.

Billings said that when the American Lung Association started issuing its State of the Air reports 24 years ago, the organization noticed a much broader spread of communities across the U.S. experiencing high levels of pollution. Now, because of wildfires and increasingly hotter and drier weather, Western states are dominating the lists of top 25 cities most impacted by pollution. 

California cities make up four out of the top five in the lists of cities most impacted by annual particle pollution and ozone pollution. 

“We really see this marked shift, and a lot of that we think is due to climate change, not only for the wildfires but also the hot conditions that create the opportunity for ozone formation,” said Billings. 

Ozone forms when nitrogen oxides and other pollutants “cook” in the sun through a series of chemical reactions. According to the EPA, ozone is more likely to form “on warm, sunny days when the air is stagnant.” 

Those hotter days have become more frequent as a result of climate change, leading to “the number of unhealthy ozone days being higher than it would otherwise be,” the report says. “Simply, climate change is undercutting the progress we would have made.”

In response to these challenges, the American Lung Association and other public health groups are calling on the EPA to further limit ozone and particle pollution by significantly strengthening national ambient air quality standards under the federal Clean Air Act passed in 1970. The agency is currently reviewing both the particulate matter and ozone standards. 

Billings said tightening those limits would fulfill the central promise of the Clean Air Act to provide everyone with clean, healthy air. “While we’ve made progress — no question about it — here we are more than 50 years later looking in the rearview mirror, and we still have more than 1 in 3 living in this country, living in a county that has unhealthy air,” Billings said. “No child born in 2023 should have to breathe air pollution that can make them sick.” 

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/health/pollution-smog-wildfires-1-in-3-americans-breathe-unhealthy-air-new-report-says-strong/. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

The post U.S. air quality is improving, but 1 in 3 Americans still breathe unhealthy air appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Throwing out trash can be an icky, and sometimes even confusing, experience. To better understand how humans interact with robots, Cornell University researchers recently created and released two trash and recycling bots to do some dirty work in a Manhattan plaza. And for most of the people who interacted with the adorable barrel bots, the robots’ helpful interceptions of waste were welcomed.

The study involved two robots. One was blue, and one was gray, and they were mounted on recycled hoverboard parts and equipped with 360-degree cameras. The bots received all sorts of reactions, from onlookers expressing their appreciation to treating it like a playful dog with a treat. Some of them even felt compelled to “feed” the robots, according to a Cornell press release. 

The scientists behind the creation recently presented their study, called “Trash Barrel Robots in the City,” in the video program at the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. This isn’t the first time the trashbots have made their debut in the real world—the robot was deployed at Stanford a few years ago and was met by bystanders who quickly began to dote on the trashbot. According to The Verge in 2016, people became so smitten with the bot that “when it falls over they race to pick it up, even asking if it’s OK.” 

[Related: Meet Garmi, a robot nurse and companion for Germany’s elderly population.]

Team leader Wendy Ju, an associate professor at the Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute at Cornell Tech and the Technion, originally planned to turn chairs and tables in New York City into bots, but the trash can inevitably won out. “When we shared with them the trash barrel videos that we had done at Stanford, all discussions of the chairs and tables were suddenly off the table,” Ju said in a statement. “It’s New York! Trash is a huge problem!”

Of course, you can’t win over everybody, even if you’re a cute trash can. Some folks found it creepy, raised concerns about surveillance, gave it the middle finger, or even knocked it over. Now, the team hopes to send the trash can out to explore the rest of New York City, hopefully to be met with adoration and not animosity.

“Everyone is sure that their neighborhood behaves very differently,” Ju said. “So, the next thing that we’re hoping to do is a five boroughs trash barrel robot study.”

Watch more about these trash cans on wheels, below:

The post Robot trash cans have survived a New York City field test appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article originally appeared in Grist.

As environmental challenges go, microfiber pollution has come from practically out of nowhere. It was only a decade or so ago that scientists first suspected our clothing, increasingly made of synthetic materials like polyester and nylon, might be major contributors to the global plastic problem.

Today a growing body of science suggests the tiny strands that slough off clothes are everywhere and in everything. By one estimate, they account for as much as one-third of all microplastics released to the ocean. They’ve been found on Mount Everest and in the Mariana Trench, along with tap water, plankton, shrimp guts, and our poo.

Research has yet to establish just what this means for human and planetary health. But the emerging science has left some governments, particularly in the Global North, scrambling to respond. Their first target: the humble washing machine, which environmentalists say represents a major way microfiber pollution reaches the environment.

Late last month a California State Assembly committee held a hearing on Assembly Bill 1628, which would require new washing machines to include devices that trap particles down to 100 micrometers — roughly the width of human hair — by 2029. The Golden State isn’t alone here, or even first. France already approved such a requirement, effective 2025. Lawmakers in Oregon and Ontario, Canada have considered similar bills. The European Commission says it’ll do the same in 2025.

Environmental groups, earth scientists and some outdoor apparel companies cheer the policies as an important first response to a massive problem. But quietly, some sustainability experts feel perplexed by all the focus on washers. They doubt filters will achieve much, and say what’s really needed is a comprehensive shift in how we make, clean and dispose of clothes.

The wash is “only one shedding point in the lifecycle of the garment. To focus on that tiny, tiny moment of laundry is completely nuts,” said Richard Blackburn, a professor of sustainable materials at the University of Leeds. “It would be much better to focus on the whole life cycle of the garment, of which the manufacturing stage is much more significant in terms of loss than laundering, but all points should be considered.”

Today, some 60 percent of all textiles incorporate synthetic material. Anyone who’s worn yoga pants, workout gear or stretchy jeans knows the benefits: These materials add softness, wicking and flexibility. Under a microscope, though, they look a lot like plain old plastic. From the moment they’re made, synthetic clothes — like all clothes — release tiny shreds of themselves. Once liberated these fibers are no easier to retrieve than glitter tossed into the wind. But their size, shape, and tendency to absorb chemicals leaves scientists concerned about their impacts on habitats and the food chain.

Anja Brandon is an associate director for U.S. plastics policy at the Ocean Conservancy who has supported the California and Oregon bills. She concedes that filters won’t fix the problem, but believes they offer a way to get started. She also supports clothing innovations but said they could be years away. “I for one don’t want to wait until it’s a five-alarm fire,” she said.

Studies suggest a typical load of laundry can release thousands or even millions of fibers. Commercially available filters, like the PlanetCare, Lint LUV-R and Filtrol, strain the gray water through ultra-fine mesh before flushing it into the world. It’s the owner’s job, of course, to periodically empty that filter — ideally into a trash bag, which Brandon said will secure microfibers better than the status quo of letting them loose into nature.

Washing machine manufacturers in the U.S. and Europe have pushed back, saying the devices pose technical risks, like flooding and increased energy consumption, that must be addressed  first. University experiments with these filters, including an oft-cited 2019 study by the University of Toronto and the Ocean Conservancy, haven’t found these issues, but it’s not a closed case yet: Last year a federal report on microfibers, led by the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, called for more research in this vein.

Manufacturers also argue that microfibers originate in a lot of places, but washers are a relatively modest one. As self-serving as that sounds, people who study the issue agree there’s a huge hole in the available science: While we know clothes shed microfibers throughout their lives, we know surprisingly little about when most of it happens.

Some evidence suggests that the friction of simply wearing clothes might release about as many microfibers as washing them. Then there are dryers, which some suspect are a major source of microfiber litter but have been barely studied, according to the federal report. There is also limited knowledge about how much microfiber pollution comes from the developing world, where most people wash by hand. (A recent study led by Hangzhou Dianzi University in Hangzhou, China pointed to this knowledge gap – and found that hand-washing two synthetic fabrics released on average 80 to 90 percent fewer microfiber pollution than machine-washing.)

To Blackburn, it’s obvious that most releases occur in textile mills, where it’s been known for centuries that spinning, weaving, dyeing and finishing fabric spritzes lots of fiber. “Where do you think it goes when we get it out of the factory?” he said. “It goes into the open air.”

He calls filter policies “totally reactionary,” arguing that they would at best shave a few percentage points off the total microfiber problem. But there is one area where Blackburn is in broad agreement with environmentalists: In the long run, tackling the issue will take a lot of new technology. No silver-bullet solution has appeared yet, but a slew of recent announcements reveals a vibrant scene of research and development attacking the problem from many angles.

Some best practices already are known within the industry. For example, more tightly woven clothes, and clothes made of long fibers rather than short ones, fray less. But for years, popular brands like Patagonia and REI have said what they really need is a way to experiment with many different materials and compare their shedding head to head. This has been tricky: Microfibers are, well, micro, and there’s no industry standard on how to measure them.

That might be changing. In separate announcements in February, Hohenstein, a company that develops international standards for textiles, and activewear brand Under Armour revealed new methods in this vein. Under Armour is targeting 75 percent “low-shed” fabrics in its products by 2030.

These approaches would at best reduce microfiber emissions, not eliminate them. So another field of research is what Blackburn calls “biocompatibility”: making microfibers less harmful to nature. California-based companyIntrinsic Advanced Materials sells a pre-treatment, added to fabrics during manufacturing, that it claims helps polyester and nylon biodegrade in seawater within years rather than decades. Blackburn’s own startup, Keracol, develops natural dyes, pulled from things like fruit waste, that break down more easily in nature than synthetic ones.

New ideas to dispose of clothes are also emerging, though some will cause arched eyebrows among environmentalists. This year U.S. chemical giant Eastman will start building a facility in Normandy, France that it claims “unzips” hard-to-recycle plastics, like polyester clothes, into molecular precursors that can be fashioned into new products like clothes and insulation. Critics charge that such “chemical recycling” techniques are not only of dubious benefit to the environment, they’re really just a smokescreen for fossil-fuel corporations trying to keep their product in demand.

Lest anyone forget about washing machines, there’s R&D going after them, too. In January Patagonia and appliance giant Samsung announced a model that they claim cuts micro plastic emissions up to 54%. It’s already rolled out in Europe and Korea. At around the same time, University of Toronto researchers published research on a coating that, they claim, makes nylon fabric more slippery in the wash, reducing friction and thus microfiber emissions by 90 percent after nine washes. In a press release the researchers tut-tutted governments for their focus on washing-machine filters, which they called a “Band-Aid” for the issue.

One continuous thread through all these efforts, of course, is that everyone is working with imperfect information. The emerging science on microfibers – and microplastics in general – suggests they’re a gritty fact of modern life, but doesn’t yet show the magnitude of their harm to humans and other species. For the moment environmentalists, policymakers and manufacturers aren’t just debating whether to put filters on washing machines, but whether we know enough to act. In 20 years, when scientists know a lot more, it’ll be easier to judge whether today’s policies represented proactive leadership on an emerging environmental problem — or a soggy Band-Aid.

Editor’s note: Patagonia is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

This article originally appeared in Grist. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

The post How to make washing machines shed less microplastics appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Scientists have found dozens of species of coastal invertebrates organisms thriving Oscar the Grouch style in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Roughly 620,000 square miles long, or twice the size of Texas, the floating garbage heap is located between Hawaii and California. Five large spinning circular currents constantly pull trash towards the center of the patch, and it is considered the largest accumulation of ocean plastic on Earth.

These creatures found thriving in trash like crabs and anemones are normally found along the coasts, but the study published April 17 in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution says that dozens of species have been able to survive and reproduce on the plastic garbage.  

[Related: A close look at the Great Pacific Garbage Patch reveals a common culprit.]

“This discovery suggests that past biogeographical boundaries among marine ecosystems—established for millions of years—are rapidly changing due to floating plastic pollution  accumulating in the subtropical gyres,” co-author and marine ecologist Linsey Haram said in a statement. Haram conducted this research while working at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center.

The team only recently discovered these “neopelagic communities,” or floating communities of organisms living in deep ocean waters. Organic matter in the ocean decomposes within a few years at most. But plastic debris lasts significantly longer, thus giving the animals a place to live and procreate.  

The team analyzed 105 plastic samples that were collected by The Ocean Cleanup, a non-profit organization that is working on scalable solutions to get rid of ocean plastic, during their 2018 and 2019 expeditions. The samples were found in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, a large zone that makes up most of that northern Pacific Ocean and is the largest ecosystem on Earth. Incredibly, 80 percent of the plastic trash that the team looked at showed signs of being colonized by coastal species. Some of the coastal species were even reproducing in their plastic homes, such as the Japanese anemone.

“We were extremely surprised to find 37 different invertebrate species that normally live in coastal waters, over triple the number of species we found that live in open waters, not only surviving on the plastic but also reproducing,” said Haram. “We were also impressed by how easily coastal species colonized new floating items, including our own instruments—an observation we’re looking into further.”

[Related: Ocean plastic ‘vacuums’ are sucking up marine life along with trash.]

While biologists already knew that coastal species can travel towards the open ocean on floating debris or on ships, it was long believed that these species couldn’t thrive or establish new communities at sea. Differences in temperature, water salinity, and the available nutrients between these two environments seemed too vast, but human-caused changes to the ocean ecosystems have forced marine biologists to rethink these ideas. 

“Debris that breaks off from this [garbage] patch constitutes the majority of debris arriving on Hawaiian beaches and reefs. In the past, the fragile marine ecosystems of the islands were protected by the very long distances from coastal communities of Asia and North America,” co-author and UH Mānoa oceanographer Nikolai Maximenko said in a statement. “The presence of coastal species persisting in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre near Hawai‘i is a game changer that indicates that the islands are at an increased risk of colonization by invasive species.”

According to data from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world produces roughly 460 million tons of plastic annually and this figure could triple by 2060 if government action is not taken soon. Some individual actions to reduce plastic use is shopping more sustainably, limiting use of single-use plastic like water bottles and plastic utensils, and participating in beach and river clean-ups.

The post Some coastal critters are thriving in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Hakai Magazine, an online publication about science and society in coastal ecosystems. Read more stories like this at hakaimagazine.com.

Microplastics wreak havoc on fish in myriad ways, disrupting everything from eating behavior to brain development. While it’s clear these pesky particles can cause animals a world of trouble, scientists have found it much harder to pin down exactly how they cause so many problems.

“We know that if you expose animals to plastics, then oftentimes we’ll see pathology,” says Andrew Wargo, a disease ecologist at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). “But what we don’t really know are the secondary effects.”

That, however, is starting to change.

In controlled laboratory experiments, Wargo and his VIMS colleagues have shown how microplastics leave rainbow trout more vulnerable to a common salmonid disease, infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV). The effect can be dramatic: by exposing trout to a high concentration of either polystyrene beads or nylon microfibers for one month and then subjecting them to IHNV, the scientists found that fish were three to six times more likely to die, respectively, than IHNV-infected fish that hadn’t been exposed to plastics.

As well as increasing the lethality of IHNV, the microplastics also caused the exposed fish to have higher viral loads and shed more virus.

Taking tissue samples from the fish at different points in the experiment, the scientists found that the plastics were damaging the fish’s gills and provoking an inflammatory response. This likely makes it easier for the virus to invade the fish’s body, leading to more severe disease.

“There’s this kind of priming happening with some plastics,” says Meredith Evans Seeley, an environmental chemist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the study’s lead author. “That allows the pathogens to be more successful at colonizing the host.”

“Understanding the mechanism of how microplastics can increase the virulence of a virus? That’s pretty new,” says Bettie Cormier, an aquatic ecotoxicologist at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology who was not involved in the work.

The deadly synergy between microplastics and viruses could be especially troubling in aquaculture operations, Wargo says. Infections spread easily on fish farms, and farmed fish frequently encounter plastics such as nylon and polystyrene, which are used for buoys and nets.

Wild fish encounter microplastics and viruses, too, Cormier adds, so similar interactions between microplastics and pathogens could be having ecosystem-level effects.

“Plastics and pathogens are everywhere,” Wargo says. “I think if we want to understand the effects of both, we probably need to consider them together.”

This article first appeared in Hakai Magazine and is republished here with permission.

The post Rainbow trout are vulnerable to viruses—and microplastics make them even sicker appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Hakai Magazine, an online publication about science and society in coastal ecosystems. Read more stories like this at hakaimagazine.com.

Standing at the foot of a rocky sandstone cliff, biologist Michelle Wainstein inspected her essentials: latex gloves, two long cotton swabs, glass vials, and tubes filled with buffer solution. She placed them in a blue dry bag, rolled it up, and clipped it to a rope wrapped around her waist. It was late afternoon, and she was slick with dirt and sweat from navigating the dense terrain. Her destination lay across the frigid river: two small logs of otter fecal matter resting on a mossy boulder. In she plunged.

The river, the Green-Duwamish in Washington State, trickles out of the Cascade Range and empties 150 kilometers downstream into Puget Sound. The last eight kilometers of the run—known as the lower Duwamish—is so polluted the US Environmental Protection Agency designated it a Superfund site in 2001. For a century, Seattle’s aviation and manufacturing industries routinely dumped waste chemicals like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) into the water.

“A lot of the river is still really polluted,” says Jamie Hearn, the Superfund program manager at Duwamish River Community Coalition. “The mud is thick and black, and you can smell it.”

Despite the pollution, river otters are everywhere along the waterway, even in the most contaminated areas near the river’s mouth. “I would be walking the docks looking for scat,” remembers Wainstein, “and a couple of times we were lucky enough to see moms with their pups.”

For several weeks in the summer of 2016 and 2017, Wainstein surveyed otter poop she collected from a dozen sites along the river. Comparing contaminant concentrations in the otters’ poop between the river’s industrial and rural zones, Wainstein uncovered the lingering legacy of the region’s toxic past. The poop from otters in the lower Duwamish contained nearly 26 times more PCBs and 10 times more PAHs than poop from their cousins in cleaner water upstream. PCBs disrupt hormonal and neurological processes and affect reproduction in mammals. Both PCBs and PAHs are human carcinogens.

The discovery that otters along the lower Duwamish are living with such high levels of contamination upends a common narrative: that river otters’ return to a once-degraded landscape is a sign that nature is healing.

In Singapore, where smooth-coated otters have reappeared in canals and reservoirs, they have been embraced as new national mascots. “It plays into that rhetoric that government agencies want to project,” says environmental historian Ruizhi Choo, “that we’ve done such a good job that nature is coming back. That image of a city in nature is the new marketing branding.”

In Europe, the once-common Eurasian otter similarly began reappearing in the late 20th century following successful river cleanup campaigns. Conservationist Joe Gaydos at the SeaDoc Society thinks that this phenomenon has helped form the mental link between otters and ecosystem health.

“The number of animals is our first indicator,” Gaydos says. But few seem to ask the next question: are those animals healthy?

As Wainstein’s study suggests, perhaps not. The otters she analyzed in the lower Duwamish have some of the highest concentrations of PCBs and PAHs ever recorded in wild river otters. Previous research has found a correlation between PCB exposure and health risks in wild river otters, including increased bone pathologies, reproductive and immunological disorders, organ abnormalities, and hormonal changes.

Even so, the contamination is not manifesting in physically obvious ways. “They’re not washing up on shore with tumors all over their bodies,” Wainstein says, and neither is their population dwindling. “They’re not setting off this direct alarm with a big change in their ability to survive.”

The otters’ ability to bear such a heavy contaminant burden suggests that a population resurgence alone may not reflect the quality of an environment. They just become as toxic as the environments they inhabit.

However, their localized bathroom habits, mixed diet of fish, crustaceans, and mammals, and persistence in the face of pollution make them useful indicators of environmental contamination.

River otters have played this role before. Following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, river otters lingered in oil-drenched waterways, allowing scientists like Larry Duffy at the University of Alaska Fairbanks to track the effectiveness of the oil cleanup. In 2014, scientists in Illinois discovered dieldrin in otter organ tissue even though the insecticide had already largely been banned for 30 years. In these cases, the collection of long-term pollution data was made possible by the creatures’ resilience in contaminated waterways. Wainstein wants to similarly use the Green-Duwamish River otters as biomonitors of the Superfund cleanup over the next decade.

Watching workers dismantle a portion of the river’s levied banks to make channels for salmon, Wainstein thinks about the seabirds, shorebirds, and small mammals, like beaver and mink, that were driven out by industrial contamination. She wonders if one day the rumbling machinery dredging up clawfuls of sediment from the riverbed will be taken over by the piercing cries of marbled murrelets, the croaks of tufted puffins, and the bubbling twittering of western snowy plovers.

“How long will it take? And will it actually work?” she says of the cleanup effort. The otters might hold the answer.

This article first appeared in Hakai Magazine and is republished here with permission.

The post Otters are back, but that doesn’t mean our rivers are safe appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Bottled water is one of the most popular beverages in the world. In the United States, bottled water has outsold carbonated soft drinks every year since 2016. Currently, the global bottled water market is worth $270 billion, and it’s projected to exceed $500 billion by the end of the decade. Only three countries combined make up almost half of the global market: the USA, China, and Indonesia.

Despite its widespread consumption, bottled water might actually slow the progress of providing universal access to safe drinking water, according to a recent report from the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health (UNU-INWEH).

Bottled water can foster distrust of and distract attention from clean tap water

The report argues that the rapidly-growing bottled water industry may have an adverse impact on the investments in long-term public water supply infrastructure development and improvement. The expansion of the bottled water market may distract governmental efforts to provide safe drinking water for all, says Zeineb Bouhlel, study author and research and communication associate at the UNU-INWEH.

“In certain countries such as Mexico and Indonesia, the industry is somehow reducing the role of the state in providing safe water for the population,” says Bouhlel. “When bottled water is popular, the government may spend less effort and less financial resources to make the public water supply available for all and of better quality.”

According to the report, the drivers of the bottled water market aren’t the same around the world. In the Global North, people drink bottled water because they don’t trust tap water and believe the former is healthier. However, individuals in the Global South are primarily motivated by the lack or absence of a reliable public water supply.

[Related: Sorting and recycling plastic is notoriously hard—but this AI could help.]

“In many places, bottled water is an important source of safe drinking water absent adequate public water supply systems,” says Sara Hughes, water policy expert and associate professor of environment and sustainability at the University of Michigan. “But the bottled water industry actively encourages distrust of tap water, which does erode public support and investment in public drinking water systems even where the water is available and safe to drink.”

The idea that bottled water is unquestionably safer than tap water must be challenged. The quality of bottled water can be compromised by the origin of the water or the industrial processes it goes through, the report says. For example, commercially-bottled water labeled “mineral water” or “spring water” isn’t guaranteed to be free of Cryptosporidium (Crypto) parasites, the second highest cause of reported waterborne disease outbreaks in 2015.

Globally, tap water is much more regulated and monitored than bottled water, with the latter having less sampling and no obligation to disclose information on the content or the process for some types and in certain countries, says Bouhlel.

The growing bottled water industry may distract attention and resources from the development of public water supply systems, when, in reality, less than half of what the world pays for bottled water every year is enough to ensure clean tap water access for millions of people without it for years to come.

The bottled water industry’s impact on the environment

The bottled water industry may have negative effects on the environment through the whole supply chain, from water extraction to packaging disposal, says Bouhlel. For instance, it contributes to the pressure on water resources and may increase water scarcity at a local level, he adds.

“Bottled water can place additional burden on aquifers, rivers, and streams, unless withdrawals are properly accounted for,” says Hughes. “In most parts of the U.S., and globally, we lack tools to accurately track and measure how an additional withdrawal—such as for bottled water—affects aquatic ecosystems, and the ability to regulate withdrawals from shared aquifers in particular.”

The production of plastics and the logistics of delivering the product to the consumer also come at the price of greenhouse gas emissions, says Bouhlel. The manufacturing of bottled water is very fossil-fuel intensive. A 2009 Environmental Research Letters study estimated the energy footprint of the various phases of bottled water production and found that it requires about 5.6 and 10.2 million joules of energy per liter, about 2000 times the energy cost of producing tap water.

[Related: Groundwater is an incredible resource. It’s time to treat it like one.]

“Environmental impacts may also be seen at the stage of disposal, where more than 80 percent of bottled water is packaged in plastic and PET containers, and where the recycling rate so far is very low at a global level,” he adds. Plastic bottles often end up in landfills and bodies of water, harming natural ecosystems and biodiversity.

Improving access to drinking water supply in the US

The United States has one of the safest public water supplies in the world. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for ensuring that public water systems meet the standards for drinking water quality. “[T]he majority of Americans do not need to purchase more expensive and environmentally harmful bottled water to meet their needs,” says Hughes. “That said, there are communities in the U.S. that do lack safe and reliable drinking water and that is completely unacceptable.”

A 2021 Nature Communications study reported that over a thousand community water systems are considered “serious violators” of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Moreover, about 48 percent of households on Indian reservations don’t have access to clean water. Residents of Jackson, Mississippi and Flint, Michigan have all been affected by a major water supply crisis in recent years as well.

According to Hughes, there are three significant drinking water supply challenges in the US, and they can all be addressed with federal investment: ensuring the old drinking water systems are maintained and kept in compliance, providing safe drinking water access in Tribal communities, and addressing drinking water quality and access problems facing rural communities.

“Communities need resources to upgrade and repair aging systems and replace lead service lines, and increasing water rates to cover these costs will not be feasible in all places,” says Hughes. “Tribal communities are in need of significant and long-overdue infrastructure investment.”

Rural communities, which face challenges related to declining water supplies and contaminated water sources, might require a mix of funding and regulatory solutions. This can include restricting agricultural runoff, exploring regionalization opportunities for rural water systems, and investing in technical capacities in these systems and their personnel, says Hughes.

In 2018, the EPA published its Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment and reported that the country needs about $472.6 billion to maintain and improve drinking water infrastructure over the next 20 years. It would be used to replace or improve deteriorating pipelines, expand infrastructure to reduce water contamination, and construct water storage reservoirs.

“Some of the most important policy changes could have more to do with how drinking water systems are funded and organized,” says Hughes, “rather than only ramping up regulatory requirements.”

The post Our bottled water habit stands in the way of universal clean drinking water appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally published on Undark.

To jumpstart a paltry market for recycled plastic, governments across the globe are pushing companies to include recycled materials in their products. Last year, the United Kingdom introduced a tax on manufacturers that produce or import plastic packaging containing less than 30 percent recycled plastic. In 2024, New Jersey will begin enforcing similar rules, albeit with lower targets. California now requires that beverage containers be made of 15 percent recycled materials, and Washington will enact a similar requirement later this year. The European Commission, Canada, and Mexico are all considering comparable moves.

Currently, most plastic products are derived from freshly extracted fossil fuels, including crude oil and natural gas. Incorporating some recycled plastic could reduce emissions, and shrink pollution in waterways and landfills, experts say. But collecting, sorting, pulverizing, and melting post-consumer plastics for reuse is expensive. The new laws will potentially help recyclers find buyers for what would otherwise become waste.

But regulators may need a better way to verify that the new laws are working. While companies can enlist a third-party to certify their use of recycled content, most certifiers take a bird’s-eye view, tracking the materials across a range of products and factories. As a result, an item with a “recycled content” label might be completely devoid of recycled content.

This current approach, called mass balance, poses additional challenges for those seeking to verify recycled content. To work well, mass balance requires trustworthy and accurate data, which are not always available across a convoluted supply chain. Experts warn mass balance may also lead to inflated estimates of recycled content.

Researchers in the U.K. have developed a novel method to measure this recycled content that adds fluorescent dyes to recycled plastics at the beginning of manufacturing. By measuring the change in color, the team can determine the amount of recycled content in each individual plastic product. Through the nonprofit ReCon², the team is running pilot tests in real-world conditions and says this approach can help prevent fraud, keep costs low, and improve consumer trust.

In 2019, the world generated roughly 350 million tons of plastic, a doubling of production over the past two decades. Just 6 percent of global plastics produced came from recycled plastics, leaving most to be shoveled into landfills, incinerated, or carried into ecosystems. Recycling is not sufficient for solving the problem of plastic pollution, many researchers suggest. Instead, the issue will require some measure of reduction and re-use as well. Nevertheless, scientists say that these new laws and technologies that focus on this last option could mitigate the environmental harms of plastic production.

It’s “imperative” to be able to track materials through this recycling market in a way that makes sense, said Katrina Knauer, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “If we really want to make the circular economy a reality, efficient tracking and quantifiable tracking is going to be the only way we can really do that and create trust in a system.”

Companies like Unilever, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo have been making claims about using recycled content in their products for years. But the term “recycled content” is as flexible as the term “organic” before regulators clamped down on its use, said Knauer. Earning that badge now requires ticking several boxes determined by federal agencies in the U.S. and the European Commission in the EU. Recycled content hasn’t received the same kind of regulatory scrutiny.

As the recycling industry develops, “I think we will run into some of the same challenges that we ran into in the past with companies making claims that may not be very true,” said Knauer, who is also the chief technology officer at the Bio-Optimized Technologies to keep Thermoplastics out of Landfills and the Environment, an organization at the Department of Energy that helps companies adopt greener plastics technologies.

Right now, many companies use mass balance, which considers all of the inputs that go into making a product and then balances them with the outputs to calculate the amount of recycled material.

For example, say there are 20 plastic bottles in a recycling bin. Those enter a mass balance when they are handed over to a recycling company. A manufacturer may then buy these bottles from the recycling company, as well as the equivalent of 80 bottles from newly extracted oil or gas. Assuming the manufacturer then produces 100 total bottles, the mass balance will conclude that each bottle is made with 20 percent recycled content.

But there’s a twist: Under some certification schemes, the company can attribute its recycled material evenly across several plants, including those that haven’t been able to acquire any recycled material. As a result, you usually cannot calculate a single product’s recycled content, if it has any at all.

For Zero Waste Europe, a network of European communities and experts pushing companies and governments to reduce waste, this makes the mass balance approach “a simplistic and meaningless bookkeeping exercise.” But the problem goes beyond misleading marketing. Recycled material can be lower quality, and too much in a product may threaten the product’s integrity.

There are some benefits to mass balance’s flexible approach. With the supply of recycled plastics limited in some areas, it’s helpful to allow companies to compensate by using extra recycled content in areas with plenty to buy.

Eventually, however, consumers should be able to expect that the bottle in their hands has a specific level of recycled content. “That’s the ultimate goal, but it is a really complex system, and it takes a long time to make changes, so we’ll probably need to rely on mass balance to meet that kind of transition,” said Alix Grabowski, director of plastic and material science at the World Wildlife Fund.

That system complexity is felt in other ways, too. Tracking recycled materials along sometimes tortuous chains of purchases depends on trust between companies, said Wan-Ting Hsu, a material flow research analyst and Ph.D. candidate at University College London. Post-consumer plastic material can pass between many companies and jurisdictions with different rules about responsibility and accounting before it returns to retailers ready to sell it back to consumers.

In interviews with key stakeholders in the plastics value chain, such as brand owners and recyclers, Hsu has learned that companies struggle to verify the source of material, and often they are left to ask for data from previous owners, which can sometimes be inaccurate. Without better proof of content, companies could make misleading claims, experts say, though they could not point to public evidence of such cases.

Another issue: The methods to certify recycled content vary across certification bodies, and there is little consistency. When the Canadian government commissioned the environmental consultancy company Eunomia to consult with manufacturers, as evidenced in the 2021 report, the manufacturers said they often chose certification schemes that offered the most flexible approach. Under such schemes, the company with 20 recycled bottles in its mix of 100, for example, could claim 20 of its bottles are 100 percent recycled, even when this is not the case.

“At this point we haven’t had any real legislation for this,” said Sarah Edwards, North America CEO at Eunomia. Up until now, she added, companies have used certification more for marketing or as part of longer-term sustainability goals.

The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery told Undark that it requires beverage manufacturers to report data to them directly and does not use third-party certifiers at this time. It would not disclose the method to certify information reported. In a draft rule in Washington state that will be finalized later this year, the Department of Ecology said it will require that producers attest to the accuracy of their data or obtain third-party certification.

Mass balance is especially contentious when it is used to certify products created from chemical recycling, a collection of mostly new techniques to strip plastics down to their basic building blocks, called monomers. In contrast to mechanical recycling, which shreds plastic but keeps its chemical form, manufacturers can use monomers to construct many different kinds of plastics, which are made up of polymers.

As part of the chemical recycling process, a plant may burn a portion of the recycled material into fuel or other byproducts. Though this process releases greenhouse gases, some mass balance certifications allow a company to count the burned plastic towards its output of “recycled content.” The hypothetical supply chain that takes in 20 recycled bottles may still claim to produce bottles with 20 percent recycled content, even if 5 of those recycled bottles have been burnt as fuel.

In its 2021 report, Eunomia wrote that the chemical sector preferred to work with ISCC Plus, a third-party certifier in Germany that allows this kind of tabulation. In Edwards’ eyes, the chemical recycling industry is pushing for this as a temporary tool to get started.

There’s an additional point of contention: With some processes of reducing polymers down to monomers, molecules can react with ambient elements like nitrogen and hydrogen, inflating their weight with molecules that aren’t plastic. Calculating a mass balance just on weight — the typical approach for mechanical recycling — doesn’t work as well for chemical recycling and can overestimate the recycled content in materials.

A widely cited white paper published by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a charity committed to creating a circular economy, provided an example: Producing 100 pounds of polyamide, often used in textiles, would require 150 pounds of recycled material if measured with weight, or 170 pounds if measured with calorific value — a unit that quantifies an object’s energy and doesn’t change as readily.

Scientists and engineers have agreed to use more precise units, like calorific value, but “there is quite a bit of argument across the industry” about which units to use, Knauer said.

Michael Shaver, a professor of polymer science at the University of Manchester and one of the researchers involved with ReCon², said the group had “significant concerns in terms of the mass balance approach.”

“If the public believes that this is a measure of exactly how much plastic is in each package, that’s not what mass balance actually gives you, right?” he said.

Shaver wanted to develop a way to measure the recycled content in each individual product. He joined with Ph.D. student Zoé Schyns and research fellow Thomas Bennett, and together they developed a technique that adds fluorescent dye to the recycled materials during the manufacturing process. Regardless of what happens between the beginning and end of manufacturing, the ratio between fluorescence at the beginning and end reveals the concentration of recycled content in each individual product. Some of the light appears as green within the visible light spectrum, but one strategy is to keep the precise technique a secret so companies do not misuse it.

“We can show not only that everyone in your supply chain acted appropriately, but also that you have the same in all of your different bottles or film,” said Shaver. Although the public results focus on three of the most popular plastic types, the researchers say the approach can be adapted for other kinds of plastics and rules. Sponsors of a year-long trial phase include Kraft-Heinz and Reckitt, two large consumer good corporations, and the U.K.’s leading recycling label, OPRL.

The company believes roll out of the technology would require an industry-wide approach, even as others doubt that plastic producers can adapt to including tracers. Shaver expects that their nonprofit ReCon² will “shepherd” firms into the program, while it audits participating companies and gatekeeps against products with inaccurate or false recycled content claims. As a nonprofit, it would prioritize keeping the technique as low- cost as possible to promote adoption and minimize fraud through passive compliance.

On a broader scale, Knauer expects that establishing trust in measuring recycled content will take action from governments, as happened with “organic” labels. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may be moving in this direction. In 2021, the agency laid out a national recycling strategy that includes the creation of “recycled content measures.” (A spokesperson told Undark that the EPA hasn’t started working on this yet.)

“I do not think that mass balance is the way we’re going to do it forever,” said Knauer. “I think there’s a lot to be done in this space and a lot more innovation we can certainly do.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

The post Some ‘recycled’ product claims are mostly garbage appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Artificial light at night can wreak havoc on a number of animals, from confusing moonlight-following sea turtle hatchlings to disrupting the sleep patterns of free-living animals like birds, to even stressing out caterpillars and making them age quicker.

Scientists are continuing to look more at the effects of artificial night light on insect larvae–like caterpillars.  A study published this month in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences found that even moderate levels of artificial light attract more caterpillar predators and reduce the chance that their larvae grow up into moths. Moths are part of the order lepidoptera that also contains butterflies and skippers ,and their larvae can serve as food for larger prey like birds, wasps, and some small amphibians. 

[Related: The switch to LEDs in Europe is visible from space.]

To test this light theory, scientists from Cornell University placed 552 lifelike caterpillar replicas made of soft clay in a forest in New Hampshire, gluing them to leaves to look as real as possible. They were made from a green clay that mimics the color and size of two moth caterpillars: Noctuidae (owlet moths) and Notodontidae (prominent moths). The marks of predators like birds, other insects, and arthropods can be left in the soft clay if they tried to take a bite of the fake caterpillars. 

Some of the models were placed on experimental lots that had 10 to 15 lux LED lighting, or roughly the brightness of a streetlight. The lights stayed on at night for about seven weeks in June and July 2021.

Of the 552 caterpillars deployed, 521 models were recovered. Almost half (249 fake caterpillars) showed predatory marks from arthropods, during the summer-long nighttime study. Additionally, they found that the rate of caterpillar predation was 27 percent higher on the experimental plots compared with the control areas that didn’t have the LED lighting.

Since the night sky is getting increasingly more polluted with artificial light, this poses another ecological problem for lepidopterans. These creatures already suffer from  threats like  habitat loss, chemical pollutants used in farming, climate change, and increasingly prevalent invasive species, according to the team.

[Related: ‘Skyglow’ is rapidly diminishing our nightly views of the stars.]

These findings are particularly worrisome for caterpillars at a larval stage when they are eating leaves to ensure that they grow into their next stage of development. Study co-author and research ecologist Sara Kaiser told the Cornell Chronicle, “When you turn on a porch light, you suddenly see a bunch of insects outside the door. But when you draw in those arthropod predators by adding light, then what is the impact on developing larvae? Top-down pressure – the possibility of being eaten by something.”
Some simple ways to reduce artificial light are by using smart lighting control to remotely manage any outside lighting, making sure that lights are close to the ground and shielded, and using the lowest intensity lighting possible.

The post Save caterpillars by turning off your outdoor lights appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured in Grist.

High-income countries have long sent their waste abroad to be thrown away or recycled — and an independent team of experts says they’re inundating the developing world with much more plastic than previously estimated.

According to a new analysis published last week, United Nations data on the global waste trade fails to account for “hidden” plastics in textiles, contaminated paper bales, and other categories, leading to a dramatic, 1.8-million-metric-ton annual underestimate of the amount of plastic that makes its way from the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States to poor countries. The authors highlight the public health and environmental risks that plastic exports pose in the developing world, where importers often dump or incinerate an unmanageable glut of plastic waste.

“Toxic chemicals from these plastics are poisoning communities,” said Therese Karlsson, a science and technical adviser for the nonprofit International Pollutant Elimination Network, or IPEN. IPEN helped coordinate the analysis along with an international team of researchers from Sweden, Turkey, and the U.S.

Many estimates of the scale of the plastic waste trade make use of a U.N. database that tracks different types of products through a “harmonized commodity description and coding system,” which assigns each product category a code starting with the letters HS. HS 3915 — “waste, parings, and scrap” of plastics — is often assumed by researchers and policymakers to describe the total volume of plastic that’s traded globally. But the new analysis argues this is only “the tip of the plastic waste iceberg,” since HS 3915 misses large quantities of plastic that are included in other product categories.

Discarded clothing, for example, may be tracked as HS 5505 and not counted as plastic waste, even though 60 to 70 percent of all textiles are made of some kind of plastic. And another category called HS 6309 — used clothing and accessories — is assumed by the U.N. to be reused or recycled and is therefore not considered waste at all, even though an estimated 40 percent of these exported clothes are deemed unsalvageable and end up dumped in landfills.

Plastic contamination in paper bales — the huge stacks of unsorted paper that are shipped abroad to be recycled — also tends to be overlooked in estimates of the international plastic waste trade, even though these bales may contain 5 to 30 percent plastic that must be removed and discarded.

Accounting for plastic from just these two product categories increases plastic waste exports from all the regions analyzed by as much as 1.8 million metric tons per year — 1.3 million from paper bales and half a million from textiles. That’s more than double the plastic that’s counted when only plastic “waste, parings, and scrap” are analyzed.

Additional product categories like electronics and rubber add even more to the global plastic waste trade, although Karlsson said a lack of data makes it hard to quantify their exact contribution. All this plastic strains developing countries’ waste management infrastructure, leading to large quantities of plastic waste ending up in dumps, landfills, or incinerators. Burning this waste causes hazardous air pollution for nearby communities, and dumps and landfills can leach chemicals like PCBs — a group of compounds that can cause cancer in humans — into soil and water supplies.

More than 10,000 chemicals are used in the production of plastic, and one-fourth of them have been flagged by researchers for their toxicity and potential to build up in the environment and in people’s bodies. The report calls for greater transparency from plastic and petrochemical industries about the chemicals they put in their plastic products, and for regulators to require them to use fewer, nontoxic chemicals.

Karlsson also called for a total ban on the global plastic waste trade, along with enforceable limits on the amount of plastics the world makes in the first place. “Regardless of what way we’re handling plastic waste, we need to decrease the amount of plastics that we generate,” she told Grist, “because the amount of plastic waste being produced today will never be sustainable.”

Without aggressive action to phase down plastic production, the world is on track to have produced a cumulative 26 billion metric tons of plastic waste by 2050, most of which will be incinerated, dumped, or sent to landfills.

This article originally appeared in Grist. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org.

The post We’re shipping twice as much plastic to developing nations than accounted for appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A class of compounds known as PFAS, or so-called forever chemicals, have made the headlines many times in the past few years—they are difficult to remove or break down, leading to pervasiveness in nature and toxic health implications for our own bodies. In fact, last year the EPA found that the chemicals cause harm at even extremely low levels, noting that any exposure could be unsafe.

And while the European Union and other governments have made steps to reduce their presence, the US has been slower to regulate them until quite recently. 

On Tuesday, the Biden administration debuted a new action to protect communities against this pollution, notably by making the nation’s first drinking water standard for PFAS, technically known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. This proposal would be one of the first new standards to update the Safe Drinking Water Act since 1996, and is even more ambitious than EPA suggested limits proposed in 2016. 

[Related: PFAS are toxic and they’re everywhere. Here’s how to stay away from them.]

“I am thrilled to announce that EPA is taking yet another bold step to protect public health,” EPA administrator Michael Regan said at a news conference on Tuesday. “Folks, this is a tremendous step forward in the right direction. We anticipate that when fully implemented, this rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS related illnesses.”

The proposal goes after six chemicals—specifically targeting PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion. Additionally, there would be limits set on the total mixed amount of four other similar chemicals, known as PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX. If finalized, these regulations would require public water systems to monitor these compounds and notify the public if limits are exceeded. 

“Regulating these six highly toxic PFAS chemicals in drinking water is a historic start to protecting our families and communities,” Anna Reade, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, told the New York Times. “We cannot safeguard public health until we get off this toxic treadmill of regulating one PFAS at a time when thousands of other PFAS remain unregulated.”

Unsurprisingly, not everyone is on board. According to the New York Times, members of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies are concerned about high expense of compliance, estimating it would cost $43 million for just one utility in Cape Fear, North Carolina, to filter out PFAS. On the other hand, the American Chemistry Council noted to the Times that two of the chemicals mentioned in the new proposal had already been phased out of production by some manufacturers eight years ago. 

[Related: The right kind of filter can keep microplastics out of drinking water.]

A few experts also pointed out that cleaning up water is only so effective—to preserve human and environmental health, corporations must stop manufacturing these harmful chemicals altogether. While some companies have made promises to stop producing PFAS, they are hardly universal. “You have to turn it off at the source,” Carol Kwiatkowski of the Green Science Policy Institute, an environmental advocacy organization, told the BBC. “It doesn’t make any sense to keep cleaning them out of the water if we keep putting them back in.”

The Biden administration has been laying the groundwork for such a move for over a year. In 2021, Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed, which included $10 billion of funding to address emerging contaminants including PFAS. As of February 2023, $2 billion of that will go towards addressing pollutants in drinking water across the country.

The post The US might finally regulate toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Air pollution is messing with the love lives of fruit flies, warns a new study published on March 14 in the journal Nature Communications. Male common fruit flies had trouble in recognizing their female counterparts after breathing in toxic gas, causing them to make a move on another male. 

Though there’s been some research hinting at bisexuality among fruit flies, the current results suggest it has to do more with ozone pollution. Even brief exposure to O₃ was enough to alter the chemical makeup of pheromones, a unique trails insects use to detect and attract mates. Increasing levels of air pollutants from cars, power plants, and industrial boilers around the world could stop common fruit flies from reproducing, causing a dramatic decline in the insect species.

[Related: Almost everyone in the world breathes unhealthy air]

The chemical ecologists placed 50 male flies into a tube and exposed them to 100 parts per billion (ppb) of ozone—global ozone levels range from 12 ppb to 67 ppb—for two hours. After two hours, fruit flies showed reduced amounts of a pheromone called cis-Vaccenyl Acetate (cVA) in compounds involved in reproductive behavior.

A closer look revealed that ozone seems to have changed the chemical structure of pheromones. Most insect pheromones have carbon double bonds, explains Markus Knaden, a group leader for insect behavior at the Max Planck Institute of Chemical Ecology in Germany and study author. Whenever a compound has carbon double bonds, it becomes highly sensitive to oxidization by ozone or nitric oxide and starts to separate. The explanation is in line with their findings of high amounts of the liquid heptanal in the flies, a product that emerges after cVA breaks down. 

Did the altered pheromones affect a male’s chances at finding a partner? It appears so. A separate experiment exposed male flies to 30 minutes of either ozone ranging from 50 to 200 ppb or regular air with a much lower amount ozone before being placed them with female fruit flies. While males from both groups wasted no time in trying to court females, ozone-exposed fruit flies had more trouble getting a mate. 

“The male advertises himself with pheromones. The more he produces, the more attractive he becomes to the female,” says Knaden. Losing the chemical aphrodisiac made ozone-exposed males a less desirable option to females, who took nearly twice as much time choosing from the corrupted bachelors than the clean ones.

Not only is ozone pollution hampering the males’ ability to get female attention, it’s also affecting how they identify other individuals. Knaden says his team expected the altered pheromones to affect the ability for male fruit flies to distinguish between a male and a female, but what they didn’t expect were males to jump on each other. “In the beginning, it was a very funny observation to see really long chains where one male was courting the next and then the next down the line,” he describes. With the altered pheromones, “the male basically jumps on everything that is small and moves a little bit like a fly, regardless of what it is.”

“Very little is known about how air pollution interferes with insect sex pheromone signaling, so it is great to see this work underway,” says James Ryalls, a research fellow in the Center for Agri-environmental Research at the University of Reading in England, who was not affiliated with the research. “The study demonstrates how disruptive air pollution can be to insect communication, with potential ecological ramifications such as reduced biodiversity.”

[Related: Flies evolved before dinosaurs—and survived an apocalyptic world]

Getting rid of the buggers that crowd your bananas and melons might seem like a good idea at first glance. However, Ryalls warns that these agricultural pests contribute greatly to the world’s ecosystem. As nature’s clean-up crew, fruit flies help decompose rotting fruit, releasing nutrients for plants, bacteria, and fungi to use. They also serve as food for other animals like birds and spiders. Lastly, they are a common insect model used in biomedical research and have contributed to countless neuroscience and genetic discoveries.

Fruit flies are not the only ones feeling the effects of air pollution. Knaden says he has seen dangerous ozone levels affecting flower volatile compounds, which are used as cues for pollinators. His 2020 study found moths were less attracted to flower odors from plants exposed to the gas, resulting in less pollination. 

“Insects are on the decline, and we thought it was from pesticides and habitat loss,” says Knaden. “It seems there are more screws we have to turn, one of them being air pollutants.”

The post Horny male fruit flies plunge into chaos when exposed to air pollution appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Hakai Magazine, an online publication about science and society in coastal ecosystems. Read more stories like this at hakaimagazine.com.

Camilla Rathsach walked along the lichen-covered sand, heading out from the lone village on Denmark’s remote Anholt island—a spot of land just a few kilometers wide in the middle of the Kattegat Strait, which separates the Danish mainland from Sweden. As Anholt Town’s 45 streetlights receded into the distance, moonlit shadows reached out to embrace the dunes. Rathsach looked up, admiring the Milky Way stretching across the sky. Thousands of stars shone down. “It’s just amazing,” she says. “Your senses heighten and you hear the water and feel the fresh air.”

This dark-sky moment was one of many Rathsach experienced while visiting the island in 2020 for work on her master’s thesis on balancing the need for outdoor lighting and darkness. Having grown up in urban areas, Rathsach wasn’t used to how bright moonlit nights could be. And after speaking with the island’s residents, who value the dark sky deeply and navigate with little outdoor light, she realized that artificial lighting could be turned down at night depending on the moon’s phase.

At Aalborg University in Denmark, she worked with her graduate supervisor, Mette Hvass, to present a new outdoor lighting design for Anholt’s church. Rathsach and Hvass picked the church for their project because it is a central meeting place for the community yet it currently has no outdoor lights. They thought lighting would make it easier for people to navigate but wanted to preserve the inviting ambiance of moonlight.

One of the guiding principles of designing sustainable lighting is to start with darkness, and add only the minimum amount of light required. Darkness and natural light sources are important to many species, and artificial light can be downright dangerous.

“Lights can attract and disorient seabirds during their flights between colony and foraging sites at sea,” says Elena Maggi, an ecologist at the University of Pisa in Italy who is not involved in the project. Anholt’s beaches host a variety of breeding seabirds, including gulls and terns, and the island is a stopover for many migrating birds. The waters around the island are also home to seals, cod, herring, and seagrass. Though scientists have made progress in understanding the effects of artificial light at night on a range of species, such as turtles, birds, and even corals, there is still more to learn.

“We still don’t know exactly how artificial light might interact with other disturbances like noise and chemical pollution, or with rising ocean temperatures and acidification due to climate change,” says Maggi.

The scientists’ final design for the church includes path lighting and small spotlights under the window arches, along with facade lighting under the eaves shining downward. To preserve the dark sky, path lighting would turn off on bright moonlit nights, and facade lighting would shut off on semi-bright or bright nights. The window lighting would stay on regardless of the moon’s phase.

The adaptive lighting cooked up by Camilla Rathsach and Mette Hvass would automatically adjust to the availability of moonlight, tweaking this church’s lighting automatically to balance visibility and darkness. Mock-ups show how the church would be lit under no moonlight (first) and a full moon (second). Illustrations courtesy of Camilla Rathsach

“The contrast between the moon’s cold white light reflecting off the church’s walls and the warm orange lights in the windows would create a cozy, inviting experience,” says Rathsach.

The moonlight adaptive lighting design project is part of a growing effort to balance the need for functional lighting in the town and to protect the darkness. Recently, the town’s public streetlights were swapped for dark-sky friendly lamps, says Anne Dixgaard, chairman of Dark Sky Anholt.

Dixgaard also organizes a yearly walk out to Anholt’s beach, where skywatchers can learn about the night sky. “People really value Anholt’s dark sky and want to preserve it,” she says.

Rathsach and Hvass are working on the moonlight adaptive design project in hopes that it will be implemented one day, but they still have some challenges to overcome. Moonlight is a relatively faint light source, so detecting it using sensors is challenging, and lights would need to adjust automatically on nights with intermittent cloud cover. Yet big initiatives often begin with small steps.

“This work is something new and unexpected,” says Maggi. “It’s a very interesting approach to mitigating the negative effects of artificial light at night.”

This article first appeared in Hakai Magazine and is republished here with permission.

The post Moonlight will help inspire a Danish church’s wildlife-friendly design appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Grist.

Wastewater treatment plants are typically overlooked when it comes to reducing greenhouse gasses, but new research from Princeton University reveals the plants emit twice as much methane as previously thought.

Methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas and the treatment plants should be part of any plan to reduce emissions, according to the study released last week. 

“Wastewater treatment plants are a major source of greenhouse gasses in cities and we need to start treating them like that,” said Mark Zondlo, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Princeton and one of the authors of the research.

Published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal, the report is the largest conducted on methane pollution from wastewater treatment plants in the United States. The scientists examined 63 facilities in California and the East Coast. Their research showed that methane from these facilities exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s estimates by the equivalent of 5.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. 

Scientists use carbon dioxide equivalence as a metric to standardize the emissions of many different types of greenhouse gasses. The previous estimate for emissions by wastewater treatment plants was 6.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to the EPA. The new study calculates that current emissions are now 11.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. 

“We have more than a million miles of sewers in the U.S., filled with rich organic matter that may be causing methane emissions, but we have very little understanding of their scope,” said Z. Jason Ren, a professor of civil and environmental engineering, another co-author. 

While methane has long been a concern for scientists and environmentalists it is only recently that governments have focused on curbing the greenhouse gas. Cutting methane emissions as quickly as possible can drastically reduce the rate at which the planet heats up. 

The biggest culprit for methane emissions in wastewater treatment is a domed container used near the end of the process called an anaerobic digester. The digester contains small microbes, like bacteria, that can function without oxygen and help break down the harmful microbes in our waste. While this process produces methane naturally, in the past scientists underestimated the leaks in these supposedly airtight containers, an oversight that resulted in inaccurate emission counts.

The guidelines in use by the EPA were developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization within the United Nations that publishes reports on climate change every few years. But those IPCC guidelines failed to account for wide variations in emissions from plant to plant. The Princeton researchers discovered the most consistent factor in discovering high emissions was the use of an anaerobic digester. 

“We know urbanization is going to increase, we know centralized treatment [of waste] will increase, definitely in the US, but especially in the world. So let’s try and find a way to do this right, that’s a win for the water and a win for the air,” said Zondlo.

This article originally appeared in Grist. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org.

The post Sewage plants emit more methane than we thought, and that’s a problem appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

You may not realize it, but various everyday products like adhesives, food packaging, and cookware contain certain chemicals called per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to make them resistant to heat, oil, grease, or water. More than 9,000 PFAS have been identified so far, which are used in a wide range of industrial and commercial applications. 

Despite their important function in various consumer products, they have a serious downside. PFAS don’t break down easily in the environment due to their chemical structure that resists biodegradation. This explains why they’re often called “forever chemicals.”

“Their unique structure allows them to also move through surface and groundwaters and persist in soils and sediments,” says Allen Burton, a professor of environment and sustainability at the University of Michigan whose research deals with environmental toxicology. “They bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife and are so common their ingestion cannot be easily avoided.”

PFAS can leach into soil, air, and water, and they’re already found in humans’ blood and urine. Studies also report that PFAS are ubiquitous in municipal wastewater—not only in those with direct sources like textile mills or papermaking operations, but also in non-industrial wastewater like septic tanks and office buildings. Some suspect it comes from the microfibers in water-resistant clothing during laundry or from human excrement. However, new research reveals another potential source: toilet paper.

[Related: Are bidets really better for the planet than toilet paper?]

Chemicals called disubstituted poly-fluoroalkyl phosphates (diPAPs) are one of the major PFAS found in biosolids, the solid waste generated from wastewater treatment plants. With this understanding, researchers decided to look into toilet paper, a product where diPAPs are commonly used. Their findings in a recent Environmental Science & Technology Letters study suggest that toilet paper may be a major source of PFAS in wastewater treatment systems. 

“It is important to identify sources of PFAS so decision-makers can make informed choices on how to limit their environmental release,” says Jake Thompson, study author and a graduate research assistant at the Sustainable Materials Management Research Group at the University of Florida.

Thompson and his co-authors extracted PFAS from sewage sludge from eight US wastewater treatment plants and toilet paper rolls sold in four world regions, namely North America, South and Central America, Africa, and Western Europe. The most abundant PFAS in both samples was diPAPs, specifically, 6:2 fluorotelomer phosphate diester (6:2 diPAP).

The diPAPs are what you’d call precursor species of PFAS, which means they can be transformed into terminal or more stable PFAS that are known to have impacts on human and environmental health, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA). For example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies PFOA as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” 

“These transformed species are often more polar and bound to soils and sediment to a greater degree, making them more persistent,” says Burton, who was not involved in the study. “In addition, as these compounds build up in soils and sediments over time, they are more available for [uptake] by soil- and sediment-dwelling invertebrates, and thus pose a food chain contamination threat.”

Based on their findings and data about PFAS levels in sewage and per capita toilet paper use in other countries, the authors estimated that toilet paper can contribute about 35 percent of the 6:2 diPAP in wastewater sludge in Sweden, 89 percent in France, but only around four percent in US and Canada. The impact of toilet paper in Sweden and France is higher because they have much lower 6:2 diPAP concentrations in wastewater sludge compared to North America. 

Furthermore, North America uses more toilet paper than other countries, suggesting that 6:2 diPAPs in US wastewater systems mostly come from other sources, like cosmetics, textiles, and food packaging, which are also worth looking into. The authors hope that by understanding potential PFAS sources, policymakers become “better equipped to address the challenge of PFAS,” says Thompson.

[Related: PFAS are toxic and they’re everywhere. Here’s how to stay away from them.]

Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its new plans to develop wastewater pollution limits and restrict PFAS discharges from industrial sources, which were announced earlier this year. However, the ability of wastewater treatment plants to remove PFAS needs to be addressed as well. Currently, available wastewater treatment technologies don’t destroy PFAS. Conventional treatments can’t effectively remove them and may only pass them through to lakes, streams, and groundwater.

Burton says it’s not surprising to find PFAS in toilet paper and sewage sludge, which is “yet another documented widespread source of PFAS contamination of the environment.” But reducing PFAS in wastewater is only one strategy to minimize total exposures in the environment and the risk to humans and biota, he adds.

“Like microplastic contamination, it is most effective and efficient to prevent wastewater contamination by controlling the sources,” he adds. “Undoubtedly, they are effective substitutes for PFAS in making toilet paper and other consumer products.”

Disposable food packaging and food ware commonly use PFAS as an oil and grease barrier, but uncoated paper products, products made from bamboo and palm leaves, and reusable cutlery sets are viable alternatives. PFAS are also used in textile finishing to repel grease, stain, and water, but manufacturers can use melamine-based compounds instead. Non-essential PFAS use, like in personal care products and cosmetics, can be phased out completely.

“If society fails to dramatically reduce these multiple [PFAS] exposures,” says Burton, “we increase the likelihood of our children and wildlife facing serious risks.”

The post Toilet paper may be a major source of ‘forever chemicals’ in wastewater appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Air pollution, as it turns out, is incredibly difficult to avoid no matter where you are on the planet. A new study from Monash University in Australia found that nearly 99 percent of the world’s population are exposed to unhealthy levels of dangerous air pollutants called ambient fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). 

The study was published March 6 in the journal Lancet Planetary Health. The team of researchers used computer models to assess annual and daily PM2.5 concentrations around the world from 2000 to 2019.

[Related: Tiny air pollutants may come from different sources, but they all show a similar biased trend.]

The models used data from ground stations that monitor air quality, weather, and simulations of how chemicals travel through the air. They found that in 2019, only 0.001 percent of the global population was exposed to levels of PM 2.5 pollution that World Health Organization (WHO) deems safe. The WHO says concentrations higher than 5 micrograms of PM 2.5 per cubic meter is considered hazardous. 

The study described that while daily levels of air pollutants have decreased in North America and Europe in the two decades studied, levels increased in Australia, New Zealand, Southern Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Over 70 percent of the days monitored in these regions had air pollution that was above WHO recommended levels. The highest concentrations were generally found in southern Asia, eastern Asia, and northern Africa.

According to study co-author and global public health and epidemiologist Yuming Guo, there are seasonal patterns that take place amid unsafe PM2.5 concentrations. Northeast China and northern India saw higher levels during December, January, and February and eastern regions of North America had higher PM2.5 during summer months.  

“We also recorded relatively high PM2.5 air pollution in August and September in South America and from June to September in sub-Saharan Africa,” Guo said in a statement.

Guo told The Washington Post on March 6 that the study does have some limitations—some countries didn’t have as much ground data, which could affect how the models perform in those regions.

This study, possibly the first of its kind, aligns with data released by the WHO in April 2022 that also found that dangerous levels of air pollution affects 99 percent of the population. 

[Related: Wildfire smoke from across continents is changing the Arctic Ocean’s makeup.]

“Particulate matter, especially PM2.5, is capable of penetrating deep into the lungs and entering the bloodstream, causing cardiovascular, cerebrovascular (stroke) and respiratory impacts. There is emerging evidence that particulate matter impacts other organs and causes other diseases as well,” the WHO wrote in a statement last year.

Other studies have shown that even low levels of air pollution can increase excess mortality, traffic pollution could be connected to low birthweight, and is linked to an increased risk of depression and bipolar disorder. 

“[This study] provides a deep understanding of the current state of outdoor air pollution and its impacts on human health,” Guo said in a release. “With this information, policymakers, public health officials, and researchers can better assess the short-term and long-term health effects of air pollution and develop air pollution mitigation strategies.”

The post Almost everyone in the world breathes unhealthy air appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Grist.

Over the past 15 years, coal power has been on a precipitous decline across the United States, dropping in use by over 50 percent. The rise of cheaper natural gas and renewable energy combined with environmental regulations has led to the shuttering of hundreds of plants across the country. Between 2010 and 2021, 36 percent of the country’s coal plants went offline; since then another 25 percent shut down or committed to retiring by 2030.

But even as coal declines, it is still keeping a deadly grasp on communities across the country, according to a new report from the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. The coal sector is responsible for 3,800 premature deaths a year due to fine particle pollution, or PM2.5, from smokestacks. 

“We know that coal plants remain one of the biggest polluters in the United States,” said Holly Bender, senior director for energy campaigns with the Sierra Club. “What the [government] data didn’t show was who was most impacted by each of these plants.”

Coal plants release heavier particles and localized pollution that can have acute impacts within a 30- to 50-mile radius, but they also release fine particulate matter that gets blown hundreds of miles away downwind from tall smokestacks. The report looked at these particles specifically, finding that they had widespread impacts, causing premature death in states that don’t even border another state with a plant.

For example, the highest number of deaths due to coal plant pollution happened in Alleghany County in Pennsylvania and Cook County in Illinois, with 63 and 61 fatalities per year, respectively. Yet Cook Country is hundreds of miles away from the nearest power plant. The Labadie plant, Cook County’s biggest coal pollution contributor, owned by the American energy company Ameren, is over 300 miles away in rural Missouri. For the average coal plant, only 4 percent of premature deaths occurred in the facility’s same county and only 18 percent occurred in the same state, highlighting the cross-regional nature of the problem of coal soot.

Particulate pollution has a well-documented and disproportionate impact on people of color and low-income communities. The report notes how these inequities are increasing over time. While as a whole coal is the only pollution source that affects white Americans more than average, Daniel Prull, the author of the report, noted that the impacts varied from plant to plant; many coal facilities examined in the study had disproportionate impacts on communities of color, depending on where they were located.

Over 50 percent of the mortality caused by coal soot could be traced back to 17 plants, the report found. The parent company with the most deaths was Tennessee Valley Authority, which has four plants, and is owned by the U.S. government. Many of the other super-polluters, such as PPL, Berkshire Hathaway, and Ameren, were investor-owned utilities — which combined were responsible for 40 percent of these coal-driven premature deaths. “This is not just a problem that’s relegated to one part of the industry,” said Bender, adding that the parent companies causing the most harm were also the ones that have failed to make commitments to retire coal plants and transition to clean energy.

In line with the Clean Air Act, the EPA is supposed to regulate particulate pollution; last month it released a draft proposal to do so under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. While the draft standard would lower the exposure limit, the new Sierra Club report notes that it does nothing to explicitly address controlling emissions from coal power plants, over half of which lack modern pollution control technology. 

Coal continues to become increasingly uneconomic, Bender said, but it’s important to make sure the energy sector doesn’t simply move from one fossil fuel to another. “Natural gas could not be further from a climate solution,” she said. “We need to make sure we are truly on track to achieve these emission reductions that are necessary to address the climate crisis and the very real pollution burdens experienced across the country.”

This article originally appeared in Grist. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org.

The post Coal is on its way out. But its toxic pollution lingers. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Many Americans remained locked down and logged online throughout 2021, changing the way people shopped for countless goods and services. Initial coverage frequently focused on the ensuing supply chain woes, but new research is showcasing another grave consequence to all that consumption—the ocean shipping industry boom generated massive amounts of greenhouse gasses. 

Although their pollution statistics rarely make into the news as much as everyday cars, “dirty cargo ships” running on fossil fuels bring an estimated 40 percent of America’s goods into the country each year, and are a major impediment towards transitioning to a greener society. Because individual ships are often connected to dozens of international companies, it is often difficult to assign emissions regulation responsibilities. Meanwhile, thousands of ships burn sulfur-heavy “bunker fuel” that, while sometimes “scrubbed” via exhaust cleaning systems, still produces hazardous waste often dumped into oceans.

[Related: Is acid rain forming from the Ohio train derailment site?]

Commissioned by Ship It Zero, a coalition advocating for ocean freight companies’ transition to clean-energy, the “All Brands on Deck” report analyzes 2021’s international imports from 18 of America’s foremost retailers, including Walmart, The Home Depot, Target, Amazon, and Samsung. The findings aren’t pretty—an estimated 4.7 million containers traveling aboard over 1,650 ships generated approximately 3.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 alone. That’s equivalent to the carbon dioxide belched from 754,000 traditional gas-powered cars, or the energy required to power 440,000 US homes. As Canary Media also notes, “ships spewed enough smog-forming nitrogen oxide to equal the annual emissions of seven coal-fired power plants.”

Most of these imports entered the country through a few major port hubs: Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, alongside Houston, Texas, and Savannah, Georgia. The report explains that due to port  locations, much of the ocean vessels’ asthma- and cancer-causing pollutants most often affect port-adjacent and coastal communities with disproportionately Black, Indigenous, and Brown working class populations.

Walmart, Target, and Home Depot were among the worst offenders analyzed. Their combined  shipping contracts generated over 1.7 million metric tons of CO2 and 33 metric tons of methane in 2021. “Buoyed by reliance on the cheapest, most deadly fossil fuels on the planet, international shipping companies and the corporations that rely on them make billions while treating our oceans, health and climate as externalities,” explains the report’s authors. “For far too long, they’ve gotten away with it.”

[Related: Breathe easier during wildfires with a DIY air purifier.]

Ship It Zero hopes that highlighting these troubling figures and increasing pressure on corporations will spur them to speed their transitions towards cleaner shipping options, like fuel cells, marine batteries, and wind harnessing equipment. Currently, both Walmart and The Home Depot have made no public commitments to fossil fuel-free maritime shipping plans, despite generating “the highest levels of carbon dioxide, methane and carcinogenic particulate matter pollution of all companies studied,” the report reads.

As part of their suggested path forward, Ship It Zero urges these companies to ask ocean carriers to demonstrate immediate and year-over-year emission reduction efforts during contract negotiation periods. “Any ship on the water today could be retrofitted with wind- assist propulsion or other emissions reducing technologies,” argues the authors. “[P]ublic health and the climate cannot wait for an entirely new generation of vessels.”

The post Pandemic shipping took a heavy toll on the climate appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Nearly a month after a train derailment in Ohio caused a toxic chemicals spill, the roughly 5,000 residents of East Palestine are worried about whether the air is safe to breathe. Since the accident, locals have complained of headaches, rashes, and a lingering smell in the air resembling “hair perming solution,” along with respiratory issues like chronic coughing, wheezing, and acute bronchitis, possibly from chemical irritants inflaming their airways. And now the concern has spread to people in other states.

Social media users living hundreds of miles away are posting videos showing alleged signs of acid rain and attributing it to air pollutants traveling from Ohio. There are also videos of individuals in other states saying they’re experiencing nausea and a burning sensation in their throats and noses due to a strong chemical odor in the rain. Some TikTokers have also attempted to explain how vinyl chloride, one of the main chemicals in the spill, is causing acid rain outside of East Palestine.

[Related on PopSci+: Dust clouds are killing people out West—and the dangers could spread]

Are their fears of traveling toxins justified? “Given the [high] amount of chemicals that were involved and the controlled conversion, I don’t think it’s a major issue for [people living] long-distance,” says Oladele Ogunseitan, a professor of population health and disease prevention at the University of California, Irvine. “I’m not saying it’s an absolute no because we don’t fully understand all the moving parts, but it’s just an infinitesimal chance.” 

First, what is acid rain?

Acid rain is any form of precipitation where water and oxygen react with nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide to form acidic compounds. While natural causes such as volcanic eruptions can release these chemicals, most acid rain events result from human activity, such as burning coal and other sulfur-containing compounds. 

Pure water has a neutral pH of 7, with regular rainfall being slightly more acidic with a pH of less than 6. Acid rain, however, usually falls between a range of 5 to 5.5 on the pH scale, meaning it’s more corrosive. 

Though making contact with acid rain won’t burn your skin off, you might experience irritation in your eyes, throat, and nose. The bigger issue is inhaling the chemical compounds in acid rain. The longer you spend time in acid rain, the likelier it is that pollutants will enter your lungs. Depending on how long you’re exposed and how many particles you inhale, acid rain can cause several long-term health problems, ranging from asthma and chronic bronchitis to heart attacks if you have a history of cardiac issues.

Can vinyl chloride cause acid rain?

In Ohio, officials decided on a “controlled release” after a temperature change in the five derailed train cars carrying vinyl chloride prompted worry about a possible larger explosion. Vinyl chloride—a synthetic, carcinogenic chemical used to make plastic for pipes, wire coatings, and car parts—was released in liquid form before being set ablaze for days in a barricaded area. Burning it breaks it down into hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and a toxic gas called phosphene. 

And while burning vinyl chloride can also produce hydrochloric acid, a component of acid rain, it would have been immediately seen at the site at the time of the controlled chemical release. Right now there are some “pretty bad smells” in East Palestine, says Peter DeCarlo, an associate professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University, but not as much air pollution as there was on the first day. If the derailment was causing widespread acid rain, locals would experience it first.

What’s the current air pollution forecast in East Palestine?

After screening 578 homes in East Palestine over the past few weeks, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that outdoor air quality in the residential area was normal and continued to assert that there are no health risks. Some environmental scientists, however, are skeptical of the clean-cut assessment. 

“What would prove if the place is habitable is if nobody gets sick, but we know people are having symptoms,” says Ogunseitan. A separate group of environmental researchers at Texas A&M University conducted their own air sample analysis in the town’s streets. In a Twitter thread posted last Friday, they shared that nine of the 50 chemicals identified by the EPA are at higher-than-normal levels. 

[Related: Breathe easier during wildfires with a DIY air purifier]

While the research is ongoing, the Texas A&M team warns of a potential health concern if levels of chemicals such as acrolein stay elevated. Acrolein can cause irritation in the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. When inhaled, the suffocating odor may trigger respiratory distress and dizziness. 

Ogunseitan doesn’t think locals need to evacuate again based on this initial study, but does say it should raise the alarm for continuous air monitoring and health screenings for residents. He points out that some people might be more sensitive to even the smallest amount of exposure to toxic chemicals, so solution is to “identify those who are particularly vulnerable to these levels of chemicals and have them temporarily move.”

Is there any chance the chemicals will reach other states?

Based on the EPA’s air emission models on wind direction, rainfall, and the natural settling of dust and smoke from the derailment site, Ogunseitan says the data doesn’t support pollutants traveling as far as the East and West Coasts. When an incident like this happens, he notes there’s always a level of mass hysteria that has people blaming the incident for something unrelated. 

On the very slim possibility of pollutants wafting outside the East Palestine area, DeCarlo says his biggest concern would be for anyone living just across the border in Pennsylvania because of close proximity to the accident. “As you move away from the site, the emissions from the fire become diluted and less concentrated,” he explains. “For people living several states away, this will not be the same type of issue as those in the immediate area.”

The post Is acid rain forming from the Ohio train derailment site? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Grist.

Celebrations in a beachside California city will soon have to take place without an iconic, single-use party favor: balloons.

The city council of Laguna Beach, about 50 miles southeast of Los Angeles, banned the sale and use of all types of balloons on Tuesday, citing their contribution to ocean litter as well as risks from potential fires when they hit power lines. Starting in 2024, people using balloons on public property or at city events could incur fines of up to $500 for each violation. (Balloons used solely within people’s homes are exempt.)

The ban is part of a growing nationwide movement to restrict balloon use, as well as a broader item-by-item push to restrict problematic single-use products like plastic straws and bags. For now, most balloon-related state and city legislation only targets the intentional release of helium-filled balloons, but experts say outright bans on using any type outside are gaining traction as people better understand their environmental consequences. Nantucket, Massachusetts, in 2016 banned any balloon filled with a gas that’s lighter than air, and there are similar bans in places like East Hampton, New York, and Solana Beach and Encinitas, California.

“Plastic in the ocean and environment generally is gaining more attention,” Chad Nelsen, chief executive of the nonprofit environmental organization Surfrider Foundation, told Grist. “It’s good that people are looking at these disposable, single-use items that we have been using every day and not thinking about the consequences.” He said California beach cleanups organized by Surfrider in 2022 collected a total of nearly 2,500 balloons.

Balloons, especially those filled with helium, often become ocean pollution after just a few hours of use. Those made of latex — a kind of soft, synthetic or natural material that may take decades to break down — can be mistaken for food by marine animals and birds. When ingested, latex can conform to birds’ stomach cavities, causing nutrient deficiency or suffocation. 

Balloons made of mylar, a kind of plastic coated in thin metal, basically never break down. “They stick around truly until the end of time,” said Kara Wiggin, a doctoral researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The plastic strings attached to them can strangle marine life and then chip into microplastics that contaminate drinking water and the food chain.

Mylar balloons can also get tangled in power lines, leading to power outages or fires. According to the city of Riverside, California, balloons caused more than 1,300 minutes of power outages for its publicly owned water and electric utility in 2021. Other cities and utilities report thousands of ratepayers losing power each year when balloons get caught in power lines.

Wiggin said balloons are just a small part of society’s broader addiction to single-use items, but that banning them is “low-hanging fruit.” “We don’t throw things purposefully into the environment, but we often do that with balloons,” she told Grist. “That’s a practice that needs to be stopped.”

Nelsen said there are plenty of balloon-free ways to keep the fun going, including paper-based decorations, streamers, flags, kites, and pinwheels — many of which can be safely reused dozens of times. “Let’s find a way to celebrate kids’ birthdays without killing marine life,” he said.

This article originally appeared in Grist. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org.

The post Why one California beach town is cracking down on balloons appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In Hawaii, every resident is estimated to generate 2.8 tons of waste annually. Practically every island in the state contains plastic litter and debris, including microplastics that may be detrimental to the growth and development of marine fish. To address this waste problem, the state has established bans on plastic bags, polystyrene foam food ware, and disposable plastic utensils in recent years. Now, they are taking it a step further. 

Last month, State Representative Sean Quinlan authored a bill banning the retail sale of single-use plastic bottles—specifically, those holding less than two liters of water—and submitted it to the Hawaiʻi State Legislature. Bottled water for emergency response and public health and safety are exempt from the ban. Although the bill is expected to come with significant environmental benefits, it doesn’t come without potential challenges and drawbacks.

A plastic bottle ban can reduce plastic waste

Plastic bottles make up a large fraction of plastic waste found in the environment. According to data from the nonprofit environmental advocacy group Ocean Conservancy, plastic beverage bottles are the second most littered item in the world.

“Reducing our dependence on plastic bottles, or any throwaway container solution, would certainly be a good thing for the environment,” says Spencer J. Ingley, assistant professor of biology at the Brigham Young University – Hawaii. 

The ocean is a major sink for plastic pollution. Beyond the visible impacts of plastic pollution, Ingley says the increased exposure to chemicals leached from plastics can also disrupt vital physiological functions in a wide variety of animals, including humans. By reducing the amount of waste entering the state as single-serving water bottles, there’s less plastic that must be landfilled or exported and lower potential to cause harm to marine ecosystems, adds Shelie Miller, a professor of sustainable systems at the University of Michigan.

[Related: How companies greenwash their plastic pollution.]

“As an island chain, Hawaii faces specific challenges that many states do not face,” says Miller. “With a large amount of coastline, it is easier for single-use plastic to escape into the ocean and have a direct impact on their marine ecosystem.” 

Eliminating the availability of smaller water bottles potentially incentivizes the use of water fountains and reusable containers. In addition, Miller says containers holding at least two liters of water “require less plastic per volume of water due to a lower surface area-to-volume ratio,” therefore a greater amount of water can be delivered without greatly increasing the amount of plastic.

The shift to other materials may pose some challenges

Although it’s beneficial, a ban on single-use plastic bottles may lead to unintended consequences. This includes a shift to other materials that may be less recyclable or reusable, like Ingley has observed with other single-use plastics in Hawaii. For example, he says vendors offer plant-based plastic utensils, but they’re “often not recyclable and just end up in our waste stream in similar volumes as their plastic relatives.”

“The high demand for small water containers will likely result in a shift to other materials, such as aluminum, glass, or paper cartons,” Ingley adds. “These are typically heavier than plastic bottles, and would therefore result in higher shipping costs, which would either eat into business profits or lead to higher consumer costs.”

Another example of this is California’s ban on plastic carryout bags. According to a 2019 study, the ban unintentionally increased the sales of unregulated plastics like trash bags because consumers previously reused carryout bags to throw their garbage out. Eliminating those bags created a greater market demand for purchasable trash bags, which use more plastic, says Ingley. Similar unintended consequences may occur with this latest bill.

Dealing with these other materials in the waste stream is another issue. Glass and aluminum are recyclable, but their production requires a significant amount of energy, he adds.

Consumer behavior is difficult to predict

If plastic bottles were to be banned, many individuals might switch to reusable water containers. However, despite being more eco-friendly than single-use plastic, Miller says they have to be reused enough times to offset the great number of materials needed to produce them.

“If a bottled water ban creates a spike in reusable water bottles that are not sufficiently reused, there could be a greater overall environmental impact associated with the production of reusable bottles,” she adds. There might also be a shift toward non-water beverages packed in single-use plastics that aren’t covered by the ban, says Miller, since the bill explicitly mentions water and not all beverages.

[Related: The best gallon water bottles of 2023.]

There may be negative health implications if consumers just decided to shift to other drinks instead of carrying a reusable water container. A 2015 study found that a bottled water ban at the University of Vermont led to the increased consumption of less healthy bottled drinks like sugar-sweetened beverages. It didn’t reduce the number of plastic bottles entering the waste stream like the ban initially intended.

The bill just passed its Second Reading earlier this week and will have to go through more stages before becoming law. “There are lots of challenges that consumers and businesses may face if this bill is passed,” says Ingley. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that it shouldn’t pass, but there are certainly some issues that should be considered further.”

At present, you can still purchase bottled water in Hawaii. However, if you want to reduce your environmental impact as much as possible, make the switch to a reusable water container today and be sure to use it frequently.

The post Why some single-use plastic water bottles could be banned in Hawaii appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In living rooms, backyards, and public parks throughout the country, baby showers are being replaced by something a bit more dramatic. Some of today’s expectant parents share their joy by “revealing” their child’s sex in parties that feature balloons, cake, and confetti in pink or blue (or occasionally purple, if the parents want to signal that they will not know their child’s chosen gender for many years to come). But the biggest ones, fueled by social media trends, go even further, involving extravagant stunts. And these spectacles can wreak havoc on the environment. 

A pink pigeon found in New York City, who some speculate was brightly colored for a gender reveal party, died from inhaling the dye’s toxins earlier this month. A couple who used a pyrotechnic device to reveal their baby’s gender started the El Dorado fire in California in 2020, which killed a firefighter and destroyed five homes and 15 buildings. An off-duty border patrol agent lit an Arizona forest on fire with a blue-colored explosive. And in one gender reveal party in Brazil, a couple dyed an entire river blue.

[Related:

[Related: How to build and extinguish a campfire without sparking a catastrophe]

While most gender reveal parties stick to colored cupcakes or other tame features, social media could be driving a few expectant parents to go bigger. Popular videos and posts can encourage people to mimic what others are doing, such as learning a TikTok dance, says Laura Tropp, a professor of communication arts at Marymount Manhattan College who specializes in representations of pregnancy, motherhood, and families in popular culture. Or they can take a trend to dangerous heights, which seems to be the case with the pigeon, river, and fires. Insurance companies are even posting liability advice for when reveals go wrong.

“You’re seeing this pressure on a lot of people to have the next-level gender reveal party,” Tropp says. “They involve color; they involve objects. And I think people love to watch all these extreme parties happening because they’re exciting.” 

Not only are gender reveals visual phenomena—they are also able to make what used to be a very private human experience something more social. “Pregnancy is long, most of it is just happening inside a woman’s body,” Tropp explains. “So it’s the ability to kind of take an aspect of pregnancy, move it outside a woman’s body, and then make it exciting. And then maybe make it extreme to get the social media views that people want.”

[Related: TikTokers are taking a diabetes drug to lose weight. Now it’s in short supply.]

Tropp says it’s all part of the commoditization of pregnancy and parenthood. The baby product industry is estimated to reach $352 billion by 2023, and offers everything from “it’s a boy!” hand sanitizer to edible glitter bombs. “There’s this pressure on parents to be a part of all these rituals that were never associated with pregnancy or parenting,” she notes. “Gender reveal parties are a part of this moment where you could publicly express an aspect of your pregnancy really early on. So I think we’re seeing this kind of shift from parenting starting at the moment of birth to parenting starting much, much earlier.”

But gender reveal parties are just one of many human rituals that can be harmful to the environment, according to Bron Taylor, a professor of religion, nature and ethics at the University of Florida, who has written about environmental ethics. “Fireworks are an obvious example,” he writes in an email to PopSci. “They pollute the air, soil, and water, and of course, their production, distribution, and use, contributes to anthropogenic climate disruption. But these practices, whether for nationalistic, calendrical, or religious rituals, are now so well-established, that many consider questioning them unthinkable … In this age of profound environmental crises, we should be rethinking everything, including every sort of ceremony and ritualized practice.” 

For those who still want to throw a gender reveal party, a good starting point may be to “eschew things that burn, explode, or otherwise risk hurting people or ecosystems,” Taylor says. Share your excitement in a responsible way—or you could just stick to cupcakes and piñatas.

The post Gender reveal parties are turning nature pink and blue appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

On February 3, a Norfolk Southern freight train carrying toxic and hazardous materials derailed in East Palestine, Ohio. Although no injuries and fatalities have yet been reported, the crisis prompted evacuation requests for the nearly 5,000 residents of the East Palestine area and renewed widespread criticism of the American rail industry’s questionable safety regulations, strained workforce, and crumbling infrastructure.

Early reports place the blame on a broken axle, although further details appear to complicate the 50-car derailment. After the axle malfunctioned, onboard engineers pulled an emergency brake, but the brake also failed. Now, critics have shown a lengthy paper trail indicating Norfolk Southern’s persistent lobbying against safety reforms, alongside resistance to updating its trains’ brakes.

[Related: BP made $28 billion last year, and now it’s backtracking on its climate goals.]

Because of the cascading failures, emergency responders faced a potentially deadly situation. Toxic chemicals including vinyl chloride gas—used in making a variety of commonplace plastic products such as PVC piping and credit cards—filled 10 of the derailed freight cars and could have exploded, according to authorities. This could have sent shrapnel flying as far as a mile from the site. Officials ultimately decided on a controlled burn of the gas by funneling the vinyl chloride into a nearby trench that was then ignited, sending phosgene and hydrogen chloride to disperse in the air. Phosgene gas, which causes vomiting and respiratory issues, was used in chemical warfare during World War I and has been linked to emphysema and chronic bronchitis. On Sunday, it was confirmed that three additional dangerous chemicals were released following the crash, including the carcinogen ethylhexyl acrylate.

Although government officials cleared residents to return home, many are wary to do so. Some have even filed a federal lawsuit which would compel Norfolk Southern to set up routine health screenings for anyone living within a 30-mile radius of the crash.

[Related: Fossil fuels are causing a buildup of human health problems.]

David Masur, Executive Director of the PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center, called the East Palestine incident “a stark reminder of the threat posed to our cities, towns and communities from trains carrying explosive materials across Pennsylvania and the United States every day.” Masur and others are calling upon state and federal officials to instate greater inspection levels and oversight within the rail industry. “Ideally, freight companies should have to re-route trains carrying hazardous material away from populated areas,” says Masur, adding that, “if they continue driving current routes, the public and first responders have a right to know about trains coming through their communities.”

Last week, Norfolk Southern announced it would collectively pay 5,000 area residents $25,000, or roughly $5 per person. The railway company generated $12.7 billion in operating revenue during 2022—its most profitable year to date. 

The post Toxic train derailment in East Palestine, OH highlights issues facing America’s railways appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Since 2019, customers of almost 150 participating restaurants across New York City have had the option of receiving their takeout and delivery orders in returnable, reusable food containers thanks to DeliverZero. The third-party delivery service intends to reduce plastic waste, one reusable container at a time.

The convenience of takeaway food in today’s fast-paced, modern lifestyles might explain why the global market is estimated to reach $120.43 billion this year. However, as the founder of DeliverZero realized, the increasing reliance on to-go meals is not good for the environment. Plastic bags, food containers, cutlery, and other take-out items dominate global litter in most major aquatic environments around the globe.

In some cases, consumers are encouraged to bring reusable alternatives to minimize the waste generated by single-use takeaway containers. But the manufacture of reusable alternatives, because they need to be durable enough to withstand multiple uses, may use more energy and generate more greenhouse gasses (GHG) than the production of single-use ones.

That comparison—whether reusable takeout containers are always more sustainable than single-use ones—is answered by a new study. Reusable containers generally have lower impacts across most metrics than comparable single-use containers, according to a recent Resources, Conservation, and Recycling report. This research quantified environmental performance across different metrics, such as end-of-life waste, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, primary energy usage, and water consumption.

“From a waste perspective, reusable containers are more environmentally preferable even when containers are used only four times,” says Christian Hitt, a graduate student from the University of Michigan and Center for Sustainable Systems research assistant who was an author of the study. However, it doesn’t just come down to the number of times you reuse the container. Many factors need to be considered when assessing whether a product is environmentally preferable over an alternative, he adds.

Transportation, washing, and other elements

Customer behavior can influence how sustainable a container is. For example, if only 5 percent of customers travel to the restaurant solely to return used containers, then the reusable system would have higher life cycle GHG emissions and primary energy use than single-use containers, the study found.

It was also common for customers to wash the container to some extent before returning it to the restaurant, the authors observed. This can be excessive since restaurants must still wash the container themselves before reusing it, says Hitt. If all customers ran the reusable container through the dishwasher before returning it, the life cycle energy impacts could be equal to or more than that of a single-use container. The washing method, water heater type, and electricity grid of the customer all factor in.

[Related: How to make your takeout order less wasteful.]

Individuals are recommended to follow the best practices with washing and transportation, says Hitt. For example, it’s better to scrape or rinse the reusable container with minimal cold water, as opposed to hand- or machine-washing. Returning the container with low-impact transportation, or only returning it when purchasing another meal or when the drop-off is along an already planned route, is also advisable, he adds.

The material composition of a takeout container is crucial, too. The authors considered the material type, like polypropylene (PP), polylactic acid (PLA), and aluminum, in their study. “PLA containers require high water consumption relative to other containers,” says Hitt. Containers also vary in GHG emissions due to differences in their production and disposal, he adds.

A 2019 Journal of Cleaner Production study similarly conducted a life-cycle assessment of four different takeout containers: single-use aluminum, expanded polystyrene (EPS), PP, and reusable PP. The authors found that single-use EPS containers are the best option when compared to reusable PP takeaway containers, because their manufacture uses fewer materials and less electricity. Reusable PP takeaway containers and “Tupperware” food savers would have to be reused three to 39 times and 16 to 208 times, respectively, to become a better option than EPS containers.

The number of reuses matters because it determines how many single-use containers were displaced over the life of the reusable container, says Alejandro Gallego Schmid, senior lecturer in Circular Economy and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment at the University of Manchester, who was involved in the 2019 study. But single-use EPS containers have a major flaw: They are not usually recycled, because it is costly to do so, he adds, which means they cannot be considered a sustainable option.

Rules for restaurants and patrons

People who are conscious about making sustainable choices may reuse their own containers, but that’s not the same for all consumers. Therefore, says Gallego Schmid, restaurants and policymakers must make it easier for everyone to reuse and return containers.

Hitt agrees. “Restaurants should look into implementing reusable systems as this can reduce their environmental impact as well as foodware costs,” he says. “Implementing incentives such as discounts when returning containers could increase participation.”

[Related: How companies greenwash their plastic pollution.]

The restaurant chain Just Salad currently has two reusable bowl programs. In the first one, MyBowl, you can purchase a reusable bowl and receive a free topping every time you reuse it for in-store orders. With the second program, BringBack, you may opt to receive your meal in a green reusable bowl that you can return to participating drop-off locations. For the whole month of February, they are offering salads at a discounted price across all locations for customers who reuse their bowls for in-store purchases.

Meanwhile, lawmakers can ban or tax the use of single-use plastics and also provide grant money to fund reusable container programs. One way to allocate money this way is through a solid waste disposable tax (which is collected per ton of trash delivered to a dump) that could fund circular economy programs, says Hitt.

Outlawing certain carryout items can be effective, too. At least eight states have a ban on single-use plastic bags. Vermont goes even further with a more comprehensive plastics ban, which includes plastic straws, plastic stirrers, and EPS food and beverage containers.

Exploring alternatives to common takeaway containers is crucial, especially given the plastic crisis, says Gallego Schmid. A rigorous analysis of the environmental impacts of different takeout container materials is necessary, he adds, so consumers can be informed of what they use as they eat.

The post Are reusable takeout boxes worth the resources needed to make them? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In 2009, Prince Albert II of Monaco asked experimental vehicle manufacturer Venturi to take a crack at designing an electric vehicle that could handle the harsh cold of Antarctica. Over the next 12 years, the company went to work. After testing out two full prototypes, the company pulled off a final product launch on June 1, 2021. The Venturi Antarctica, as the vehicle is called, has been transporting scientists and lab equipment in eastern Antarctica since December 2021.

Designing an electric vehicle for the harsh climate of Antarctica is no easy feat. The battery and other components have to be able to tolerate the frigid Antarctic temperatures, and there needs to be space to store research equipment and transport the researchers comfortably. Venturi has experience with experimental electric vehicles going back to 2000, and has competed in Formula E, the top-tier electric car racing competition in the world, since its inaugural season in 2014. 

[Related: Boaty McBoatface’s new mission is more serious than its name]

According to Venturi, scientists based at the Belgian Princess Elizabeth research station have driven the Antarctica EV over 500 kilometers (310 miles) in just one summer of use. The vehicle has a range of 50 kilometers (31 miles), with space for a second battery if the scientists need more range. However, its range can vary depending on how compact the snow it has to drive on is, and scientists started noticing some problems. 

As climate change has affected global temperatures, Antarctica has warmed. Average temperatures on the icy continent ranges from a frigid -50 degrees Celsius (-58 F) inland to around -10 C (14 F) on the coasts, and the vehicle, designed for the extra cold, needed tweaks to tolerate the relative warmth. Venturi instructed researchers to limit trips to 40 kilometers (25 miles), and is beginning work on modifications to restore the vehicle to its true glory. 

Since Antarctica is covered almost entirely in snow, the Antarctica EV uses a continuous track system, just like you’d expect on a snowcat or a snowmobile. The treads spread the 5,500 pounds of vehicle over its entire surface area, preventing the Antarctica EV from sinking into the snow like a wheeled vehicle would. But the warmer temperatures have caused the snow to stick to the sprockets that drive the treads, creating unwanted vibrations that could further damage the vehicle. The company has since redesigned and replaced the sprockets in an attempt to keep the vehicle in working order.

Increasing temperatures also made it more likely for the cabin, which is packed with electronics and exposed to the sun, to overheat. To balance that out, Venturi has had to install a new ventilation system for a more comfortable riding experience. They also made a new cooling system for the power electronic systems themselves.

Venturi announced on January 24 that their next set of improvements will be focused on redesigning the treads and increasing the vehicle’s range in Antarctica. Barring any other unforeseen circumstances, these should allow the vehicle to putter around the ice and snow of the southern continent more and more in the years to come.

The post This Antarctic EV goes where other electric vehicles can’t tread appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Air pollution is linked to numerous health concerns, from asthma to an increase in the amount and severity of lung and heart disease. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers air pollution a public health issue and their data estimates that 99 percent of the world breathes air with harmful levels of pollutants. 

Government regulations are a major tool in improving air quality. A study published February 1 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology finds that stricter clean heating policies put in place by China may have reduced 23,000 premature deaths in 2021 compared to 2015.

[Related: Coal and transportation fueled a surge in US carbon emissions last year.]

China has historically utilized  a centralized winter heating strategy that provides free or heavily subsidized heating to cities from about mid-November to March. Biomass burning, or burning wood and other vegetation for warmth, iswas also often used for heating in rural areas. This combination of biomass and coal burning is often associated with haze during China’s winters. 

In 2013, China introduced the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan which accelerated the use of a centralized heating district and encouraged a switch to cleaner fuels. Coal still accounted for 83 percent of total heating in 2016, but the Chinese central government issued its Clean Winter Heating Plan for Northern China the following year. 

[Related: Why China just can’t seem to quit coal.]

Between 2015 and 2021, Beijing, Tianjin, and 26 surrounding cities (known as the “2+26” cities) saw concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) reduced by 41.3 percent. Other northern Chinese that did not enact the same heating policy saw a 13 percent decrease. The team found that the premature deaths from poor air quality fell from 169,016 in 2015 to 145,460 in 2021.

“Our research demonstrates the effectiveness of China’s clean winter heating policies on reducing PM_2.5  – with particular success for the stricter clean heating policies in ‘2 + 26’ cities, which also led to a reduced impact of heating emissions on sulfur dioxide (SO2),” said study co-author and atmospheric biogeochemist Zongbo Shi, from the University of Birmingham, in a statement. “These results demonstrate clear air quality benefits from the stricter clean heating policies in ‘2 + 26’ cities.”

According to the study, evaluating the effectiveness of clean heating policies is difficult due to complicated chemical and physical processes in the atmosphere and socioeconomic factors. The team from Nankai University in Tianjin and the University of Birmingham in England used a new method that combined machine learning and a synthetic control method, which evaluates an intervention’s effect.

“Using a novel approach combining machine learning with causal inference, we showed that heating in northern China was a major source of air pollution,” said Shi. “However, clean heating policies have caused the annual PM_2.5 in mainland China to reduce significantly between 2015 and 2021, with significant public health benefits.”

Further decarbonizing measures will continue to help clean the air, according to the study. 

[Related: Tiny air pollutants may come from different sources, but they all show a similar biased trend.]

“Clean heating policies in northern China not only reduced air pollution but also greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to China’s push for carbon neutrality. However, we found that heating remains an important source of air pollution in northern China, particularly in cities that are not part of the ‘2+26’ cluster,” said Robert Elliot, study co-author and applied economist from the University of Birmingham, in a statement. “Decarbonizing heating should remain a key part of China’s carbon neutrality strategy that not only reduces air pollution but also provide[s] significant public health benefits.”

China still has a steep hill to climb to decarbonize as a whole. It aims to hit peak carbon emissions by 2030 and become carbon-neutral by 2060. While it is installing renewable energy rapidly, it still built 33 gigawatts of new coal plants in 2021 and hit a record-breaking 4.07 billion tonnes of coal output that same year.

The post China’s decision to reduce coal-powered heating may have saved 23,000 lives appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Hakai Magazine, an online publication about science and society in coastal ecosystems. Read more stories like this at hakaimagazine.com.

Plastics produced from plants are often considered less environmentally damaging than plastics made from petrochemicals. But scientists are warning that we should be careful making such assumptions.

A new literature review examining the results of around 20 scientific papers has found that bio-based plastics, most of which are made from cornstarch, can be just as toxic as their conventional cousins when dumped in coastal environments. The review also shows that plastics marked as biodegradable often fail to break down in these environments.

The paper highlights the lack of research into the environmental toxicity of bioplastics. The authors write that, for now at least, regulations on bioplastics need to be as tight as those for petroleum-based polymers.

Bioplastic production has boomed in recent years on the back of concerns around plastic waste and the carbon footprint of plastic production. According to European Bioplastics, an industry association, 2.4 million tonnes of bioplastics was made globally in 2021—a number expected to triple to around 7.5 million tonnes by 2026. This represents less than two percent of global plastic production.

The term bioplastics is quite broad. It covers both bio-based plastics, which are made from plants or other non–fossil fuel organic matter rather than petroleum, and biodegradable plastics, whether bio-based or made from fossil fuels.

Bioplastics also aren’t necessarily different from conventional plastics, says Martin Wagner, an environmental toxicologist at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology who was not involved in the review but whose work was included in the analysis. While some bioplastics are new chemical compounds, others are chemically identical to conventional plastics, just produced from carbon derived from plants rather than fossil fuels.

While acknowledging that there is not a lot of data available, and that much of it focuses on the same few bioplastics (such as polylactic acid and polyhydroxyalkanoates, which are mainly produced from starch from plants such as maize, sugar cane, and soybean), the review’s authors suggest that the toxic effects of bioplastics on marine and estuarine life can be of a similar magnitude as those from conventional plastics.

For instance, some of the studies included in the review show that both conventional plastics and bio-based plastics can affect how well mussels attach to rocks. They can also affect the activity of enzymes in the mussels’ digestive systems and gills, and provoke an immune response and kick-start detoxification mechanisms.

However, bioplastics also come with their own unique problems. Bio-based plastics, the review shows, can affect the marine environment in different ways than conventional plastic. For instance, two studies showed that plastic bags derived from cornstarch decrease the level of dissolved oxygen in marine substrates. The cornstarch plastic also causes the seafloor substrate to heat up. The authors of one paper suggest that the bioplastic had a sealing effect on the sediment.

The failure of plastics certified as biodegradable or compostable to break down under marine conditions is not particularly surprising. Degradable bioplastics are designed to break down and convert at least 90 percent of their material into carbon dioxide under specific composting, industrial, and laboratory conditions, not on the beach or the seafloor. But the reviewed studies found that in realistic marine conditions, degradation rates vary hugely depending on the thickness and type of bioplastic. While some items completely degraded or disintegrated in a few months, others could take years to completely degrade.

Wagner says the attitude that some people hold that everything that is biological is better is problematic and based on wishful thinking. “I think the underlying assumption that just because it is bio-based or biodegradable that makes it safer needs to be challenged because there is just no logical reasoning why that should be,” he explains.

Elena Fabbri, an expert in plastic toxicity at the University of Bologna in Italy who also wasn’t involved in the review, agrees: “It’s not correct to say that bioplastics are necessarily safer.”

Bioplastic development has focused on renewable feedstocks and sustainability, Wagner claims, but neglected the products’ sometimes unique safety issues. He says his work on bioplastics, such as starch-based and bamboo-based plastics, has shown that they contain toxic chemicals comparable to those in petroleum-based plastics. These toxic compounds could be either additives used to improve the functional performance of plastic, or substances added unintentionally, such as byproducts created during manufacturing, he explains.

Fabbri echoes Wagner, highlighting that many bioplastics contain thousands of additives. She adds that a large part of the problem is that manufacturers do not have to list the additives they use. This makes it challenging for researchers to identify these chemicals, she adds, as they do not know what they are looking for.

While Fabbri believes bioplastics are a good innovation, she says we need to be certain they are safe and sustainable—and this includes the products of their degradation.

“If you produce bioplastic as a safer plastic, you should also ensure that everything coming out from those plastics—the microplastics, the fragments, and the leaching compounds—are safer as well,” Fabbri explains.

This article first appeared in Hakai Magazine and is republished here with permission.

The post Why we shouldn’t get too excited about bioplastics appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Researchers at the University of Birmingham have laid out a new, closed loop retrofit for industrial iron and steel furnaces that could reduce their overall greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 90 percent. If successfully implemented, the novel approach could be a gamechanger for some of the world’s most pesky polluters.

Steelmaking is one of modern society’s literal building blocks, but it comes at steep environmental costs—today, the iron and steel industries compose nearly 10 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions. The issues stem from traditional blast furnace operations, which requires distilling coal in coke ovens which eventually produce carbon monoxide. Once the coke interacts with iron ore in the furnace, its resultant “top gas” composed mainly of CO, CO2, and N2 is then burned to raise its air blast temperature as high as 1350C, with leftover pollutants released into the outside air.

[Related: The next generation of US nuclear plants could be tiny but powerful

Currently, the vast majority of plans for decarbonising the sector require phasing out existing steel and iron furnaces for renewable energy-powered electric arc facilities, or EAFs. Unfortunately, EAFs can cost billions of dollars to construct, making them an unlikely candidate for large-scale adoption in the timeframe necessary to stave off the worst of our climate crises.

As highlighted in their recent paper published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, however, the team at the University of Birmingham was able to capture CO2 from traditional furnaces’ top gas and reduce it to carbon monoxide and oxygen using a “perovskite” material made of a crystalline mineral latticework. The perovskite requires much lower temperatures to facilitate the chemical reactions which can be generated by either renewable energy sources, or even heat exchangers simply connected to the furnaces. Both the carbon monoxide and oxygen is then fed back into the furnace where needed in the steelmaking process to form a nearly perfect closed loop system.

[Related: Mexico bans solar geoengineering tests after US startup’s unsanctioned ‘science project’.]

According to researchers, if their method is implemented in the UK’s two remaining blast furnace plants, it could save over $1.5 billion within 5 years while reducing the country’s overall emissions by nearly 3 percent. Extrapolate that to the global steel and iron industries, and it’s easy to imagine how this could provide a huge boost towards our transition towards greener infrastructure.

The post New factory retrofit could reduce a steel plant’s carbon emissions by 90 percent appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

It’s been a pretty volatile couple of years for the world’s energy market. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the economy rapidly rebounding after COVID-19 lockdowns and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused record breaking spikes in the price of natural gas and oil prices hit their highest level since 2008 last year.

Three sites in Qatar are home to over 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas exports. But these site should monitored especially closely, because if an oil spill were to happen, an even more serious energy crisis would be eminent, according to a new study.

[Related: Yemen’s defunct oil tanker could set off a public health crisis.]

The study published January 12 by an international team of researchers in the journal Nature Sustainability pinpoints the location of a “high vulnerability zone” in the peninsula where an oil spill could shut down liquified natural gas export facilities and desalination plants on the coast for several days. 

To identify the offshore areas of the Qatar Peninsula that are vulnerable, the team used advanced numerical modeling to corollate data measured over the past five years on maritime data transports, circulation in the atmosphere, ocean currents, waves, and seafloor topographic map data.

They found that shutting down activity due to an oil spill in the most vulnerable area would almost certainly disrupt the global gas supply chain. A spill-induced shut down would also cause a significant water shortage for one of the world’s most at-risk countries for water scarcity. Qatar has used desalination to balance out its limited supply of groundwater for its growing population, but the process consumes a huge amount of energy.

According to the team, awareness of these vulnerability is imperative, especially since Qatar’s export capacity is expected to increase by approximately 64 percent over the next five years. Thus, this key port will continue to be a crucial hotspot in the global energy supply chain. An increased number of tanker incidents in the Gulf is also a concern, since these accidents could impact critical coastal infrastructure like the needed desalination plants.

[Related: What a key natural-gas pipeline has to do with the Russia-Ukraine crisis.]

Tanker ships—one of which can carry about enough energy to heat all of London for one week—crossing this area are the main risks for oil spills, not the oil rigs in the northern part of the Peninsula. The study finds that Qatar would only have a few days to contain an oil spill before the slicks would reach the country’s main liquefied gas export facility and desalination plant. Disruptions or a total shutdown of the desalination plant for just a day would force Qatar to rely on a small groundwater reserve and would increase liquified natural gas prices.  

To prevent the worst from happening, the study suggests increasing remote sensing in the Gulf’s most vulnerable areas with satellite and airborne images to increase warning times for spills and track how they evolve.

The study argues that the current vulnerability to environmental hazards in the Middle East is largely underestimated. Threats to water resources due to climate change was listed as the biggest threat to the Arab countries in the most recent Arab Barometer Report, a survey of 26,000 people in 12 countries conducted from October 2021 to July 2022.

“Global containment of major oil spills has always been challenging, but it is even harder in the shallow water of the Gulf where any intervention has to account for the complex circulation currents, a harsh operational environment, and the presence of highly-sensitive ecosystems on which three million humans rely for drinking water,” said co-author Essam Heggy from the University of Southern California Arid Climate and Water Research Center, in a statement. “I hope serious resources are put into resolving this vulnerability.”

The post An oil spill on this fuel-rich coast could be a supply chain catastrophe appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

At this point, there’s no denying that plastic pollution is ubiquitous. It appears in the remote corners of the Earth, the food chain, and even human bodies. To protect human and environmental health, global plastic pollution must be addressed.

With increasing public concern about climate change, companies might face higher expectations regarding corporate responsibility, especially those known to cause significant environmental impacts. 

In a recent One Earth study, the authors looked into the commitments made by the world’s largest companies between 2015 to 2020 to reduce plastic pollution. Based on the study, about 72 percent of the world’s largest companies have made some form of commitment to reducing plastic pollution, which ranges from one line of text to many pages of commitment. 

Although some companies have made commitments in recent years to reduce their plastic footprint, the work doesn’t end there—it’s necessary to analyze how effective they are at reducing plastic pollution. 

Corporate commitments have a limited impact on global plastic pollution

There’s no penalty for not fulfilling a non-binding commitment, especially when it comes from the company itself. It’s important to validate whether or not companies are doing what they actually promise to do, says Shelie Miller, a professor of sustainable systems at the University of Michigan.

Companies’ commitments frequently involve waste reduction strategies, like increasing recycled or recyclable content in packaging and advancing recycling-related efforts, notably paying less attention to how virgin plastic production can be reduced. For example, Nestlé Waters North America—now known as BlueTriton Brands—made a goal in 2008 to double the recycling rates for PET plastic, the kind of plastic used for water bottles, to 60 percent. However, the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) reported in 2018 that the average recycling rate of PET bottles hasn’t changed that much over the past decade.

Based on current trends, efforts to improve waste management may be overshadowed by the production and consumption of virgin plastic. Annual virgin plastic production is estimated to increase to 1.1 billion tonnes in 2050. By that time, the petrochemicals used to produce virgin plastic polymers may very well account for nearly half of the growth in oil demand, surpassing trucks, aviation, and shipping.

“We found limited evidence to suggest that corporate commitments are actually reducing the amount of global plastic pollution,” says Zoie Diana, a PhD candidate in the Division of Marine Science and Conservation at Duke University and author of the recent One Earth study. “Unfortunately, we found reports of companies lightweighting plastic.”

Lightweighting is a practice where companies slightly reduce the volume of plastic in their packaging, like making thinner PET bottles or shorter bottle caps, which you’ve probably already noticed in your local grocery store. While it’s good that companies produce lighter and smaller plastic products, if they reinvest their savings into markets that involve new plastic products, they might only increase the total mass of plastic produced, says Diana.

Companies usually strive to increase their sales, so even if less plastic is used per package, the number of packaging units is likely to increase. For instance, products like shampoo or coffee are often sold in tiny packets or sachets, which use more packaging material compared to larger product sizes. In addition, reducing the weight of plastic packaging doesn’t make the product any less likely to become trash.

[Related: A close look at the Great Pacific Garbage Patch reveals a common culprit.]

Sometimes, consumers are misled by products that aren’t as green as they seem. Bioplastics, produced wholly or in part from renewable biomass sources, are considered the more environmentally friendly alternative to petroleum-based plastics. However, they can still contribute to plastic pollution, global warming, and land use because not all bioplastics are the same and they aren’t always biodegradable.

While some bioplastics like those derived from cornstarch decompose in the soil, others only break down at high temperatures or after being treated in a landfill under very specific conditions. Even biodegradable bioplastics can still end up in landfills and produce methane gas as they decompose. Bioplastics made from crops also use up land that could have been used for growing food. It’s important to remember that bioplastics are still just plastics, even if they are made from a different material.

Boxed water products, often touted as an eco-friendly alternative to bottled water due to the paper-based carton packaging, also appear to be better for the environment than they really are. In reality, the cartons aren’t made entirely from paper because they require plastic film and aluminum to waterproof the paper and seal the content. Moreover, they’re not necessarily easier to recycle. Only 60 percent of households in the country have access to carton recycling, whereas 87 percent of the U.S. population has access to a municipal collection of PET bottles.

Companies must reduce plastic production and overall consumption

Although recycling is an important step aimed at reducing plastic pollution, it’s not that effective. A 2017 Science Advances study reported that only nine percent of the plastic ever created had been recycled. Aside from the 12 percent of plastics that were incinerated, this means that all the plastics that were produced remain in landfills or the natural environment, continuing to pollute the planet. Even if recycling efforts were improved, they might be unlikely to keep pace with the growing rate of plastic consumption.

“We suspect that, at best, the emphasis on recycling found in this study reflects industry efforts to raise global recycling rates and, at worst, reflects industry attempts to shift responsibility toward consumers, greenwashing, and potential pre-emption of legislation aimed at reducing plastic pollution,” says Diana.

A number of companies recently explored creative ways to minimize their plastic use. In 2018, brewing company Carlsberg introduced its Snap Pack to dramatically cut plastic waste. They did away with plastic rings by bonding a six-pack of beer cans together with glue instead. When all of their four-, six-, and eight-pack beers globally have been converted to use this innovation, it would save about 1323 tons of plastic annually, the equivalent of around 60 million plastic bags. Meanwhile, Walmart Canada eliminated plastic wraps of organic banana bunches and single peppers in 2019, preventing almost 94,000 kilograms of plastic waste. 

Commitments like lightweighting and more recycling only divert attention from preventive measures that reduce virgin plastic production. The tap on unnecessary plastic production must be turned off, but only three percent of the top 300 companies on the Fortune Global 500 explicitly targeted virgin or newly produced plastics, says Diana. Unilever has a current pledge to halve the amount of virgin plastic they use in their packaging by 2025.

“Many companies focus on making packaging more recyclable or increasing the recycled content in their products,” says Miller. “While these efforts are an improvement over the status quo, they do not fully eliminate the environmental impacts of plastic.”

[Related: Dozens of companies with ‘net-zero’ goals just got called out for greenwashing.]

According to PepsiCo, 87 percent of its packaging is recyclable, compostable, or biodegradable. The multinational food, snack, and beverage corporation hopes to reach 100 percent by 2025. However, Miller notes that improving the ability of packaging to be recycled doesn’t necessarily ensure that it will actually be recycled in practice. Furthermore, a recyclable plastic that escapes waste streams and ends up in the environment can cause just as much ecological damage as a non-recyclable one, she adds.

The environmental impact of plastic pollution can only be partially addressed through improved packaging and recycling efforts because plastics don’t just cause harm when they are discarded. Starting from their production, they already contribute emissions that occur through natural gas extraction and plastic manufacturing. In the United States alone, fossil fuel extraction and production associated with plastic manufacturing contributed at least 9.5 to 10.5 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents back in 2015. Therefore, reducing plastic production and consumption remains to be a critical part of addressing plastic pollution.

“We tend to focus on visible impacts such as solid waste generation, but there are also upstream environmental impacts that are usually invisible to us,” says Miller. “The best way to reduce the environmental impacts of plastic is to reduce overall consumption. Reducing the amount of stuff that we consume is key to reducing environmental impact, not just making it easier to recycle.”

The post How companies greenwash their plastic pollution appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Undark.

The world’s aquatic habitats are a heady brew of pollutants. An estimated 14 million tons of plastic enter the ocean as trash each year. Further inland, more than 40 percent of the world’s rivers contain a pharmacopeia from humans, including antidepressants and painkillers. Heavy metals like mercury from industrial waste can also make an appearance. And agricultural fertilizer can leach from the soil into rivers, eventually reaching the ocean.

There are an estimated 20,000 species of fish in the world — and possibly many more. They and many other organisms that live in “contaminated systems are contaminated with a cocktail of chemicals,” said Michael Bertram, a behavioral ecologist at the Swedish University of Agricultural Studies.

Bertram and other researchers are increasingly finding that these compounds may alter fish behavior. In some experiments, the pollutants appear to alter how fish socialize, either by exposing them to psychoactive drugs or by altering their natural development, which may change how they swim together and mate. Others appear to make fish take more risks which, in the wild, could increase their odds of getting unceremoniously taken out by predators.

The effects of the pollution, according to researchers working in the field, still have many unknowns. This is due in part to the vast number of variables in real ecosystems, which can limit scientists’ abilities to infer how pollutants impact fish in the wild, said Quentin Petitjean, a postdoctoral researcher in environmental sciences at Institut Sophia Agrobiotech in France, and co-author of a 2020 paper that looked at existing literature on pollution and fish behavior. “In the wild, fish and other organisms are exposed to a plethora of stressors,” he said.

Still, these altered behaviors could have big impacts, according to Bertram. Like many living things, fish are important parts of their ecosystems, and changing their behavior could hinder or alter their roles in unexpected ways. For instance one study suggests that various chemical pollutants and microplastics can impact the boldness of prey fish species. Although the authors note that this isn’t likely to lead to population collapse, these “subtle behavior modifications” could reduce fish biomass, alter their size, and ultimately harm predators as well. Just this one effect, they add, “may be a hidden mechanism behind ecosystem structure changes in both freshwater and marine ecosystems.”

But humans have a funny way of showing their appreciation. One example: People regularly flush psychoactive substances, which then find their way into aquatic ecosystems. In 2021, Bertram and a team of researchers published a paper digging into how a common antidepressant, fluoxetine, better known under the brand name Prozac, affected guppies’ propensity for shoaling, or swimming in groups. Over two years, the team exposed groups of guppies to different concentrations of fluoxetine: a low concentration (commonly seen in the wild), a high concentration (representative of an extremely contaminated ecosystem), and no fluoxetine at all.

At the high exposure concentration, the guppies appeared to be more social, spending more time shoaling. However, this was only the case in of male-female pairs, not when the fish swam solo. Previous research by Bertram and colleagues shows that the medication increases the amount of time guppy males spend pursuing females. “Being intensely courted” by males, Bertram said, the females will preferentially choose the larger school to distract them and “to avoid this incessant mating behavior.”

While drugs like Prozac are designed to change brain function, there are other, perhaps less obvious ways pollution can change behavior. For instance, pollutants may alter the microbiome, the collection of microscopic organisms like fungi and bacteria that exist on or in an organism. In humans, disruptions of microbial life have been linked to disorders such as autism spectrum disorder, dementia, or even simply cognitive impairment. Research published in 2022 suggests that fish brains may also rely on the collection of minuscule organisms.

In the study, researchers worked with two groups of zebrafish embryos that they had rendered germ-free, functionally stripping them of microbes. Into the containers holding one group of embryos, the team immediately introduced water from a tank with full-grown zebrafish to give the disinfected population a microbiome. After a week, they did the same for the other group.

After yet another week, the researchers ran a series of experiments, putting two fish from the same group in neighboring tanks to see if they would swim alongside each other, a shoaling behavior previously identified.

The fish deprived of an early life microbiome spent much less time doing this behavior than those in the control group. Of the 54 control fish, nearly 80 percent spent their time near the divider between the tanks, compared to around 65 percent of the 67 in the other group. Exposure to microbes early in life is important for the development of social behavior, said Judith Eisen, a neuroscientist and one of the paper’s authors.

The researchers also looked at the brains of the fish using powerful microscopes. Normally, cells called microglia move from the gut to the brain early in the fishes’ lives, Eisen said, around the time their microbiome starts to develop. The fish that lived without microbiomes for a week, she and the team found, had fewer microglia in a particular brain region which has been previously linked to the shoaling behavior. In normal brains (including human ones), these cells perform synaptic pruning, which clears away weaker or less used connections.

Of course, the germ-free state of those zebrafish, Eisen said, would not exist in nature. However, some human pollutants like pesticides, microplastics, and metals like cadmium appear to alter fish microbiomes. Considering shoaling is often a protective behavior, a diminished shoaling response may cause problems in the wild. “If it doesn’t want to hang out with other fish — that might open it up to predation,” Eisen said.

Pollutants can impact behavior beyond shoaling, and saltwater ecosystems as well. In a 2020 study, researchers took Ambon damselfish larvae back to the lab and exposed some of them to microplastic beads. Then, they returned the young fish to different stretches of the Great Barrier reef — some of which were degraded and others that were still healthy — and observed how they acted. The team had also tagged the fish with tiny fluorescent tags, and returned to the reef several times over three days to check on their survival rate.

The fish that had been exposed to microplastics showed more risk-taking behavior and survived for less time before being preyed upon, according to the study. Nearly all the tagged fish that were exposed to microplastics and set free near dead reefs died after around 50 hours. Meanwhile, around 70 percent of unexposed fish released near living reefs survived past the 72-hour mark. According to the paper, while the health of the reef was a factor in risk behavior, fish exposed to the plastics had a survival rate six times lower than those not exposed to the compounds.

According to Alexandra Gulizia, one of the paper’s authors and a Ph.D. student at James Cook University, there needs to be more work looking into the components of plastics and how they affect fish. For instance, bisphenol-A, more commonly known as BPA, is a common additive to make plastics more flexible. It also appears in natural habitats and research suggests it can decrease aggression in fish. Gulizia added: “I think that we’re only just touching the surface of the chemical impacts that microplastics are having on fish and fish behavior.”

How this all plays out in the wild is hard to assess. Eisen noted that other factors that could impact the microbiome include nutrients in the water, water temperature, diet, and salt concentration. Another, perhaps more direct complication: Contaminants can appear simultaneously, and in different amounts, Petitjean said. For instance, one 2016 paper shows that 13 percent of 426 pollutants in European rivers have been shown to be neuroactiv

Another complication is simply that not all organisms will act the same — even within the same species. According to Eisen, model organisms, such as zebrafish, are chosen to represent a wide range of species, just as mice are often used to study human health in medical research. But changes to pollutants and other factors could differ from species to species. Bertram noted that using model organisms saves researchers the trouble of studying every single species, but also that there should be more studies into different fish.

At face value, some behavior changes might not even look that bad. Increased mating behavior — like in the case of guppies exposed to fluoxetine — could seem like a boon for the species. However, one species thriving over another tends to throw natural habitats out of whack, Bertram said. His previous work suggests that Prozac similarly increases invasive eastern mosquitofish mating behavior. This could help it thrive and outcompete native species. Additionally, at some concentrations, cadmium can increase fish activity, potentially helping them find food. However, the more they eat, Petitjean said, the more exposed they could be to microplastics.

Given these circumstances, he added, experiments in the lab need to inject as much complexity as possible into their methods to better replicate real, wild systems. Some research does try this. Bertram’s work showed the test guppies either a predatory or a similarly sized, non-predatory fish prior to their experiments, while Gulizia and her team performed parts of their experiment in the wild. Some studies also expose fish species to water taken from the environment — and the pollutants that come with it.

Despite the unknowns, Bertram said that changes to how fish go about socializing, mating, or finding food are unlikely to be good. “At the end of the day,” he continued, “any change to the expression of natural behaviors will have negative, unintended consequences.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

The post Plastic, pollution, and prescription drugs are making fish act erratically appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Last December, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized its emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles as part of its Clean Trucks Plan, clean air regulations that aim to reduce greenhouse gasses (GHG) and pollutants from the transportation sector. This new rule is the first time pollution standards for buses, semi-trucks, and commercial delivery trucks have been updated in more than 20 years.

The main focus of the new standards is nitrogen oxides (NOx), irritant gasses released by gasoline and diesel engines. Regulations tackling the reduction of other GHG emissions (like carbon dioxide and methane) would follow in the spring, EPA Administrator Michael Regan told The New York Times. Revised GHG standards for all heavy-duty vehicles might not start until the model year 2030.

When heavy-duty vehicles emit NOx, they “react in the atmosphere to form pollutants like fine particulate matter and ozone,” says Noelle Eckley Selin, professor in the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “These pollutants are damaging to human health, as they lead to cardiovascular and respiratory issues.”

[Related: The EPA wants more ‘renewable’ fuel. But what does that actually mean?]

Heavy-duty vehicles contribute about 23 percent of GHG emissions from the transportation sector, making them the second-largest contributor only behind light-duty vehicles like cars. New vehicles, starting with the model year 2027, are required to comply with the updated clean air standards. The EPA says the new regulations are more than 80 percent stronger than the current ones, which also cover a broader range of the vehicle’s operating conditions.

For instance, NOx emissions are high when vehicles idle or operate in stop-and-go traffic—so-called low-load conditions that aren’t subject to current emission standards. Yet these low-load operations are estimated to account for most of the vehicle’s NOx emissions during a typical workday, which is why the scope of the new standards will include them as well. The new rule also requires manufacturers to make sure that emission control systems function properly and aren’t prone to tampering by the drivers.

According to the EPA, the new rule can reduce the NOx emissions of heavy-duty vehicles by 48 percent in 2045. By then, the agency expects the pollution reduction to have provided substantial health benefits, resulting in 18,000 fewer cases of childhood asthma, 3.1 million fewer cases of asthma and allergic rhinitis symptoms, and 78,000 fewer lost days of work.

Emission reduction in the transportation sector would not only reduce health burden, but also support environmental justice and equity, says Eri Saikawa, associate professor of environmental sciences at Emory University. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles cause a disproportionate impact on people of color and low-income communities because they are more likely to live or attend school near major roadways, resulting in greater-than-average exposures to these pollutants.

[Related: Urban sprawl defines unsustainable cities, but it can be undone.]

To mitigate air pollution and climate change, Saikawa emphasizes the need to also reduce emissions of black carbon, a short-lived but potent climate pollutant that heavy-duty vehicles produce as well. It is not yet clear if black carbon emissions would be addressed in the updated EPA regulations to come.

Even though air pollution in the US has significantly improved over the past decades, Selin says it remains harmful at current levels. Additional policies, especially those striving for net zero goals, would have plenty of potential to reduce other aspects of air pollution. “Efficiency improvements and emissions reductions will be important, but ultimately addressing the impacts of climate change and air pollution together will require zero-emission alternatives,” she adds.

The White House has major federal actions in place that will accelerate and advance the use of clean heavy-duty vehicles. The production of new technologies like zero-emission heavy-duty trucks is also expected to increase in the near future, helping support the effectiveness of the Clean Trucks Plan.

“This is a difficult sector to decarbonize, and this will require innovations in technology as well as new policy actions,” says Selin. Coordinated efforts to tackle the sector’s environmental impacts, she adds, will be vital to ensure those affected by air pollution receive the “greatest possible benefit.”

The post EPA updates emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles for the first time in 20 years appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

For a while now, gas stoves have come under heat for their health and environmental impacts. However, after Biden-appointed US Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. called gas stoves a “hidden hazard” and remarked that “any option is on the table” to regulate them during a recent interview with Bloomberg, the White House jumped quickly to respond.

A White House spokesperson told CNN on January 11, “The President does not support banning gas stoves – and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is independent, is not banning gas stoves.”

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric also clarified that he is “not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so.”

[Related: Gas stoves could be making thousands of children in America sick.]

“CPSC is researching gas emissions in stoves and exploring new ways to address health risks. CPSC also is actively engage in strengthening voluntary safety standards for gas stoves. And later this spring, we will be asking the public to provide us with information about gas stove emissions and potential solutions for reducing any associated risks,” he added.

Gas stoves can produce and emit dangerous levels of carbon monoxide, methane, benzene, and nitrogen dioxide, especially if they are used in poorly ventilated spaces and aren’t properly maintained. According to a study published in January 2022, they can leak methane (a planet-warming gas) even when they are turned off.

They have also been linked to asthma and other worsening respiratory conditions. A study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in December 2022 found that 12.7 percent of cases of childhood asthma in the United States could be due to gas stoves in the home. The study estimates that 650,000 people under 18 could be affected.

Multiple politicians including Democrats Cory Booker from New Jersey, Ted Lieu of California, and Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, also signed a letter to the CSPC saying that adverse reactions from gas stoves are more likely to occur in Black, Latinx, and low-income households since they are either more likely to live closer to a coal ash site or waste incinerator or have poor ventilation in the home.

Gas Stoves have recently become a cultural flash point. Republicans and fossil fuel allies are rallying behind the kitchen appliances, claiming government overreach and pledging to defend the stoves currently in about 40 million homes in the US.

Texas Republican Ronny Jackson tweeted, “I’ll NEVER give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands. COME AND TAKE IT!!” He also encouraged his followers to sign a Republican National Committee petition to protect gas.

[Related: Your gas stove could be hurting everyone around you.]

In addition, 21 states have passed laws that prevent cities from prohibiting gas use in buildings and the gas industry has also paid influencers on Instagram to chalk up the benefits gas stoves in cooking to try to get younger consumers hooked.

Experts still contend that the stoves are hazardous to health and should be phased out in new homes and other buildings. On January 11, New York’s governor called for the country’s most aggressive ban on using fossil fuels in new buildings. Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul urged the state legislature to phase out selling fossil fuel heating equipment in existing residential buildings in 2030 and in 2035 in commercial structures. She also proposed a requirement that all new buildings (residential and commercial) by 2025 and 2030.

The changes will also face an uphill climb from powerful industry groups representing fossil fuels.

“Industry groups will push back and fight any proposal to ban gas stove use. Consequently, it will likely be difficult for the commission to ban it outright immediately, but there are other things they can – and should – do,” said University of Massachusetts Lowell researcher David Turcotte in a statement. Turcotte is part of a government initiative studying how the pollutants emitted from gas stoves are affecting asthma rates in those living in public and subsidized rental housing. The research is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Some of the ways to reduce risks from gas stoves are opening windows when stoves are in use, using an exhaust hood, using the stove less often (electric tea kettle instead of a traditional stove top one), and using an air purifier.

Correction (1/25/23): An earlier version of this post incorrectly listed Ted Lieu as a senator from Hawaii. He is a congressperson from California.

The post Despite fiery debate, Biden isn’t banning gas stoves in the US appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Wasting resources is a huge cause of environmental degradation. At our current rate, we’re on track to 3.4 billion metric tons of solid trash by 2050. This route is completely untenable for both civilization and the overall environment, but given that roughly only 20 percent of that is currently recycled annually, we’ll need to get really creative quickly to address this issue.

Researchers at the University of Cambridge found a potential solution to this challenge by recently developing a novel process using just energy from the sun to transform plastic trash and greenhouse gasses into sustainable fuel and other valuable materials. As detailed in the journal Nature Synthesis, the team successfully created a solar-powered reactor capable of transforming CO2 into syngas, a pivotal component within sustainable liquid fuels. At the same time, the setup also managed to take plastic bottles and break them down into glycolic acid, a chemical often used within the cosmetics industry.

[Related: A potentially revolutionary solar harvester just left the planet.]

The new integrated reactor contains two compartments, one for the greenhouse gasses and one for the plastic waste, reliant on a new and promising silicon alternative, perovskite, for its solar cells. Persovskite innovations have rapidly improved its efficiency rates from just 3 percent in 2009 to recently over 25 percent. As such, it could soon become a major component of solar power manufacturing, although barriers still need overcoming for its stability, lifespan, and scalability.

From there, researchers created different catalysts for the light absorber, which changed the final recycled product depending on which one was used, including CO, syngas, and glycolic acid. What’s more, the breakthrough reactor pulled all this off with a greater efficiency than standard photocatalytic CO2 methods, all BY simply shining sunlight into the setup.

“A solar-driven technology that could help to address plastic pollution and greenhouse gasses at the same time could be a game-changer in the development of a circular economy,” says the study’s co-first author, Subhajit Bhattacharjee.

[Related: Solar energy company wants to bolt panels directly into the ground.]

Researchers’ ability to fine-tune the integrated reactor’s end result products depending on the input catalyst also shows immense promise for additional outputs. The paper notes that, although the initial studies were limited to simple carbon-based molecules, future experiments could result in far more complex products. Further advancements along these lines could even one day offer a new type of entirely solar-powered recycling plant, ostensibly providing society with a circular economy in which very little, if anything, is wasted.

“Developing a circular economy, where we make useful things from waste instead of throwing it into landfill, is vital if we’re going to meaningfully address the climate crisis and protect the natural world,” said the study’s other co-first author, Motiar Reisner. “And powering these solutions using the Sun means that we’re doing it cleanly and sustainably.”

The post Scientists just got one step closer to solar-powered recycling plants appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Above 10 miles in the sky lies a layer of ozone—a form of orange gas with molecules of three atoms, rather than two. This ozone layer is a crucial shield that protects all life from the sun’s barrage of ultraviolet radiation. So what happens if something in the ozone layer goes horribly wrong? 

The results can be catastrophic. And we have prehistoric proof that might support that.

It comes from the time of the worst mass extinction in Earth’s history—252 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period when an apocalyptic cascade of volcanic eruptions may have turned the world toxic. And it comes in the form of fossilized pollen grains with signs of exposure to a high-energy type of ultraviolet known as ultraviolet B (UV-B) radiation. In a paper published today in the journal Science Advances, an international group of geologists and botanists used the deformed specimens to piece together a possible course of deadly events.

“I would say the elevated UV-B radiation probably played a part in the extinction of some terrestrial life,” says Feng Liu, a geologist at the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology in China and one of the paper’s authors. Scientists have long suspected that a drop in ozone levels and spike in ultraviolet rays might have played a role in this catastrophe, and now they have data to show for it.

[Related: Geologists are searching for when the Earth took its first breath]

One prime suspect for the end-of-the-Permian devastation is the Siberian Traps. These igneous rocks coat central Siberia (which, at the time, was one of the northernmost chunks of the supercontinent Pangaea) and were spewed from a truly colossal complex of volcanoes. Experts think that for more than a million years, the Siberian Traps belched greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere. 

In the wake of constant volcanic activity, teeming ancient oceans would have acidified and deoxygenated, turning toxic and sentencing more than 80 percent of their resident marine species to extinction. Life would of course recover, but it needed millions of years more to return to its pre-extinction abundance.

That explains much of the prehistoric carnage in the water, but what about on land? What types of terrestrial organisms died, and why? The fossil record there is much less clear.

[Related on PopSci+: An ancient era of global warming could hint at our scorching future]

Researchers had previously dug up clues of some immense destruction. For instance, several parts of that ancient world were once covered with forests of great ferns. Both of these biomes vanish from the fossil record around the end of the Permian, suggesting that ground dwellers suffered worldwide. 

Still, other experts contend that the fossil record could be misleading, and the extinctions were more regional. “It’s a case of compiling lots of pieces of information from different places, and trying to build it together into a coherent—albeit incomplete—picture,” says Phillip Jardine, a paleobotanist at the University of Münsterin in Germany and author on the new paper. So far, that picture doesn’t tell us what, exactly, caused the deaths on land.

But these scientists may have found a missing piece. In 2014, Liu collected samples from rocks under what is now southern Tibet. When he and his colleagues studied the rock closely, they found ancient grains of conjoined and misshapen pollen.

To understand what caused the damage, the team analyzed the pollen and sought out particular compounds containing carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. Plants would have created these chemicals to protect themselves from UV-B radiation, which consists of shorter wavelengths than visible light and therefore, higher energies. As a result, UV-B rays can cause more damage to living cells than UV-A.

Scientists like Jardine had used the same technique to study UV-B levels that reached Earth’s surface a few hundred thousand years ago. But this was the first time anybody had tried to look for these compounds from 252 million years ago. And Jardine and Liu’s group did find them.

“I think the key thing is that we have definite evidence that plants were affected by this,” says Jardine. “The increase in UV-B-absorbing compounds that we have observed shows that plants were biochemically responding to this situation.”

The hunch is that at the Permian period’s end, volcanic activity unleashed gases known as halocarbons, which contain atoms of halogens like chlorine and bromine. The chemicals might have eaten away at the ozone layer, allowing more UV-B travel to the ground. That, in turn, would have stunted plant growth and reproduction, possibly leading to fewer flora pulling toxic carbon dioxide out of the air.

“Whilst it would be pre-emptive of me to suggest ozone depletion or elevated UV radiation were the only cause of these mass extinctions, it certainly seems plausible that increasing UV radiation at a time when the global ecosystem is already under considerable stress is likely to exacerbate negative impacts on life on Earth,” says Wesley Fraser, a geologist at Oxford Brookes University in the UK and another one of the study authors.

[Related: Tonga survived the largest volcanic plume in the planet’s history this year]

If UV-B really did make the planet more unlivable in that period, the devastation may have happened globally. Of course, scientists will need to find hard evidence of that. “These data only came from one locality, so we need to find more from the same time interval to validate these findings,” says Jardine.

Though the mass extinction at the end of the Permian is considered the deadliest, there were more. Scientists have identified similar mortality events at the ends of the Devonian (around 360 million years ago) and the Triassic (around 201 million years ago) periods. And according to Fraser, scientists have found traces of ultraviolet poisoning in those extinctions, too.

“There may be a common thread involving UV radiation spanning different mass extinction events,” says Fraser. Even if ultraviolet radiation wasn’t the primary killer, it might have been the accomplice that helped do in much of the world’s terrestrial life.

And while the Permian is ancient history, we’re still wrestling with the problem of UV-B radiation today. It was not too long ago that the world was in alarm over an ozone hole over Antarctica, caused by compounds known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) leaching into the atmosphere from the refrigerators and air conditioners that once used them. Many were concerned that the ozone hole would expand and leave large parts of the globe exposed to burning UV radiation.

[Related on PopSci+: Rocket fuel might be polluting the Earth’s upper atmosphere]

After governments came together in 1987 to craft the Montreal Protocol and ban CFCs, the ozone hole began to heal. But the damage was done, and it continues to affect plants today.

With that in mind, learning about how UV-B exposure affected plants in the past could inform scientists about what may happen in the near future. And vice versa, Fraser explains. “I think deep-time and modern-day research on UV-B radiation go hand-in-glove.” 

The post UV radiation might be behind the planet’s biggest mass extinction appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Manufacturing company 3M announced on Tuesday its intentions to cease manufacturing hazardous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, alongside a vague commitment to “work to discontinue the use of PFAS across its product portfolio” by the end of 2025. The news comes just days after The Chicago Tribune reports that the 3M has potentially dumped untold quantities of PFAS into the Mississippi River since 1975.

PFAS were first developed in the 1940s, with 3M quickly becoming one of both their earliest producers and users. Since then, over 9,000 variations of the appropriately monikered “forever chemicals” have become ubiquitous as non-stick and water resistant coatings across the furniture, food packaging, apparel, and cosmetics industries, just to name a few.

[Related: How to stay away from PFAS.]

But that convenience has come at a steep and sometimes deadly cost to the planet and human health. Countless studies link PFAs to various cancers, health issues, animal harm, and environmental degradation, given their inability to naturally biodegrade over time. Numerous vital water sources are shown to be contaminated with the chemicals. The bodies of over 97 percent of Americans are estimated to contain PFAS, and researchers have even found them in breast milk.

After decades of mounting research highlighting the controversies and issues surrounding PFAS, some companies are finally reaching a point where the financial costs outweigh the potential profits. As Gizmodo notes, manufacturers like 3M are facing thousands of lawsuits and regulatory investigations pertaining to PFAS fallout, costing them billions of dollars. In 2018, for example, 3M alone agreed to an $850 million class action settlement with the state of Minnesota following 8 years of legal battles. The company’s announcement, therefore, can be seen as an accounting decision more than an ethical one, critics argue.

Although the company plans to exit the PFAS manufacturing market sound positive enough, their statement only says that they will “work to discontinue the use of PFAS across its product portfolio.” Environmental promises that don’t set hard targets often end up falling short, or “greenwash” a company’s image.

[Related: Scared about forever chemicals? Here’s what you need to know.]

“3M is committing to innovate toward a world less dependent upon PFAS,” reads the company’s press release, before immediately following with the declaration that all its products  “are safe for their intended uses.” 

The post 3M announces it will cease making ‘forever chemical’ PFAS by 2026 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Last month, the US Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice announced more than a million dollars in penalties against companies for polluting local waterways. The culprits? Four solar farms in Illinois, Alabama, and Idaho.

“The development of solar energy is a key component of [the Biden] administration’s efforts to combat climate change,” said Larry Starfield, an administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a press release on November 14. “These settlements send an important message to the site owners of solar farm projects that these facilities must be planned and built-in compliance with all environmental laws.”

Each of the large-scale solar projects, which shared a common contractor, violated construction permits and mismanaged storm water controls, causing harmful buildup of sediment in waterways. As private companies race to build renewable capability, the EPA’s case with the four solar farms illustrates a central challenge: While gleaning energy from the sun might be a panacea to overconsumption of fossil fuels, building a clean power grid that can harness solar energy is often more complicated.

[Related: Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?]

Experts say a path to net zero emissions will almost certainly require solar energy—and that calls for a hard look at the challenges these sweeping facilities face with clean construction and more ethical production of panels.

Building and recycling solar panels

Most solar panels used in the US today start out as sand. Scientists purify the grains into almost pure crystalline silicon, but the process requires a large amount of electricity. Almost 80 percent of a solar panel’s carbon footprint can come from this purification process alone, according to Annick Anctil, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Michigan State University.

“Where that electricity is coming from is really important,” Anctil says. “If you’re making solar panels in a place where electricity uses coal or natural gas, that makes your solar panels not as green as if you’re able to produce it from solar energy.”

Solar panels are built to last about 30 years. At the end of their lifecycle, installers can either throw them into a landfill or recycle them, but there isn’t much infrastructure for reusing the materials in the panels since the industry is new. 

Government agencies, organizations, research groups, and companies worldwide have begun developing technologies and creating recycling programs to break down solar panels and materials. The US-based Solar Energy Industries Association, for instance, has been creating a network to help consumers identify where they can recycle their solar panels and installers find a place to purchase recycled modules, Anctil explains. The association reports it’s processed over 4 million pounds of solar panels and related equipment since its recycling program launched in 2016. Luckily, if panels wind up in landfills, the glass and silicon materials are not toxic, Anctil says. (She does note that the metal frame needs to be broken down, too.)

There isn’t comprehensive data about how many solar panels are recycled versus thrown away in the US. Large-scale production of solar panels only began about 10 years ago, so it’s likely that most haven’t reached the end of their life cycle yet.

Grading land for solar farms

Solar panels are easier and cheaper to install on leveled ground, which often requires companies to mow down trees and local vegetation. Leveling, or grading, the land can lead to soil erosion and eventually sediment runoff, where storms force eroded soil to travel downhill, sometimes into waterways. Too much soil in bodies of water can disrupt local ecosystems, hurt the plants and animals that live in them, and damage drinking water treatment systems.

In the recent settlement, the EPA and Department of Justice charged the four solar farms with violating the Clean Water Act by failing to prepare for the sediment runoff created during construction. The agencies alleged that two of the farms in Idaho and Alabama even discharged sediment illegally into nearby waterways.

Dustin Mulvaney, an environmental studies professor at San José State University in California whose research focuses on solar energy commodity chains, says these violations appeared to be “really manageable problems” that the companies should have had under control. “Where [solar farms often] go wrong is they assume they understand the landscape,” Mulvaney says. But when building starts, “they run into endangered species conflicts, stormwater issues, and air pollution issues.”

Grading the land for solar farms “is like any other road construction project,” Anctil says. “It’s just unfortunate that some companies in the construction [process] just didn’t care or weren’t careful.” The runoff from building these recent solar farms could have been avoided by, say, planting vegetation to catch some of the soil and water.

Anctil and Mulvaney say that regulations can help prevent these kinds of water and pollution issues from construction projects. While the bidding process for projects varies from state to state, stronger government assessments could ensure that solar companies preserve the environments they’re otherwise capitalizing on.

Since farmland is already flat and offers room to scale up, it’s been a prime candidate for solar projects—with energy companies incentivizing farmers with financial returns. But converting this land into solar farms also presents cultural and wildlife issues. Farmers may be reluctant to see their land converted from rows of crops to rows of synthetic panels. 

While the construction process has the potential to cause significant land disturbance, solar farms do offer some immediate benefits to farmers and the environment, David Murray, director of solar policy for American Clean Power, wrote in a statement to Popular Science. In some setups, growers can plant crops between or alongside the panels. “Ecosystem services are an understated benefit of large-scale solar sites and once operational, solar facilities yield less nutrient runoff and require far less pesticide and herbicides compared to row crop agriculture,” Murray writes. 

Accountability from start to finish

The four solar farms that violated the Clean Water Act are all subsidiaries of international finance and investment companies. But Mulvaney argues that what’s even worse are inexperienced solar developers that build a single arm and then soon disband. He’s seen “quite a few projects” handed to these temporary companies.

“When you have these entities that do one-offs and then vaporize, there’s absolutely no accountability at all,” he says. “That’s a structural problem.”

[Related: Dams show promise for sustainable food systems, but we should tread lightly]

While public and private groups might feel the urgency in building renewable energy systems, it’s important to be cautious about how the systems themselves are built and sourced, Anctil says.

“The problem is people tend to just look at how much electricity is going to be produced,” she explains. “We need to plan and choose panels considering not just the electricity production but the full lifecycle.”

A more environmentally conscious process is needed from start to finish. Sand should be legally and ethically mined, Anctil says. Developers also need to consider how to build sustainable  solar arrays that minimize the impacts on the local habitat. Better recycling plans should be in place for the solar panels once they reach the end of their lives. And like with any other major construction project, renewable energy companies should take heed of state and federal environmental regulations.

“I’m not trying to kill solar,” Anctil says. “It’s making sure that in 5 or 10 years from now, we don’t find out there’s a new environmental disaster.” 

The post The hard truth of building clean solar farms appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Nitrogen fertilizers play a significant role in global crop production. About half of the human population is supported by food grown with fertilizers. Although the planet’s atmosphere comprises approximately 78 percent nitrogen, it doesn’t come in a reactive form that plants can utilize. It wasn’t until 1908 that chemists developed a technique to convert nitrogen from the atmosphere into a state of synthetic nitrogen that plants could use.

This technique, called the Haber-Bosch process, is how nitrogen is captured from the air and reacted with hydrogen to produce ammonia, an effective fertilizer that plants can absorb from the soil. This process is the standard industrial procedure for making ammonia today, but it accounts for about 1.4 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions.

“The hydrogen in ammonia is sourced from fossil fuels, such as natural gas, and nitrogen is sourced from air,” says Saurajyoti Kar, a postdoctoral researcher at the Argonne National Laboratory. “Using fossil fuel as a raw material and source of energy for the conversion process increases the energy and environmental penalty of producing the nitrogen-rich fertilizer using [the] conventional production process.”

[Related: Pee makes for great fertilizer. But is it safe?]

The global ammonia market is predicted to reach $82.40 billion in 2026. Given how energy-intensive the Haber-Bosch process is, producers must take greener approaches to fulfill the increasing demand for fertilizers. In a recent Science of The Total Environment study, researchers evaluated the process of removing ammonia from wastewater and converting it into fertilizer, which can be a more sustainable alternative.

Municipal wastewater generally contains a high concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus, says Kar, who was involved in the study. At treatment facilities, the wastewater is treated to reduce this concentration and avoid issues—like eutrophication, which can lead to algae overgrowth— when it is discharged to surface water bodies, he adds.

By capturing nitrogen from wastewater, producers may avoid the energy-intensive production of ammonia. In addition, it reuses nitrogen that is already fixed in the atmosphere. “One of the ways of capturing the nitrogen at wastewater treatment facilities is by air-stripping,” says Kar. “At a certain process temperature, excess ammonia from wastewater stream transfers from liquid to gaseous phase, which can further react with acids to form stable nitrogen-rich fertilizers.”

The authors conducted a life-cycle analysis and found that air-stripping ammonia from wastewater treatment plants to make nitrogen-rich fertilizer produces six times fewer GHG emissions than the Haber-Bosch process. Air-stripping technology produces between 0.2 to 0.5 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of ammonium sulfate, which is significantly lower than 2.5 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of ammonium sulfate from the Haber-Bosch process. Using renewable energy sources for the air-stripping process may reduce emissions even further.

[Related: Bees can sense a flower’s electric field—unless fertilizer messes with the buzz.]

“Using air-stripping-based nitrogen fertilizer can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions burden from agriculture and contribute towards decarbonization goals for agriculture,” says Kar. The agriculture sector made up 11 percent of the country’s GHG emissions in 2020, including applying fertilizers.

Aside from environmental benefits, wastewater treatment facilities may also have economic upsides. Should they establish the infrastructure for an air-stripping system, the capital cost and operation costs can be surpassed by the revenue generated from selling the recovered ammonia, says Kar.

Overall, the study demonstrates that there is a more sustainable alternative to the energy-intensive nitrogen production process. Though air-stripping may produce fertilizer on a smaller scale than the standard Haber-Bosch process, recovering and reusing any amount of nitrogen still helps minimize GHG emissions and prevent pollutants from reaching water sources.

The post Wastewater could be the secret to eco-friendly fertilizer appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Most bodies of water are naturally teeming with microbial life—and the Mediterranean Sea is no exception. Now, the Mediterranean’s microscopic marine organisms have a new way of getting around. They are hitching a ride on a growing fleet of plastic ships: microfibers. 

In a recent study published on November 30 in the journal PLOS One, a team of biologists from Sorbonne Université in France have discovered 195 species of bacteria living on microfibers floating in the Mediterranean Sea. According to their analysis, a single microfiber could be home to more than 2,600 bacterial cells. While not all marine microbes on the plastic particles were dangerous, the researchers were particularly concerned about the level of bacterial species that could be potentially harmful to wildlife and humans.  

“Plastics are a relatively new substrate in the ocean,” says Ana Luzia de Figueiredo Lacerda, study author and a marine plastic pollution researcher at Sorbonne Université. “We are discovering what is living [on plastics] to see the diversity of bacterial groups, and among these groups, what can be potentially pathogenic or invasive.”   

A 2020 United Nations Environment Program report estimates that 730 tons of plastic waste end up in the Mediterranean Sea every day, leaving more than 64 million tiny floating particles per square kilometer in certain areas, including plastic microfibers. In fact, of all the world’s major oceanic basins, the Mediterranean has the highest concentration of microfibers. These small synthetic strands are released from sources such as fraying fishing nets, textile producers, or loads of laundry, explains Lacerda. “It’s one of the most abundant types of microplastic in the oceans,” she says. The high salinity and density of Mediterranean waters may also cause greater concentrations of the fibers to float near the surface, the new study notes.

[Related: The secret to longer-lasting clothing will also reduce plastic pollution]

Across the world’s oceans, plastic pollution has created a new artificial community for marine microbes—which researchers call the “plastisphere.” Free-floating bacteria and other microbiota can secrete sticky molecules that help them latch on to substrates, like wood, microalgae, or sediment. Once attached, the bacteria produce more of these sticky molecules to allow even more microbes to glom on, causing a biofilm to grow, Karen Shapiro, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, Davis, explained in an email to PopSci. But the problem with plastics is that they last much longer than natural substrates in marine environments, increasing the risk and spread of microbial contamination, Lacerda says. Some types of plastics are less dense than sea water and float on the surface where they can be carried long distances by ocean currents. 

“The plastic works like a boat to these organisms,” Lacerda explains. “They transport species across regions, which could lead to changes in the function of the natural system.”  

When colonized by bacteria, the plastics can smell like food to marine wildlife that might consume them by mistake. Not only does that mean the microplastics work their way through the food chain, past studies have shown that toxic chemicals in plastics could provoke hormonal dysfunctions that affect growth and reproduction in some wildlife groups, including orcas and oysters.

To find out what kinds of bacteria microfibers might be harboring in the Mediterranean Sea, Lacerda and her colleagues collected samples from the northwestern end near the coasts of Monaco and Nice, France. After isolating the microfibers, the team used microscopy and DNA sequencing to identify the bacteria species on the fibers and compared them to the free-floating bacteria in the water. Among the 195 species living on the microfibers, Lacerda and the authors flagged a “great quantity” of pathogenic Vibrio parahaemolyticus, a bacteria that can cause seafood poisoning in humans. 

Previous studies have found pathogenic marine microorganisms on plastics in the ocean, such as Aeromonas salmonicida, which can infect and kill salmon, and Arcobacter species, which can cause illness in people. “In one particular sample, the authors found nearly a third of the bacteria species to be V. parahaemolyticus, which is a notable proportion and of possible concern given its pathogenic potential,” Shapiro, who was not involved in the recent research but has also studied the plastisphere, wrote in her email. “These anthropogenically derived fibers that end up in our oceans could mediate disease transmission for sea life but also people that consume shellfish that can concentrate these contaminants.” V. parahaemolyticus thrives in warm brackish waters where filter feeders like oysters are typically cultivated.

[Related: A close look at the Great Pacific Garbage Patch reveals a common culprit]

Locating where microfibers—and the harmful species they carry—are abundant can help people know if certain bodies of water are safe for bathing, farming, or fishing, Lacerda says. Climate change could further the spread and pathogenicity of plastic-dwelling microorganisms that are influenced by temperature, including V. parahaemolyticus. “As the temperature of the ocean is increasing, the virulence and [plastic] adhesion of the organism also increases with the increase in temperature,” Lacerda says. This is especially important in a sand-locked sea like the Mediterranean, which is warming faster than other regions in the world. As a result, “we could expect that the plastisphere in the Mediterranean Sea could respond faster to climate change,” Lacerda notes. 

According to Shapiro, the study’s findings in the Mediterranean add to the growing body of evidence that marine bacteria thriving on plastic waste is “a global phenomenon that deserves more attention.” She and Lacerda both think there need to be more investigations on the interactions between pathogens and different contaminants such as plastics to get a better understanding of how humans are altering—and harming—marine ecosystems.

“I do believe that the general public should be aware of this problem and understand that plastic pollution in the ocean doesn’t affect only marine wildlife, but can affect us,” Lacerda says. As the plastic problem continues to grow, she adds, “we have to look for another way of living.”

The post Plastic microfibers in the Mediterranean Sea are keeping bacteria afloat appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

It’s hard to look around and not see it. Maybe if you’re in the middle of the woods, or high up on a mountain. But even then, plastic is everywhere. 

Each year, companies produce billions of pounds of plastic waste., and the majority of single-use plastics are produced by just a handful of groups. Still, corporate accountability isn’t always robust. Even in the cases where companies do make commitments to reduce plastic consumption, in actuality, the burden often falls on the consumer, and promises frequently don’t reduce virgin plastic consumption, a new study published Friday in One Earth shows.

“We need to turn off the tap of plastic pollution,” Zoie Diana, author of the study and PhD candidate at Duke University tells PopSci. “The transparency has to start from the companies.”

The team at Duke studied commitments from 974 of the world’s largest companies, including  Amazon, ExxonMobil, and Johnson & Johnson, and found that instead of reducing virgin plastic, corporations opted for promoting recycling or lightweighting their packaging. These options are not good solutions for several reasons, Diana says. 

Currently, only nine percent of plastic waste is actually recycled globally, and it may be even lower in the US. “And of that nine percent, only ten percent has been recycled more than once in the past 50 years,” Diana says. When we put plastic in the recycling bin, very little of what we intend to recycle actually end up reused. “Recycling just delays plastic disposal,” Diana says. 

The other big commitment the researchers observed is lightweighting—where companies make their products or packaging using less plastic. You may have noticed Coca-Cola bottles lining shelves become less heavy or smaller over time. Or, packaging for products found in Walmart stores may have become lighter too. These companies are just some of the groups who have opted to lightweight their products in an attempt to reduce plastic pollution.  

[Related: A close look at the Great Pacific Garbage Patch reveals a common culprit]

While making individual bottles less plastic-intensive may sound good in theory, but isn’t as sweet as it sounds. “If you’re producing more and more plastic bottles overall, or reinvesting any cost savings from lightweighting into new products that are made of plastic, then that’s an insufficient response. That’s not going to get us to reduce plastic pollution overall,” Diana says. 

Beyond deficient strategies, the researchers also found ambiguity to be a challenge. Although 72 percent of the companies studied did make a commitment to reducing plastic use, their commitments often involved insufficient strategies like these or were too vague to be assessed for progress. “89 percent made at least one commitment that was neither time-bound nor measurable,” Diana says.

On top of this, the majority of companies studied did not link plastic pollution with climate change. Beyond killing wildlife, accumulating in our food, and being linked to cancer and hormone disruption, plastic uses a lot of fossil fuels. Virgin plastic is quite literally made out of fossil fuels—crude oil is heated and distilled to turn into the material. And as fossil fuel use, which is the primary cause of climate change, continues to increase, commitments by companies considering their impacts on climate change are important, Diana says.

But there is hope in the form of legislation, Diana says. The United Nations Environment Assembly is working to have an international plastics treaty in place in 2024, which Diana hopes will work to target virgin plastic production. “I do think we need more emphasis on the ties between plastic pollution and climate change,” she says. “There’s a lot of overlap there. The treaty is definitely making me hopeful and excited.”

The post Companies pledge to reduce plastic waste, but the burden falls to you appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article originally appeared in Nexus Media News and was made possible by a grant from the Open Society Foundations.

For most of the Shinnecock Nation’s history, the waters off the eastern end of Long Island were a place of abundance. Expert fishermen, whalers and farmers, the Shinnecock people lived for centuries off the clams, striped bass, flounder, bluefish and fruit native to the area.  

Today, the area is best known as a playground for the rich, where mansions sell for tens of millions of dollars. The Shinnecock community no longer lives off the water as it once did — rapid development, pollution and warming waters have led to losses in fish, shellfish and plants that were once central to the Shinnecock diet and culture. 

That’s why Tela Troge, an attorney and member of the federally recognized tribe, started planting kelp.  

Kelp is a large, fast-growing brown seaweed that sequesters carbon and harmful pollutants. It’s also full of nutrients and is used in foods, pharmaceuticals and fertilizers—making it a big business. 

The global commercial seaweed market is valued at around $15 billion and is projected to reach $25 billion by 2028. In the United States, the kelp market is expected to quadruple by 2035, according to the Island Institute.

For the estimated 800 residents of the Shinnecock Reservation, where Troge said some families live on just $6,000 a year, kelp farming could be an economic lifeline. On one side of Shinnecock Hills, “you have billionaire’s row where some of the wealthiest people in America have homes,” Troge said. “Then, on the other side, you have Shinnecock territory, where 60 percent of us are living in complete poverty.” 

In 2019, Troge, an attorney who has represented the Shinnecock Nation in federal land rights cases, was looking for a way to create jobs and clean up Shinnecock Bay. That’s when GreenWave, a nonprofit that promotes regenerative ocean farming, approached the community about starting a kelp hatchery.

Troge and five other women from her community formed the Shinnecock Kelp Farm, the first Indigenous-run farm of its kind on the East Coast.

Greenwave’s model “so closely matched our skills, our expertise, our traditional ecological knowledge,” Troge said. The Shinnecock practiced regenerative ocean farming long before the term existed; they farmed scallops, mollusks, oysters and clams—all natural water purifiers—together with seaweed. 

This system of kelp removing nitrogen near the surface while shellfish do the same down below creates powerful water filtration, said Charles Yarish, an emeritus marine evolutionary biologist at the University of Connecticut. It’s an ancient model. “If you go into Chinese literature, even to ancient Egypt, you will see examples of those cultures having integrated aquaculture,” he said.

Kelp feeds off excess carbon dioxide, nitrogen and phosphorus. The last two are pollutants responsible for harmful algal blooms that have killed off plants and animals in Shinnecock Bay, said Christopher Gobler, a marine scientist at Stony Brook University on Long Island. Kelp blades are lined with cells containing sulfated polysaccharides, essentially chains of sugar molecules that give kelp its slimy texture. These polysaccharides bind with nitrogen and phosphorus, pulling both out of the water and dissolving the nitrogen into a compound called nitrate. The dissolved nitrogen is what makes kelp a potent natural fertilizer.

These kelp forests promote biodiversity, lessen ocean acidification and remove dissolved carbon dioxide from the water. One meta-analysis by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that, on average, these farms remove 575 pounds of nitrogen per acre. (Projections based on another study, from Stony Brook University, put that figure at 200 pounds of nitrogen per acre.) Seaweed aquaculture could absorb nearly 240 million tons by 2050, equal to the annual emissions from more than 50 million fossil fuel–powered cars, according to a 2021 study published in Nature.

Compared to land-based crops, kelp requires very few resources—just spores, sea, and sunlight—and far less labor and harvesting equipment, said Halley Froehlich, a marine biologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. But, Froehlich added, kelp’s real superpower is that it grows quickly—faster than almost any other plant on the planet.

In December of 2021, Troge and her business partners started planting 20 spools of kelp off the shore of St. Joseph Villa, a retreat space just across the bay from the reservation. The villa, which offers easy access to the water, had once belonged to the Shinnecock nation. Today, it is run by a Catholic ministry known for its environmental and social justice work.

Troge and her fellow farmers ran the business out of a cabin donated by the ministry and encountered their share of challenges. It took longer than they had expected to find the right species of kelp—one that they deemed hearty enough for the hatchery. 

“We got out later than we had hoped, as December is quite late,” said Danielle Hopson-Begun, who co-founded the Shinnecock Kelp Farm. Sugar kelp is normally planted in the mid-fall, in time for a January growth spurt. 

Then they suffered outbreaks of slip gut—a type of algae that grows on sugar kelp and suffocates it. 

But by the spring of 2022, the Shinnecock women harvested 100 pounds of kelp, most of which they dried and sold as organic fertilizer. They donated their excess spores back to GreenWave, which distributed the excess to other growers. This was a small harvest compared to established kelp farms. Gobler, the marine scientist, estimated that a one-acre ocean farm could generate 70,000 pounds of kelp.

This year, the farmers plan to expand from 20 spools of kelp to 200. They are expecting a significantly larger yield and are exploring different uses for the crop, like food and cosmetics. They’re also talking with other hatcheries about exchanging spools of kelp in order to experiment with different species of seaweed. The farm is already cleaning up the area, Hopson-Begun said; since operations began she said the water appears clearer and more birds fly overhead.

As Troge and her colleagues plan ahead, they’re also looking to bring on additional staff to help manage the harvests. They plan to hire from within the Shinnecock community. “I’m just really excited about building up to the point to offer people living-wage jobs,” Troge says.

—

This article was made possible by a grant from the Open Society Foundations. Nexus Media News is an editorially independent, nonprofit news service covering climate change. Follow us @NexusMediaNews.

Iris M. Crawford is a climate journalist and the Climate Justice Sr. Editor at Nonprofit Quarterly. 

The post How kelp farming is helping revive the economy and ecology of a Long Island bay appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Non-stick cookware is often a kitchen favorite because food doesn’t stick to its surface—making it easy to whip up dinner without a huge cleaning hassle. The kitchen essential has grown in popularity since scientists created the first non-stick cooking pan in 1954, but the COVID-19 pandemic drove a surge. The market demand for non-stick cookware reached 206.1 million units worldwide in 2020 and is expected to increase even more due to the growing preference for it. 

The non-stick coating is made of a synthetic fluoropolymer called polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), more commonly known under the brand name Teflon. A 2022 report from the non-profit organization Ecology Center shows that 79 percent of non-stick cooking pans and 20 percent of non-stick baking pans were coated with PTFE. 

[Related: Which veggie oil is most sustainable? It’s complicated.]

In a new Science of The Total Environment study, the authors simulated the cooking process with different non-stick pots and pans using turners made of different materials, like steel or wood. They found that non-stick cookware mainly coated with Teflon may release about 9100 plastic particles during the cooking process if it has a surface crack. Should something break the coating, around 2,300,000 microplastics and nanoplastics may be released and potentially find their way into food.

These cracks are a problem because PTFE falls under per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS), a group of chemicals that don’t break down in the environment, contaminate soil and water and build up in the bodies of living creatures. Once millions of PFAS plastic particles are released, they will circulate in the ecosystem for a long time, which explains why they are commonly dubbed “forever chemicals.” Its widespread occurrence in the environment may increase human exposure to PFAS, potentially leading to health impacts like altered metabolism, increased risk of being overweight or obese, and reduced ability to fight infections.

The authors quantified the release of plastic particles from non-stick cookware by scanning the surfaces of different non-stick pots to generate data. The data was then converted to an image using three algorithms to visualize the microplastics and nanoplastics directly, says Cheng Fang, senior research fellow in the Global Centre for Environmental Remediation (GCER) at the University of Newcastle in Australia, who was involved in the study.

“PFAS are a class of chemicals that are characterized by extremely long environmental persistence,” says Graham Peaslee, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame who was not involved in the study. “The smaller PFAS don’t break down from exposure to sunlight, microorganisms, or anything else routinely, which means they can last for hundreds of years or longer in the environment once created.”

To avoid contaminating food or the environment with plastic particles from PTFE cookware, at-home chefs must use soft turners or non-sharp utensils that don’t scratch the surface during the cooking and cleaning process. Should there be any scratches on the cookware, replacement is recommended, says Fang.

Still, cracked surfaces aren’t the only thing to consider when cooking with Teflon. The coating can also release toxic chemicals into the air when it reaches extreme temperatures. There are several cases of individuals experiencing temporary, flu-like symptoms from polymer fume fever—as a result.

[Related: Use the Leidenfrost effect to make your stainless steel pan non-stick.]

Peaslee says re-evaluating the necessity of Teflon-coated cookware may reduce our exposure to PFAS. He adds that it may have been marketed as a great new technology in the 1950s, but cast iron always worked just as well. Fluoropolymers are concerning for environmental and human health because they emit PFAS during production, processing, use, and end-of-life treatment. There are reasonable alternatives that will do less harm to the environment and not support the fluoropolymer industry, like ceramics or stainless steel, says Peaslee. 

Although much is yet to be known about the impacts of microplastic pollution on the environment, reducing the use of plastics and improving the recycling process should be paramount, says Fang.

“In our daily lives, we have lots of plastic items surrounding us,” he adds. “Most of them can gradually release microplastics and nanoplastics in their lifetimes, as tested and confirmed in this study.”

Correction 11/16/22: The brand name Teflon has been removed when not directly referring to Teflon products.

The post Why you should throw away your non-stick pan the second it cracks appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Over the next two weeks, scientists, government officials, and activists are coming together at COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt to discuss some of the most pressing issues threatening our planet’s existence.

Building on last year’s United Nations climate change conference in Scotland, the key issues dominating headlines this time include mitigation measures, adaptation strategies, net-zero targets, and funds for losses and damages in communities that are bearing the brunt of the crisis.

This year, the US delegation is heading into COP on the heels of the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The $369-billion policy, which also tackles other issues like lowering healthcare costs, is the largest investment in American history in climate and energy to date. 

Dan Lashof, US director of the World Resources Institute, says this means that President Joe Biden will head into the negotiations with more credibility than before. The country’s current goal is to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. With the IRA in place, Lashof believes that the government has put forward a credible path to reduce emissions by around 40 percent. 

Despite the act’s positive outcomes, however, Lashof cautions that it’s built on incentives for American manufacturers in renewable energy supply chains. The next step in taking credible climate action would be to pass mandatory requirements, both at the federal and local level, to achieve lower emissions with better certainty. States, specifically, will have to set goals and enact policies to supplement the overall strategy of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. 

Global negotiations at COP should also inspire more widespread coordination. “It’s essential for the US to meet its targets, but also to encourage greater ambition from other countries,” Lashof says. 

Is it still possible to limit global warming to 1.5°C or less?

According to the UN Emissions Gap Report published in October, the G20 is collectively expected to fall short of its 2030 climate promises without further action. This means that there is a chance of breaching the Paris Agreement goal of limiting the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius of increase from pre-industrial levels. Still, holding warming at 1.5 degrees represents our best chance at avoiding irreversible changes to the Earth’s climate system and protecting vulnerable groups of people and wildlife.

“Every tonne [of carbon dioxide] matters; every tenth of a degree matters. The closer we can get to 1.5 degrees, the better,” says Lashof. “The gap report doesn’t say it’s impossible—its projections are based on what current policies are and current targets.”

[Related: The past 8 years have been the hottest on human record]

A report released by the World Research Institute last month also found that the world is not on track to meet the 1.5-degree limit in 40 different indicators of climate action. Lashof points out that this means any progress needs to be accelerated to meet the pace of change that is required.

Lisa Vanhala, who leads a European Research Council-funded project on the Politics and Governance of Climate Change Loss and Damage, echoes a similar sentiment. “1.5 degrees matters because that threatens the very territorial existence of some states in the international system,” she explains. Even a fraction of a degree can be incredibly significant for people in low-lying island nations like Tuvalu and Kiribas. 

How can COP27 help?

With the growing intensity of climate disasters around the world, Vanhala expects that indemnities, not just warming limits, will dominate this year’s negotiations. The day before the conference officially kicked off, negotiators from developing countries secured a hard-fought win by arguing to include finance for loss and damage on the agenda.

Loss and damage finance essentially acts as reparations for vulnerable countries that are facing the disproportionate effects of climate change. A decade ago, the UN helped set up the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage—but the parties responsible for paying into the fund have contested it ever since. 

Gaia Larsen, director of climate finance, access, and deployment at the World Research Institute, thinks that wealthy nations like the US are hesitant to commit to loss and damage funds because it could be seen as an admission of guilt with legal liability. So, the newly adopted agenda item for COP27 includes a clause stating that “cooperation and facilitation and [does] not involve liability or compensation.”

The strategy might not spur progress on previous goals like warming thresholds, but it’s a priority for those deep in the throes of the climate crisis. The Pakistani delegation, for instance, opened the conference by speaking to the importance of receiving loss and damage finance in the wake of deadly and costly floods. And back in September, UN secretary-general António Guterres stated that wealthier countries “bear a moral responsibility” to help poorer nations recover, adapt, and build resilience to disasters. “Let’s not forget that 80 percent of emissions driving this type of climate destruction are from the G20,” he said at the time.

But some developing countries are past the point of pinpointing blame and are more focused on securing tangible funding to deal with their climate realities, Vanhala says. One way they can currently do that is through the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which is part of an international environmental treaty intended to help developing countries implement climate mitigation and adaptation measures. While there is a need for multiple sources of capital, Larsen says that due to challenges like data gaps and increased bureaucracy, there’s limited support to create a separate new fund for loss and damages. 

[Related: Personal carbon allowances, explained]

In fact, developing countries are struggling to receive financing that’s already been approved. A $100-billion annual fund for climate mitigation fund is still short $16.7 billion. One analysis by Carbon Brief found that the US itself owes $32 billion.

Now that loss and damage financing sits firmly on the agenda, COP27 will test whether giant carbon emitters like the US will mobilize climate finance and reduce global emissions at the rate the world needs.

“I think the people that have been fighting for 1.5 degrees will continue to do so. And even if we’re fighting for 2 degrees, we’re fighting to get emissions down as fast as possible,” says Larsen. Most countries have until 2050 to clean up their act, but the longer they wait, the less achievable the goals will get.

The post Why the 1.5-degree-Celsius climate goal still matters appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Every year, about 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are discarded globally, making them the most littered item on Earth. Around 90 percent of cigarettes have filters made of a biobased plastic called cellulose acetate, which can take up to 14 years to decompose. Nevertheless, cigarette butts are still considered hazardous solid waste, even if they are thrown away properly.

In recent years, non-menthol cigarettes have become less prevalent, but menthol cigarette use did not decrease nor change significantly. As a result, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently proposed a ban on menthol in cigarettes and other characterizing flavors other than tobacco in cigars to reduce cigarette use, pushing menthol cigarette users to stop smoking.

A menthol ban such as this may minimize health disparities since vulnerable populations have a higher tendency to use menthol cigarettes. Almost 40 percent of smokers across the country prefer menthol over non-menthol cigarettes. Still, this preference is disproportionately high among Black people, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals, and those with mental health problems. Menthol cigarette use also persists among racial/ethnic minority youth.

Although the FDA intended to reduce disease and death from cigarette use, research shows that a menthol ban can also benefit the environment.

Fewer smokers mean less cigarette litter

According to a Tobacco Control letter, adopting the FDA’s menthol ban would offer substantial environmental benefits because it would reduce 3.8 billion cigarette litter annually.

This has already worked in Canada. The country started banning menthol cigarettes from 2015 to 2018, leading many smokers to quit. The authors used the quit rate from Canada’s menthol cigarette ban to estimate that a similar ban in the US can cause 1.3 million smokers to quit. They then multiplied it by 11.9, the average daily number of cigarettes smoked among US adult menthol smokers, and by 365 to get the yearly reduction of cigarettes smoked—5.8 billion.

[Related: Ocean plastic ‘vacuums’ are sucking up marine life along with trash.]

“We multiplied 5.8 billion total fewer cigarettes smoked per year after the ban by the published estimate that 65 percent of cigarettes are littered in the US,” says Lorraine V. Craig, dissemination manager of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Waterloo in Canada who was involved in the study. “This resulted in our estimate that the proposed US menthol cigarette ban would lead to 3.8 billion fewer cigarettes being littered per year.”

If each cigarette butt weighs about 0.2 grams, 3.8 billion fewer cigarette butts off the streets and beaches will reduce 755,502 kilograms of waste every year. That is equivalent to the amount of plastic waste produced by about 7114 Americans yearly, given that the average American generates about 106.2 kilograms of plastic waste annually.

Tobacco harms the environment throughout its life cycle

Smoking cessation is known to lower the risk of premature death and cardiovascular diseases. Still, policies that reduce tobacco consumption won’t just bring down the public health and economic costs related to smoking. According to the authors, they may also reduce the environmental harm of tobacco across its entire life cycle.

Cigarettes pollute the land, water, and air during the growing and cultivation of tobacco, the production and use of cigarettes, and the discarding of packaging and cigarette butts, says Craig. About 600 million trees are chopped down to clear land for tobacco crops, and 24 billion tons of water are required to make cigarettes. Meanwhile, the production and consumption of tobacco contribute 84 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year.

“Carcinogenic chemicals and toxic heavy metals such as lead and arsenic are commonly found in cigarettes and can leach into waterways and the soil,” says John Hocevar, director of the oceans campaign for Greenpeace USA, who was not involved in the study. “Once plastic microfibers [from filters] enter waterways, they act as magnets for polychlorinated biphenyls and other toxic chemicals, which bind to the fibers and make them even more dangerous.”

[Related: The FDA is prepping its biggest cigarette crackdown since the ’60s.]

Animals like whales, oysters, and corals may also ingest vast quantities of microplastics in the water. Not only will they suffer from the toxic chemicals, but they will also have a more challenging time meeting their nutritional needs, he adds.

“If cigarettes cause such widespread and multifaceted devastation to the environment, then tobacco control policies that reduce smoking would have a corresponding benefit to the environment by reducing that devastation,” says Craig.

Controlling cigarette use ultimately benefits the environment

Eliminating toxic chemicals in tobacco production would potentially make cigarette waste less harmful, but it would not keep plastic microfibers out of the environment, says Hocevar. Therefore, it’s best for the environment if governments can control cigarette use.

“The study calls attention to the problem of cigarette butts as a leading source of plastic pollution and the potential for menthol bans to reduce single-use plastics,” says Geoffrey T. Fong, principal investigator of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Waterloo in Canada who was involved in the Tobacco Control study. 

Policymakers can reduce cigarette litter further by vigorously implementing tobacco control policies of the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the global tobacco control treaty, says Fong. Countries bound by the treaty are obligated to implement measures to reduce tobacco use, like regulating the content of tobacco products, requiring the disclosure of ingredients, and placing prominent graphic health warnings on tobacco products.

Policy action to ban the sale of filtered cigarettes may also be an effective measure to reduce single-use plastic pollution, says Fong. 

“Any policy that reduces the number of smokers will lead to reductions in cigarette litter,” he adds. “It’s killing two birds with one stone. Or said in a different way, it is a win-win situation: strong tobacco control policies reduce smoking and reduce environmental damage.”

The post The environmental argument for banning menthol cigarettes appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Google often touts its commitment to sustainability and tackling climate change head-on, but a new study courtesy of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) reveals the Big Tech giant won’t hesitate to take oil corporations’ money in exchange for diminishing their role in our ongoing planetary crisis. According to the CCDH’s new report, Google has accepted nearly $24 million for top search ad spots from oil giants over the past two years alone. Of that amount, almost half was spent on advertising specifically targeted for sustainability search terms like “net zero” and “eco-friendly,” presenting users with advertising and sites that skewed climate science in the companies’ favor, explained Reuters earlier this week.

In October 2021, Google pledged to “prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change,” but in the ensuing months has routinely failed to live up to its promise. This often takes the form of accepting fossil fuel companies’ “greenwashing” campaigns, a term referring to advertising and PR that makes businesses seem more environmentally conscious and active than they truly are.

[Related: Are ‘water positive’ pledges from tech companies just a new kind of greenwashing?]

“Big Oil’s deception is by design. It is a tried and true business plan for the world’s largest polluters to make public promises about sustainability, whilst lining their pockets with the largest profits in decades,” explained CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed in the report’s introduction. The study shows, for example, that when users search phrases like “pros and cons of the paris climate agreement [sic]” or “what are greenhouse gases” they invariably see ads sold by companies like ExxonMobil at the top of the page. Because previous studies indicate studies only a small fraction of Google searchers click links on a second page of search results, Google “is allowing fossil fuel companies to dominate the information ecosystem to peddle their deception.”

To remedy the situation, CCDH recommends Google immediately cease its flagrant hypocrisy when it comes to advertising clients, as well as  “create a public and transparent ad library” for organizations, government officials, and general users to see where funding originates. In September 2022, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on the Environment released its own initial investigatory findings regarding Big Oil tactics, finding that companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell admitted in their own words within internal documents to “gaslighting” the public.

The post How Google Search is helping ‘greenwash’ oil companies appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Hakai Magazine, an online publication about science and society in coastal ecosystems. Read more stories like this at hakaimagazine.com.

Beluga whales are incredibly sensitive to noise. Social animals that live in the Arctic, belugas use their keen sense of hearing to communicate over long distances, find prey, and elude crafty predators like killer whales. But all is not quiet on the Arctic front. As the Arctic warms and the ice melts, ship traffic is on the rise, suffusing these once-tranquil waters with the throbbing thrum of propellers and engines.

Scientists have known since the 1980s that beluga whales’ sharp senses can pick up boat noise from up to 80 kilometers away. But this noise is much more than a nuisance—it can divert belugas away from feeding, nursing, or resting grounds, cause stress, and interfere with their ability to hear each other and perceive important information about their environments, like how deep the water is or where to locate prey. In a new study, scientists led by Morgan Martin, a zoologist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia and the Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, reveal in unprecedented detail how belugas will flee, dive, and otherwise rush to escape the distressing din.

In 2018, a group of scientists with Fisheries and Oceans Canada got permission from the Inuvialuit Game Council to tag eight male beluga whales with GPS trackers and time-depth monitors, which log where a beluga is in the water column every second. When Martin was handed the data set, she was excited to find that the loggers yielded “unbelievably cool, precise, beautiful tracks” as the whales swam around the eastern Beaufort Sea. “We could see exactly what depth they were diving to and how long they were down there,” she says.

By looking at these 3D whale tracks side by side with ships’ locations, which were broadcast by the vessels’ onboard automatic identification system transponders, Martin and her colleagues modeled and mapped the recorded encounters between belugas and ships. They also created animations of each interaction.

The belugas’ most common reaction to a loud noise, they found, was to abruptly change direction. Sometimes the whale would circle back once the ship had passed to continue on its journey.

In other cases, a beluga confronted with a noisy ship would make a sharp V-shaped dive, descending and ascending quickly rather than staying submerged as it typically would when foraging. Other times, the whales would dive just below the surface and hightail it away from the noise. If a beluga was already swimming away from a ship, it wouldn’t change its heading, but the study shows that the whale would swim faster than average when a ship was within its hearing range.

Valeria Vergara, a marine mammal scientist at the Raincoast Conservation Foundation who wasn’t involved in the research, says the study’s findings reaffirm just how sensitive belugas are to noise.

Sound is the main way many marine animals communicate and understand their environments. When a noisy boat goes by, Vergara says, the sound completely shuts down or masks belugas’ vocalizations and can lead to chronic stress. Not only that, but swimming an extra 50 kilometers off course to avoid the noise uses up energy that is especially precious in the freezing Arctic.

“When we’re talking about [noise pollution in] really important habitats like feeding grounds or covering grounds or nursery areas, then you have a problem,” she says.

“Underwater noise,” says Martin, “is one of the most pervasive forms of pollution.” But unlike an oil spill, which can linger for years or more, noise pollution, she says, is “a form of pollution that’s completely, absolutely eradicable if you just remove the source of it.”

To help beluga whales, she says, ships need to be made quieter. More than that, she adds, policymakers need to consider setting up marine protected areas and quiet sanctuaries in key beluga habitat.

This article first appeared in Hakai Magazine, and is republished here with permission.

The post Noise pollution messes with beluga whales’ travel plans appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Every year, more than 14 million tons of plastic pollute the ocean and threaten the life of various marine species. About 80 percent of all marine debris is plastic, which demonstrates the extent of global plastic pollution.

Boat builders, sailors, and engineers have developed technological innovations like the Seabin to minimize all sorts of litter floating in the ocean. These mechanical cleanup inventions are fixed-point devices designed to separate and remove marine debris from various bodies of water. They work by sucking water from the surface and intercepting floating debris or lifting trash from the water onto a conveyor belt that gathers everything in a dumpster.

However, they might have a limited benefit in reducing plastic pollution. Research shows the devices may even capture unknowing marine organisms, which is a problem because they threaten marine life.

The rate of waste generation exceeds the rate of litter cleanup

A recent Marine Pollution Bulletin study examined a Seabin in the Southwest United Kingdom and found that it captured an average of 58 litter items per day, mainly consisting of polystyrene balls, plastic pellets, and plastic fragments. The authors also found that the device caught one marine organism—like sand eels, brown shrimps, and crabs—for every 3.6 items of litter captured (or roughly 13 marine organisms per day), half of which were dead upon retrieval.

The marine organisms may be attracted to the device to forage or seek refuge. Their mortality rate also appeared to increase with retention time in the machine. Some died due to being captured, possibly under the weight of the surrounding material, says Florence Parker-Jurd, study author and research assistant in the International Marine Litter Research Unit at the University of Plymouth in the United Kingdom.

“At its current stage of development, the study found that in the environment examined, the quantity or mass of litter being removed by the device was minimal when considered alongside the risk of by-catch,” says Parker-Jurd. She adds that manual cleaning efforts with nets from pontoons tend to be more efficient and less resource intensive than the Seabin in environments like marinas, harbors, and ports, even though it was designed to operate in these locations.

“Technological innovations have a part to play in reducing marine litter, particularly in coastal environments where they can complement existing cleanup efforts,” says Parker-Jurd. “This study has highlighted the need for robust, formal evaluations of such devices, especially given the increasing use and geographic spread of the Seabin and similar devices.”

[Related: A close look at the Great Pacific Garbage Patch reveals a common culprit.]

Although the study only formally evaluated one device, similar issues may apply to other marine cleaning devices. Things like the lack of an escape route, long periods of operation, and the time out of the water to separate marine life from organic matter and litter before it returns to the water can all contribute to the entrapment of marine organisms, says Parker-Jurd.

Moreover, the current capacity of technological efforts to reduce plastic collection is limited in comparison to the extent of the plastic pollution problem. “Though there are no estimates of the overall removal of plastic and other debris from these devices, there is near consensus among experts that the magnitude of trash collected pales in comparison to the amount of waste that enters our environment,” says Meagan Dunphy-Daly, director of the Duke University Marine Laboratory Scholars Program. She was not involved in the study.

There haven’t been many scientific studies on the effectiveness of various technologies in removing plastic pollution from the environment—or their rate of marine by-catch—but self-reported effectiveness is often higher than peer-reviewed reports on the efficacy, says Dunphy-Daly. Weather, current, and the location of the device deployment have to be considered when it comes to the effectiveness of cleanup technologies outside their pilot phases.

Dutch non-profit The Ocean Cleanup went under fire recently for the heap of plastic debris they cleaned from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which some experts say was too clean for plastics that were supposedly in the water for years. The organization argued that there was no visible build-up of algae and barnacles because the water in the garbage patch lacked nutrients. Most of the plastic floated above the water, but conservation experts also refuted that.

“Further studies need to evaluate the types of marine life being captured in these devices to determine population-level effects and weigh the risks and benefits of using these cleanup technologies,” says Dunphy-Daly.

Technology must go hand-in-hand with reducing plastic production and use

Developing and implementing technologies to reduce litter is only part of the solution. When there’s an oil spill, you don’t just focus on removing the oil from the surface of the water—you stop the leak and clean it up, says Dunphy-Daly.

The leak has undoubtedly continued in the case of global plastic pollution. She adds that combating it requires a comprehensive approach that targets all stages of the plastic life cycle, from reducing overall production to cleaning up what has entered the environment.

That said, the invention of cleanup devices effectively draws attention to the problem of marine litter. Last year, Coldplay partnered with The Ocean Cleanup and sponsored an Interceptor, a watercraft or vessel intended to remove plastic from rivers before they reach the ocean.

[Related: Horrific blobs of ‘plastitar’ are gunking up Atlantic beaches.]

“Hopefully, by generating public interest with these technologies, we can also gain support for targeting other life stages of plastic and reduce overall plastic pollution,” says Dunphy-Daly.

A 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine argued that recycling processes and infrastructures are insufficient to manage the gross amount of plastic waste produced. The authors recommended several interventions to reduce waste generation, like establishing a national cap on virgin plastic production and a ban on specific disposable plastic products.

Mechanical marine cleaning devices can shape perceptions around the issue of marine litter and potentially create a reliance on technological solutions to environmental problems. Therefore, these sorts of interventions should continue to be evaluated, says Parker-Jurd. According to a 2022 Societies paper, there is excessive optimism around technology and scientific advancement. Still, the man-made problems of the planet cannot be solved by modern and efficient technology alone.

Even though the invention of cleanup devices is unlikely to alleviate one’s responsibility for waste and litter completely, evidence of their psychological impacts is currently lacking and should still form a crucial part of future research, says Parker-Jurd. She adds, “our primary focus should remain on implementing a systematic change in the way we produce, use, and dispose of plastics.”

The post Ocean plastic ‘vacuums’ are sucking up marine life along with trash appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

It’s not in your head. Traffic congestion really is getting worse. According to a 2020 report from the US Department of Transportation, the average person living in 1982 in one of the 75 largest cities in U.S. faced seven hours of travel delay per year. By 2001, that figure jumped up to 26 hours of delay per year.

Traffic congestion is more than just an annoying time suck. It can have negative impacts on health due to the air pollution emitted from cars idling, with one study estimating that the emissions from passenger vehicles spike by as much as 200 percent during rush hours which raises the concentration of air pollutants in areas surrounding highways. It affects a lot of people, with more than 11 million Americans estimated to live within 150 meters of highways.

[Related: Why congestion pricing reduces traffic better than new highway lanes.]

“Traffic delay has steadily increased across the United States since the 1980’s, yet we know very little about the unique influence that traffic delay may have on population health,” Mary Willis an assistant professor in epidemiology at Boston University told PopSci.

Willis is the lead author on a study published today in Science Advances that examines the role that traffic congestion could play in a specific health scenario: birthweight. “While there are many health outcomes that we could have examined, low birthweight is a particularly important one as it can lead to immediate consequences, like trouble breathing, and long-term issues across the life course, like cardiovascular disease, cognitive impacts, and premature mortality,” said Willis. For the first time, the team was able to draw a link between traffic congestion and pregnancy outcomes in nearby neighborhoods in the U.S.

Willis and her colleagues examined the relationship between traffic congestion and the outcomes of 579,122 births in addresses within 500 meters of road segments in Texas, from 2015 to 2016. In this data, they found a strong correlation between traffic congestion and lower birth weights, with birth weights on average 9 grams lower in the highest quintile of exposure to traffic delay. The study notes that more research is needed to determine whether other socioeconomic influences (nutrition, income, access to prenatal care, etc.) not included in this research have any affect on this association between air pollution and adverse birth outcome. These results show a correlation between air pollution and low birthweight, but not that the pollution is the direct cause, since other forces could also be at play.

“A 9-gram decrease alone isn’t a clinically significant result, but this result indicates that some sort of biological impacts may be happening, which will push some babies into a clinically relevant adverse impact,” Willis said. “When you multiply that by 27 percent of all births being in high congestion areas, that small decrease in birthweight does translate into a substantial potential impact at the population level, affecting up to 1.3 million babies per year.”

According to Willis, one of the surprising results of this study is a whole new way to measure exposure that was separate from tailpipe emissions from a vehicle. Instead, this metric focused on the process of delay on the road. “Traffic engineers and urban planners can parse this data to figure out where vehicle speed is slower than expected, which indicates traffic congestion and delay. In our analysis, we used the aggregated connected vehicle and device data to examine ‘traffic delay,’ the total person-hours of delay on the roadways near maternal residences,” Willis explained.

[Related: Pollution kills 1 in 6 people worldwide.]

Tailpipe emissions are largely regulated by the federal government. However, solving traffic congestion relies on much more local policy changes. While this study doesn’t look at how to do that, some studies show that small steps such as putting up sound barriers or vegetation barriers and updating zoning laws to keep schools or daycares from being built near highways can help.

One solution that won’t help is building bigger highways. In an interview with PopSci in August, Nicholas Klein, an assistant professor of city and regional planning at Cornell University said, “For many decades in the US, people foolishly tried to solve this problem adding more lanes,” he explains. “It does not work because of induced demand. Any time you add capacity, it causes people to change their behavior.” Klein says that people will change their behavior by deciding to drive rather than taking public transportation if they see more lanes available.

Exposure to traffic is also not distributed equally. “We’re in the process of diving deeper into the socioeconomic and racial disparities in exposures to traffic congestion,” said Willis. “In particular, we’re interested in considering how patterns of disparities may have changed over time as other processes like urbanization and gentrification happened in metropolitan areas.”

The post Highway and traffic pollution could be connected to low birthweight appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When the Clean Air Act was passed 52 years ago, it was revolutionary for making a framework for hazardous air pollutants. And since then, it has made a huge impact on pollution in the United States. 

In 2020, the Clean Air Act prevented more than 230,000 deaths, around 85 percent of which are linked to reductions in ambient particulate matter that have caused premature mortality rates to decline. According to the EPA, benefits from the act exceed costs by an average factor of 30 to one. 

However, while air contaminants have fallen across the entire country, disparities in the populations most exposed to pollution still very much exist. And, as successful as the Clean Air Act has been, it does not contain elements for a targeted approach needed to remove these disparities, according to a new study published October 24 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

In January 2022, research in Nature found that the average fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) concentration for the Black population was 13.7 percent higher than that of the white population and 36.3 percent higher than that of the Native American population. The study also found higher concentrations of pollutants among lower income populations than high income populations. 

[Related: Tiny air pollutants may come from different sources, but they all show a similar biased trend.]

Research from 2021 found that most emission source types (which include industrial, coal, gas vehicle, agricultural, and more), representing around 75 percent of exposure to PM 2.5 in the US, disproportionally affect minority populations. This holds true across states, rural and urban divides, and income levels. 

“Our findings regarding relative disparities indicate the importance of strong, targeted air-pollution-reduction strategies, not only to reduce overall air-pollution levels but also to move closer toward the EPA’s aim to provide all people with the same degree of protection from environmental hazards,” Abdulrahman Jbaily, a former postdoctoral researcher at Harvard Chan School and first author of the Nature study, said in a statement.

The Clean Air Act is made up of multiple different policy tools and components that have lowered emissions country-wide since its implementation. Yet they all fall short of knocking out the disproportionate impact of pollution on minority communities. In the newest work, researchers from multiple universities and organizations created intervention models of three different policies—two from the Clean Air Act and one that would target pollutants affecting minority populations—and found that the third policy option would make a huge dent in bringing down disparities. 

The researchers first zeroed in on one CCA policy that addresses pollution concentration standards, similar to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This kind of standard basically sets a level of pollutants like articulate matter, ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and lead that can be present without “harming human health.” This approach, apparently, doesn’t do very much at all, according to the research. “It’s not very efficient or effective,” says study author Julian Marshall, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington. 

The team also modeled another Clean Air Act policy, which is designed to bring down emissions by industry or economic sector on a wide scale. This, the study authors found, also leaves disparities between affected populations. 

[Related: Low-carbon energy minimizes racial disparities in neighborhoods with air pollution.]

The third policy investigated wasn’t in the federal law. Instead, it targets specific locations—something that activists and experts have been pushing for across the world for many years. What they found was that using the third policy idea could reduce these disparities rapidly. “Not overnight,” adds Marshall, “but not so far from it.” 

So, why isn’t this kind of policy everywhere? Well, Marshall says, back in the early days of the Clean Air Act, people weren’t focusing on racial disparities in air pollution—air pollution was considered a problem plaguing the entire country, and the policies in place were geared that way. 

But nowadays, we are even more clued in to how environmental and health issues affect different groups in gigantic ways, whether it be the Flint water crisis, recovery after natural disasters, or even COVID-19 responses. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that what works for one group might not work for another, and expanding the lens to include and center disadvantaged populations is a must for environmental policy that actually works.

Luckily, the policy that Marshall and colleagues studied has taken off in a few places, with Marshall citing examples of policies in California, Washington state, and New Jersey. But even making more people aware of how strong the disparities are between different places, even in the same city, when it comes to pollution is a necessary step towards larger change. 

“Now, that’s not the same as making real change,” he says. “But it’s a necessary first step.”

Correction: a previous version of this post stated that the Clean Air Act in 1970 set federal standards on 187 hazardous air pollutants. This happened in a later version of the act.

The post Stronger pollution protections mean focusing on specific communities appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This story originally featured on ProPublica.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. Also: Have you worked with hazardous chemicals? Our reporters want to hear from you.

Henry Saenz remembers when he first learned what even the tiniest bit of asbestos could do to his body. He was working at a chemical plant where employees used the mineral to make chlorine, and his coworkers warned him about what could happen each time he took a breath: Tiny fibers, invisible to the eye, could enter his nose and mouth and settle into his lungs, his abdomen, the lining of his heart. They could linger there for decades. Then, one day, he might develop asbestosis, a chronic disease that makes the lungs harden, or mesothelioma, a vicious cancer that ends the lives of most who have it within a few years.

By then, in the early 1990s, the dangers of asbestos were already irrefutable. The United States had prohibited its use in pipe insulation and branded it so risky that remediators had to wear hazmat suits to remove it. But unlike dozens of other countries that banned the potent carcinogen outright, the United States never did. To this day, the U.S. allows hundreds of tons of asbestos to flow in each year from Brazil, primarily for the benefit of two major chemical companies, OxyChem and Olin Corp. The companies say asbestos is integral to chlorine production at several aging plants and have made a compelling argument to keep it legal: Unlike in the horrific tales of the past, their current protocols for handling asbestos are so stringent that workers face little threat of exposure.

But at OxyChem’s plant in Niagara Falls, New York, where Saenz worked for nearly three decades, the reality was far different, more than a dozen former workers told ProPublica. There, they said, asbestos dust hung in the air, collected on the beams and light fixtures and built up until it was inches thick. Workers tramped in and out of it all day, often without protective suits or masks, and carried it around on their coveralls and boots. They implored the plant’s managers to address the conditions, they said, but the dangers remained until the plant closed in late 2021 for unrelated reasons.

It was hard for Saenz to reconcile the science that he understood—and that he believed OxyChem and government leaders understood—with what he saw at the plant every day. He did his best not to inhale the asbestos, but after a short time, he came to believe there was no way the killer substance was not already inside him, waiting, perhaps 30 or 40 or even 50 years, to strike.

Now, too late for Saenz, the Environmental Protection Agency appears poised to finally outlaw asbestos in a test case with huge implications. If the agency fails to ban a substance so widely established as harmful, scientists and public health experts argue, it would raise serious doubts about the EPA’s ability to protect the public from any toxic chemicals.

To fight the proposed ban, the chemical companies have returned to a well-worn strategy and marshaled political heavyweights, including the attorneys general of 12 Republican-led states who say it would place a “heavy and unreasonable burden” on industry.

Lost in the battle is the story of what happened in the decades during which the U.S. failed to act. It’s not just a tale of workers in hardscrabble company towns who were sacrificed to the bottom line of industry, but one of federal agencies cowed again and again by the well-financed lawyers and lobbyists of the companies they are supposed to oversee.

It’s the quintessential story of American chemical regulation.

For decades, the EPA and Congress accepted the chlorine companies’ argument that asbestos workers were safe enough, and regulators left the carcinogen on the list of dangerous chemicals that other countries ban but the U.S. still allows. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration even let OxyChem and Olin into a special program that limited the frequency of inspections at many of their plants. Along the way, the two companies proved that they didn’t need asbestos to make chlorine: They built some modern facilities elsewhere that didn’t use it. But they balked at the cost of upgrading the older facilities where it was still in use—even as they earned billions of dollars from chemical sales and raked in record profits this year.

OxyChem, owned by one of the country’s largest energy companies, Occidental Petroleum, declined requests for an interview. After ProPublica sent a summary of its reporting, company officials said the accounts from the Niagara Falls plant were “inaccurate” but declined to say what specifically was incorrect. In a statement, the company said it complies with federal regulations on asbestos and that workers who handle it are “trained, work in restricted areas of our plant, protected by personal protective equipment and are offered annual medical examinations.” The company also said it authorizes employees to stop work if they feel unsafe. “The health and safety of every plant worker and the people in our surrounding communities is our top priority,” the company said.

Olin did not respond to calls and emails sent over the course of a month.

It has been easy to minimize the toll asbestos takes on workers. Workers’ compensation cases are often confidential, and employees may fear speaking out and jeopardizing their livelihood. ProPublica reporters, however, found a unique opportunity to explore what it was really like to work at an asbestos-reliant plant after America’s longest-standing facility, the one run by OxyChem in Niagara Falls, shuttered last November. With their jobs no longer on the line, Saenz and 17 other former workers, some with institutional knowledge dating back to the 1960s and others with memories less than a year old, said they felt free to talk. They agreed to hours of interviews and dug through their homes for documentation to reconstruct their work lives in the decades they spent at the plant.

What they recounted—ever-present asbestos dust with scant protection—stunned six experts in industrial hygiene and occupational health who were consulted by ProPublica.

“Totally unacceptable,” said Rachael Jones, professor and chair of the Environmental Health Sciences Department at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Fraught with danger,” said Dr. Philip Landrigan, a public health physician trained in occupational medicine and epidemiology who leads Boston College’s program for Global Public Health and the Common Good.

“It sounds like something that maybe would happen in the 1940s or the 1950s,” said Celeste Monforton, a lecturer in public health at Texas State University who studies occupational health and safety practices.

“It’s just so counter to everything that they put in the record about using [asbestos] safely,” Monforton said.

For more than a century, OxyChem’s plant on the Niagara River, just 3 miles upstream from the world-renowned falls, was a small city unto itself. It buzzed with workers day and night, and, in its heyday, had its own cafeteria, credit union and health clinic. A job there carried a certain cachet. Workers could make six figures, even without college degrees. But the plant had a dark legacy. Its previous owner, Hooker Chemical, had buried toxic waste in an unfinished aqueduct called Love Canal, then turned the property over to the city for development in the 1950s. After contaminated groundwater sickened the people who lived there, it became known as one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.

Unlike many of the other workers who grew up in the shadow of the plant, following their fathers and uncles into jobs there, Saenz was originally from Northern California. But he fell in love with a woman from Niagara Falls and moved there to start a family with her, working at a hotel, delivering flowers and tending bar—anything to put food on the table, he said—before deciding OxyChem was the job he wanted to stay in.

He was hired in 1989 and soon after got a crash course in chemistry. A jolt of electricity, he learned, could turn a tank of salt water into three substances: chlorine, caustic soda and hydrogen. The chlorine could be sold for disinfecting water, the caustic soda for making paper, soap and aspirin. There was, however, a real danger: If the chemicals mixed, the tank could turn into a bomb. So each tank had a thick, metal screen inside to keep the chemicals apart.

The screen was coated with a layer of impenetrable asbestos. OxyChem used chrysotile, or white asbestos, the most common type. It showed up on trains in oversized bags that looked like pillows stuffed with down feathers. At OxyChem, there were about 200 tanks, called cells, each the size of a dining room table and containing a metal screen. When a screen needed to be recoated, a special team of workers removed it and brought it to the cavernous cell-maintenance building. There, they blasted it with a high-pressure water cannon until the old asbestos fell off. Then, they dipped the clean screen into a wet mixture containing new asbestos and cooked it in an oven until the asbestos hardened. They worked on one or two screens each day.

The asbestos job was one of the most hazardous at the plant, requiring special training. But it also provided a rare benefit. Unlike most positions, which forced workers to take afternoon and midnight shifts, the asbestos job was days only. Saenz, who initially worked in a different department, waited years for an opening on the team, eager to spend more time with his growing family. After his fourth child was born, a spot opened up.

The team was a small fraternity of eight or so men who ate lunch together in a special trailer. Some days, when their shift ended at 2 p.m., they would meet at JD’s, a dive bar near the plant. Other days, it was the wing joint down the street or the bar in Terry Cheetham’s basement. Cheetham was the big brother of the group; the guys called him Soupie. Reserved and shaggy-haired, garrulous only with a beer in hand, he’d dropped out of high school after his father’s death and gone to work for OxyChem. He wanted to help his mom support their family. Soon after Saenz joined the team, Cheetham tapped him on the shoulder. “We’re going for a ride after work,” he said. Later, they pulled up outside the local liquor store. As the new guy, Saenz had to carry the keg.

The guys raised their kids together, helped each other’s families through difficult times. At the plant, they always had each other’s backs. Certain hazards, like fires, were hard to miss. Others, like chlorine leaks, were more subtle. Then, there was the asbestos. As Saenz spent more time on the job, he began noticing just how much of it surrounded him.

Federal workplace safety standards require keeping asbestos fibers wet to prevent them from going airborne, having workers wear protective equipment and containing the asbestos inside certain areas. OxyChem had rules in place to meet those standards. But protocols failed to match reality at the Niagara Falls plant, according to more than a dozen workers.

Water-blasting the screens was like washing a car with a high-powered hose. Asbestos splattered everywhere. It wasn’t a problem when the asbestos was wet. But it would dry overnight, and the next morning, it would be stuck to the ceiling and the walls. Clumps would roll across the floor like tiny tumbleweeds. Floating particles would catch the light when the sun poured in. There was so much asbestos in the cell-maintenance building that it was impossible to keep it all wet, said Robert Cheff, who worked at the plant from 1981 to 2007. “We were constantly swimming in this stuff.”

Workers wore protective gear for certain tasks, like pressure washing and screen dipping. But they went into the building to carry out other tasks without special suits or anything protecting their faces, despite company requirements. One worker said managers enforced those rules. But a dozen others interviewed by ProPublica recalled that the bosses looked the other way. Suiting up was impractical, those workers said. It took time away from the tasks that needed to get done and was uncomfortable, especially on hot days, when the temperature inside could reach 100 degrees.

In the summer, the windows and doors were left open to keep the workers from overheating, allowing asbestos to escape outside. Wet asbestos splashed on their uniforms, coats, helmets and boots. One guy seemed to always have some on his mustache. It would dry and flake off their clothes wherever they went, they said. Saenz remembered walking into safety meetings in the administrative building with asbestos drying on his coveralls. The guys carried so much asbestos into the trailer where they ate lunch and took breaks that it needed to be replaced, former union leaders said.

Their uniforms sat in the laundry, caked with dry asbestos. When the union raised the problem in 2010, managers responded by giving the team its own hamper with a lid to contain the asbestos, said longtime union officer Mike Spacone. Only after union leaders threatened to call federal authorities did the company give the team its own laundry facilities, Spacone said.

On occasion, workers who handled asbestos would leave without showering in the plant’s locker room or wear their work clothes home. “My kids played sports,” recalled Dave Helbig, an employee from 1980 through 2021. “Sometimes I had to leave to get to their games.”

The company would have known employees were being exposed; workers with a high risk of exposure sometimes clipped a small monitor to their bodies to measure the amount of asbestos in the air around them. At least five times in 2001 and 2002, the levels around team member Patrick Nowak exceeded OSHA’s exposure limit, his company records show. “I failed so many times, they quit testing me,” he said. The records do not indicate if Nowak was wearing a protective mask known as a respirator, as some other employees’ records do.

Tony Garfalo wore a monitor seven times in 2001, and, on four occasions, the results exceeded OSHA’s limit, his records show. Once, the asbestos level was more than five times the allowable limit. The records say he was wearing a half-face respirator. Garfalo said his bosses promised to address the situation, but “nothing changed.”

He and the others knew all too well the damage asbestos could cause. Garfalo said his father, who worked the asbestos job at the plant, developed asbestosis. Employees in other departments got sick from a type of asbestos-containing pipe covering that once insulated the plant, longtime employees said and court records show. Cheff said his uncle died from asbestosis at 59. A millwright named Teddy Skiba was diagnosed with mesothelioma and later died.

In addition to those signature diseases, which are rare even among asbestos workers, the tiny strands can harm the body in other ways. They can put people at increased risk of heart disease by scarring the lungs, forcing the heart to work harder to pump blood through them to pick up oxygen. Some scientific evidence suggests an association between asbestos exposure and stroke. And battling all kinds of illnesses with damaged lungs can weaken the body’s ability to fight them; that damage can mean the difference between life and death.

One retired member of the team, Umberto Bernardone, died from an aneurysm in 2004 at age 77. He had long had trouble breathing, said his son, Mario, who also worked at the plant. X-rays showed that asbestosis had scarred his lungs. “The asbestos was with him all the time,” Mario said.

Not long after, another retired team member, Salvatore “Buddy” Vilardo, died from a blood clot, his son said. He was 62.

Cheetham, the group’s big brother, had just retired when he fell ill in 2004. A doctor in Buffalo said it was cancer. Cheetham told his daughter Keri that he was certain the asbestos was responsible and asked her to consult a lawyer after he died. When the guys found out he was sick, they showed up at his house. They found their friend in a bed in his living room, under the care of a hospice nurse, struggling to breathe.

Cheetham died five months before his 56th birthday. His autopsy surprised his family—it wasn’t asbestos after all; an aggressive form of skin cancer had killed him. His former co-workers weren’t told about the autopsy. For years, they believed his cancer had been brought on by asbestos exposure. The memory of Cheetham’s last gasps haunted the guys like a ghost, a harbinger of what their own futures might hold.

Elsewhere in the world, governments were taking action to protect their people. Saudi Arabia banned asbestos in 1998, Chile and Argentina did so in 2001, Australia in 2003. By 2005, asbestos was outlawed across the European Union. “It was a no-brainer,” said Tatiana Santos, head of chemical policy at the European Environmental Bureau, a network of environmental citizens’ groups.

America’s EPA could have banned asbestos. Congress could have banned it. But over and over, they crumpled in the face of pressure from OxyChem and its peers in the chlorine industry.

The EPA tried to enact a ban in the late 1980s, but the companies got ahead of it. Records from the time show corporations testified that removing asbestos from chlorine plants would not yield significant health benefits because workers were only minimally exposed; they also argued it would require “scrapping large amounts of capital equipment” and thus would “not be economically feasible.”

Under federal law at the time, the EPA was obligated to regulate asbestos in the way that was “least burdensome” to industry. That forced the EPA to make a cold calculation: Banning asbestos in chlorine plants would prevent “relatively few cancer cases” but increase the companies’ costs. So when the agency enacted an asbestos ban in 1989, it carved out an exemption for the mineral’s use in the chlorine industry.

The EPA made it clear that the companies should begin using alternatives to asbestos screens; in fact, according to company records made public through litigation and published as part of Columbia University and the City University of New York’s Toxic Docs project, OxyChem had already developed screens that didn’t need an asbestos coating. Still, the companies celebrated their immunity from regulation.

“WE HAVE A WIN,” a lobbyist declared in an internal communication included in the Toxic Docs project.

In the end, asbestos was never banned. The asbestos industry challenged the ban in court, and in 1991, a panel of federal judges deemed the rule too onerous and overturned it. The decision was a stinging blow to the EPA, several current and former employees told ProPublica. “I still remember the shock on the managers’ faces,” said Greg Schweer, an EPA veteran who ran its new-chemicals management branch before he retired in 2020. The office “was full of energized people wanting to make their mark. But things changed after that.” The agency shelved efforts to regulate other dangerous substances and wouldn’t attempt a similar chemical ban for 28 years.

Most industries stopped using asbestos anyway, a phenomenon experts largely attribute to a wave of lawsuits from people with asbestos-related diseases. But the chlorine industry kept using its asbestos screens. It continued importing hundreds of tons of the substance every year, more than the weight of the Statue of Liberty.

In 2002, Sen. Patty Murray a Democrat from Washington, tried to get a ban through Congress. She tried again in 2003 and again in 2007. That year, with Democrats in control of the Senate and House, her effort found some traction. OxyChem was keenly aware how much an asbestos ban would hurt its bottom line. Chlorine and caustic soda were the focus of its chemical operation, financial statements show, driving more than $4 billion in annual sales. Most of OxyChem’s plants still used asbestos; if they had to close, production would tumble.

Occidental Petroleum, OxyChem’s owner, was a force on Capitol Hill, with lobbyists that spent millions influencing policy and a political action committee that pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into campaigns each election cycle. OxyChem was also a member of the American Chemistry Council, an influential trade organization that made campaign contributions of its own.

The industry had an ally in then-Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana; at the time, at least a quarter of the 16 asbestos-dependent plants in the country were located in the Republican senator’s home state, records show. At a hearing in June 2007, Vitter echoed the chlorine industry’s standby talking point, that its manufacturing process involved “minimal to no release of asbestos and absolutely no worker exposure.”

“Now, if this were harming people or potentially killing people, that would be the end of the argument, we should outlaw it,” he added. “But there is no known case of asbestos-related disease from the chlor-alkali industry using this technology.”

Then-Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat in favor of the ban, pushed back, saying the chlorine manufacturing process was “not as clean as one would think.” But to build support for the bill, proponents ultimately agreed to exclude products that might contain trace levels of asbestos, such as crushed stone, as well as the asbestos used in the chlorine industry.

The bill passed out of the Senate on a unanimous vote. But many of the public health advocates who championed the initial measure opposed the watered-down version, saying it had been practically gutted, and it failed to find support in the House. Vitter, who later went on to lobby for the American Chemistry Council, did not respond to requests for an interview.

In the 15 years that followed, congressional attempts to ban asbestos would continue to fall short.

Yet another federal entity had the power to protect the OxyChem workers. There was once a time when OSHA inspectors visited the Niagara Falls plant about every year. That ended in 1996, when the plant won coveted admission into an OSHA program that exempted it from such scrutiny.

The Star Program, created during the Reagan administration as part of OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs, allows plants that can prove they are model facilities to avoid random inspections. The theory behind the program is that motivating companies to adhere to best practices on their own is more effective than having underfunded government inspectors punish them.

At the Niagara Falls plant, former union leaders believed the program would protect jobs and make the facility safer, they told ProPublica. They worked with management on the application—a monthslong process that entailed updating the plant’s safety practices and submitting to a rigorous inspection. But what actually changed, the union leaders said, was that OSHA inspectors came far less frequently and announced their visits well in advance. When OSHA came to re-evaluate the plant, usually every three to five years, management spent months preparing, said Spacone, the union officer. “They would clean the hell out of the place. Everything would be spotless.” Work in certain areas came to a halt. Plant representatives tried to limit what the evaluators saw.

Even still, in 2011, evaluators found asbestos “scattered in certain areas of the floor” and covering much of the mechanical equipment, records show. “This contamination can spread easily when dry,” they wrote in a report. “Appropriate clean up procedures must be instituted to prevent airborne asbestos.” The evaluators did not give the plant an official citation. In the end, they applauded the plant’s “commitment to safety and health” and recommended it for continued participation in the program.

Three years later, evaluators identified another issue related to hygiene: Although the plant tested the air for hazards like asbestos, it wasn’t using the data to spot problems. What’s more, the person in charge of the program wasn’t properly trained. OSHA let the plant remain in the program on the condition that it fixed the problems within a year. The plant updated its software and the department leader took a 56-hour course, records show.

Apart from the re-evaluation visits, OSHA made just two other trips to the plant between 1996 and 2021, records show. Only one included a full inspection. On that visit, inspectors cited the plant for failing to protect workers from falls. The other visit did not result in any citations.

With OSHA largely out of the picture, the plant’s managers became more lax about safety, Spacone said. “I started thinking [that joining the Star Program] was a mistake,” he said. Debbie Berkowitz, a former chief of staff and senior policy adviser at OSHA during the Obama administration, said that, in her experience, it was possible for plants to stay in the program long after their commitment to safety had lapsed. “Once they’re in, they’re in,” she said. “In most cases, it is a total ruse.”

OSHA declined to make an official available for an on-the-record interview or comment on ProPublica’s findings at the Niagara Falls plant. A Department of Labor spokesperson said that plants can be terminated from the program and that unions can withdraw their support.

In the absence of government intervention, union leaders tried to tackle the asbestos problem themselves, four former union presidents told ProPublica. The union repeatedly asked management to expand the asbestos team and have certain people dedicated to cleaning. Plant leaders refused, they said. “It was a never-ending battle,” said Vincent Ferlito, one of the former presidents. “It always came back to the same thing: money.”

Fed up with the mess, Garfalo grabbed a roll of red caution tape one day in 2007 and wrapped it around the asbestos-soiled building where his team worked, to the amazement of his colleagues. He barricaded each doorway, then hung as many danger signs as he could find. The protest prompted his managers to hire professionals for a one-time clean, but they also warned him to never do it again, he said.

By 2011, a year after he’d retired, Garfalo couldn’t ignore a lingering cough that would occasionally startle him out of sleep. His doctor couldn’t tell whether his breathing difficulties were caused by asbestos or his smoking habit, but said that smokers who are exposed to the substance have an even higher risk of serious illness. Garfalo’s mind traveled back to a day, a dozen years earlier, when he climbed atop the cell-maintenance building to fix a fan, only to discover that the entire roof was coated in asbestos. Train cars parked beside the building were covered, too. He thought about the homes less than a half-mile away and wondered how far the fibers had traveled.

In August 2021, OxyChem announced it was closing the Niagara Falls plant, blaming “unfavorable regional market conditions” and rising rail costs in New York state. Over time, its workforce had dwindled from more than 1,300 to about 150. OxyChem’s chlorine operation was now mostly in Gulf Coast states with lower taxes and less regulation.

And a law that had once protected it from “burdensome” environmental rules had changed.

In 2016, Congress had updated the Toxic Substances Control Act, removing the requirement that the EPA choose regulations that burdened industry as little as possible. Though the change gave the agency another chance to ban asbestos, it wasn’t going to happen during the Trump administration; the former president once alleged that the movement against asbestos was “led by the mob” and had his face featured on the packaging of Russian-produced asbestos. Under the Biden administration, however, the EPA determined that all workers in asbestos-dependent chlorine plants faced an “unreasonable risk” of getting sick from it, citing a review of the companies’ own exposure-monitoring data. This April, EPA Administrator Michael Regan proposed a ban for the first time in more than three decades.

It could be eight months or more before the rule is finalized. Two trade associations, the American Chemistry Council and the Chlorine Institute, are imploring the EPA to reconsider. They are once again arguing that the companies use asbestos safely—and they’ve turned to industry-friendly scientists and consulting firms to accuse the EPA of overestimating the risk to workers.

When given a summary of ProPublica’s reporting on the Niagara Falls plant and asked to respond, Chlorine Institute Vice President Robyn Brooks said her organization had no knowledge of the situation and referred reporters to OxyChem. The American Chemistry Council pointed to the plant’s participation in the Star program as proof of its “record of performance.”

The industry groups have also made the case that a ban would jeopardize the country’s supply of chlorine and could even create a drinking water shortage. But the EPA and public health advocates contest those claims. They point out that only a small fraction of the chlorine produced by asbestos-dependent plants is used to clean drinking water and that OxyChem and Olin have voluntarily closed or reduced capacity at several of those plants in recent years without catastrophically disrupting the supply chain. In fact, OxyChem told investors in August that its plans to upgrade the asbestos-reliant technology at its largest chlorine facility next year would have “no impact on customers,” a transcript shows. For at least eight years, the company has been slowly upgrading some plants to a newer technology that uses a polymer membrane to separate the chemicals; it built a completely asbestos-free plant in 2014.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has come to the companies’ defense, saying asbestos is “tightly regulated” and “used safely every day” in the chlor-alkali industry. So have 12 Republican attorneys general, including Ken Paxton of Texas and Jeff Landry of Louisiana. In a letter, they questioned whether the EPA has the authority to pursue a ban, signaling a readiness to take the agency to court like the asbestos industry did in 1989. (The Chamber and most of the attorneys general declined to comment or did not respond to inquiries from ProPublica. A spokesperson for Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson called the situation at the Niagara Falls plant “very concerning” and said that it would be “completely misleading” to suggest that the letter implied approval of such circumstances.)

Industry leaders are confident they will prevail. “We’ve been engaged in this activity for quite a while and have pushed back on it,” Olin CEO Scott Sutton told shareholders on a July 29 earnings call. “I think you’re not likely to see a final rule come out that is as proposed.”

Michal Freedhoff, the EPA’s top chemical regulator, said she could not comment on what the final rule-making decision would be. But she said the agency was not backing down on the science and that ProPublica’s reporting underscores the need for decisive action.

Given the potential for litigation, lawmakers are renewing their effort to pass a law banning asbestos, which would be more difficult to challenge in court. “It is a brutal and painful fight,” said Linda Reinstein, a leading advocate who co-founded the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization after her husband, Alan, died of mesothelioma in 2006. “We’re not going away.”

Hanging in the balance is the health of hundreds of workers at the eight remaining asbestos-dependent chlorine plants in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Kansas. ProPublica reached out to current and former employees at those facilities. At the OxyChem plant in Wichita, union president Keith Peacock said he was comfortable with the way asbestos was handled. “I don’t know of anyone who sees this as a health issue,” he said. “There are rules in place for it and everyone adheres to those safety guidelines.” But Chris Murphy, a former union president at Olin’s plant in Alabama, said the conditions there mirrored the ones described by the workers in Niagara Falls. He said he himself had seen asbestos caked on beams and cranes in recent years and been told to remove it with a putty knife. “There ain’t nothing to it,” he remembered his managers saying. “You’ll be all right. It ain’t that bad.” He wasn’t told to wear protective gear, he said, so he didn’t.

The former OxyChem workers who still live in Niagara Falls gather once a month to reminisce over Buffalo wings and beef piled high on salty kummelweck rolls. They can only wait and see if they develop symptoms as they enter the post-exposure time frame in which asbestos-related disease is commonly diagnosed.

Saenz left the plant with a bad back in 2016. Now a 64-year-old grandfather of two, he’s been having lung trouble and considering X-rays to see if there are signs of asbestos-related damage. “I’m wondering if I’m not headed down that road,” he said.

He sees the burden he now carries as a tradeoff for the lifestyle he was once afforded. “It was a great place to work. I was able to raise four children and buy a house and live the American dream.” He even gave his son Henry Jr. his blessing to start a job at OxyChem in 2013, so long as he stayed far away from asbestos. Saenz now wonders how much more time he has left with his family.

“It’s a nightmare,” he said. “It’s a price you pay, I guess.”

The post The US never banned asbestos. These workers are paying the price. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Global carbon emissions rose in 2021, bouncing back up an estimated six percent following months of slowed emission during the COVID-19 shutdowns. It was a sobering reminder of just how much work remained ahead of us to if we are to ensure a sustainable future for ourselves, but according to a new report from the International Energy Agency released earlier this week, this year’s numbers are thankfully much lower. The latest data analyzed by IEA experts indicates global CO2 emissions are on course to increase by nearly 300 million tons in 2022 compared to last year’s levels, putting the total amount around 33.8 billion tons. Any increase isn’t exactly great, but it’s a far cry from the almost 2 billion ton leap made between 2021 and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The key to this heartening alteration is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the rapid rise in renewable energy sources. The IEA notes that, were it not for “major deployments” of renewable energy tech alongside increased demand for electric vehicles (EVs), we would have likely seen almost triple that number. This even figures the ongoing geopolitical crisis in Ukraine, which has had dramatic effects on the global supply of natural gas and oil. “Even though the energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has propped up global coal demand in 2022 by making natural gas far more expensive, the relatively small increase in coal emissions has been considerably outweighed by the expansion of renewables,” notes the IEA in its summary.

[Related: This space-adapted solar panel can fold like origami.]

The report notes that solar and wind systems led the rise in renewable energy generation in 2022, producing over 700 terawatt-hours(TWh)—the largest annual rise ever measured—accounting for two-thirds of all renewable power. Additionally, “despite the challenging situation that hydropower has faced in several regions due to droughts this year, global hydropower output is up year-on-year, contributing over one-fifth of the expected growth in renewable power.”

Of course, it rarely is all good news when it comes to our fight against climate change. A minuscule rise in emissions is certainly wonderful to hear, but humanity needs to massively reduce our total amount if we’re to stave off the worst effects of eco-catastrophe. A recent study showed that, were we to continue on pace at our current trajectory, nearly 90 percent of all marine life could be wiped out by the end of the century. Still, seeing the measurable effects of increased renewable energies is certainly encouraging news, to say the least. With any luck, we’ll see similarly low numbers—if not even lower—this time next year.

The post Global CO2 emissions grew by less than a percent this year thanks to renewables appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Getting a new smartphone is undeniably exciting. A new model typically comes with a better camera, faster processing, more storage, a better screen and more. However, all of this constant smartphone turnover is wrecking havoc on the environment, especially when it comes to disposing of older phones. A study from 2018 predicts that smartphones and data processing centers will be the most environmentally damaging part of the communications sector by 2040.

While there are options for recycling smartphones, phones and other waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEEs) aren’t recycled for a variety of reasons.

[Related: We need safer ways to recycle electric car and cellphone batteries.]

An estimated 5.3 billion mobile phones will be thrown out in 2022, according to the WEE Forum and the UN’s Global E-Waste Monitor. For context, that many unused phones would rise about 31,000 miles into the air when stacked on top of one another. When items like laptops and cellphones are thrown into landfills, they leak toxic chemicals into the environment.

Today, the WEE Forum in partnership with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) Sustainable Cycles (SCYCLE) Programme released results of surveys conducted by the WEEE Forum to investigate why so many electronics fail to be repaired or recycled. The surveys were conducted from June to September 2022 and included 8,775 European households in six countries (Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Romania, Slovenia, and a separate United Kingdom survey).

It found that the average household contains 74 e-products such as phones, tablets, laptops, electric tools, hair dryers, toasters and other appliances. Of that 74 average total e-products, 13 are being hoarded, meaning nine go unused but work and four are broken.

The most commonly hoarded small EEEs are small consumer electronics and accessories like headphones and remote controls, household equipment like clocks, information technology equipment, mobile and smartphones, and equipment for food preparation. 

Some of the reasons respondents gave for holding on to WEEE ranged from might needing it in the future (46 percent), sentimental value (13 percent), to not seeing any incentive to recycle (1 percent).

[Related: You throw out 44 pounds of electronic waste a year. Here’s how to keep it out of the dump.]

“We focussed this year on small e-waste items because it is very easy for them to accumulate unused and unnoticed in households, or to be tossed into the ordinary garbage bin. People tend not to realize that all these seemingly insignificant items have a lot of value, and together at a global level represent massive volumes,” said Pascal Leroy, Director General of the WEEE Forum in a press release. “The producer responsibility organizations in the WEEE Forum that manage the collection of e-waste are constantly working to make the proper disposal of small e-waste simple and convenient for users and households.”

A UN thought paper also released today describes global ideas and options for reducing the global e-waste problem, including setting universal recycling standards and legal standards.

Additionally, recycling WEEEs can recover some valuable material such as gold, copper, silver, and palladium that can be reused in other items. Some of the best ways to get ride of a smartphone at the end of its life are giving it directly to the phone’s manufacturer, a retail store, or even donate it to a charity to refurbished. There are also multiple ways to up-cycle an old cell phone, by turning it into an alarm clock, security camera, or an e-reader.

The post People will throw away about 5.3 billion phones this year appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

There’s a heated debate about the most environmentally-friendly way to wash dishes—traditional hand-washing or using the dishwasher. Both methods have pros and cons and often boils down to each individual’s preference when it comes to doing the household chore. However, a 2020 study published in Environmental Research Communications found that using a dishwasher is more efficient and eco-friendly than traditional hand-washing techniques most of the time.

There are several ways to make both dishwashing methods more efficient and environmentally friendly, like avoiding leaving the water running as you clean or skipping the heated dry option in the dishwasher (which may reduce water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions). New research shows that an even more environmentally friendly option may be available.

[Related: Save money by making your own dishwasher tablets.]

According to a new Physics of Fluids study, washing dishes with a superheated steam dishwasher can save water and electricity compared to conventional dishwashers that require long cycle times. It also does away with chemical cleaning agents like dishwashing detergents which may pollute water sources. Lastly, a superheated steam dishwasher may eliminate pathogens more efficiently, including heat-resistant, potentially harmful bacteria.

“We have developed a computational model to predict the turbulent flow and heat transfer of the steam in the dishwasher,” says Natalie Germann, study author and professor of fluid mechanics at the Technical University of Dortmund in Germany. Using the model, Germann and her co-authors discovered how superheated steam from a nozzle at a high velocity can create shock waves that clean a plate. When the plate reaches 180 degrees Celsius, the heat may inactivate bacteria on the surface within 25 seconds.

The authors determined the strength and position of the shocks, the flow pattern of the steam jet, and the condensation rate that can effectively disinfect dishes. However, this study is just the first of many, and you can’t just grab one of these the next time you’re looking for an upgrade in your kitchen. The single-item model is still in its beginning stages, and more research is needed to see how effective superheated steam is in cleaning plenty of dishes simultaneously.

“We will also expand our investigation from a simple dishwasher prototype with one nozzle to multiple nozzles and multiple plates,” says Germann. “Our upcoming simulations will show that the steam needs much more time to reach all places in a completely filled dishwasher and clean the dishes.”

Since the current study only focused on developing the computational framework and seeing how superheated steam can inactivate bacteria, its ability to remove food debris stuck on the plate has yet to be verified in future research by including food residues in their simulations. Still, the authors believe that steam can easily remove food layers from containers.

[Related: Are carbon labels on products just greenwashing?]

Conventional dishwashers running at a temperature of 65 degrees Celsius can effectively kill naturally occurring bacteria on dirty plates, reducing the mean number of microorganism colonies by more than 99 percent. That is significantly better than washing them by hand and drying them with a small towel, which can increase the number of bacteria on the plates seven times over. However, the efficacy of a superheated steam dishwasher in killing bacteria is an advantage. The technology may even be used in hospitals, restaurants, nursing homes, and other professional environments where high cleanliness and bacterial safety are essential, says Germann.

Further research into the capabilities of a superheated steam dishwasher may be worth exploring. “Since dishwashers are initially more expensive to purchase, it’s important for consumers to know that this will pay off over time through increased dishwasher efficiency,” says Germann. “In addition, sustainability is a big issue these days, and new technologies that help conserve limited resources like water and energy are in high demand.” 

For now, you can stick to traditional hand-washing and conventional dishwashers. Still, the future may hold an eco-friendlier, steamier, and futuristic way to clean up after dinner.

The post The future of dishwashing could be hot, steamy, and sustainable appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A lot of climate change-fighting strategies focus on removing air pollutants, or preventing them from reaching the atmosphere at all. While pretty much everybody these days can recognize carbon dioxide and methane as two of them, the US just joined around 130 other nations to take a big step in knocking out a third: hydrofluorocarbons, also known as HFCs. 

Some experts are marking the move “the most significant environmental treaty that the United States has joined in at least a decade.” Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer called it, alongside passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, as the “strongest one-two punch against climate change any Congress has ever taken.” But the push to get rid of the extremely potent group of greenhouse gases has a history decades in the making. 

Thinning (and fixing) the ozone layer

HFCs first came onto the scene in the 1980s and 1990s to replace chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, in refrigerators and air conditioners. Those earlier substances were invented in the 1920s to make cooling and foaming agents. They had uniquely non-flammable, tasteless, and odorless properties, as well as a low boiling point close to zero degrees Celsius.

But CFCs were also a nightmare for the environment. The synthetic, which was also found in aerosolized products like hair spray, depleted the ozone layer by releasing chlorine into the atmosphere. Not to mention, the compounds produce a super-powered greenhouse gas that can warm the planet up to 10,000 times as much as carbon dioxide (though it doesn’t persist as long in the air).

[Related: 5 famous environmental disasters where humans and nature healed together]

By 1974, researchers has figured out how bad CFCs—but the action didn’t really kick in until the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987. This agreement phased out the super powerful ozone killer and climate warmer, with goals for developed and developing countries to fully phase them out by 2020 and 2030, respectively.

But just as society will have to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, something has to come in to substitute for CFCs. Enter HFCs, a slightly less toxic, ozone-safe option. Or so it seemed.

HFCs turn out to be a powerful greenhouse gas

The difference between HFCs and their predecessors was the fact that they lacked chlorine, the main ingredient in ozone depletion. But the newer chemicals came with their own environmental baggage. As far back as the 1990s, atmospheric scientists were also aware of the global warming impact that the compounds could have. “The US Environmental Protection Agency is concerned that rapid expansion of the use of some HFCs could contribute to global warming,” National Research Council (US) Subcommittee to Review Toxicity of Alternatives to Chlorofluorocarbons wrote in a report in 1996. “Nonetheless, use of HFCs offers lower overall risk than use of CFCs, as well as a reduction in the time needed to eliminate CFC use.”

Nevertheless, HFC use grew. The ones that replaced CFCs now represent about 1 percent of total greenhouse gas warming, and can potentially warm the planet hundreds of thousands times more than than carbon dioxide, based on mass, according to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition. According to the UN, HFC emissions are growing at a rate of around 8 percent every year, and annual emissions are projected to rise to 7 to 19 percent of global CO₂ emissions equivalent by 2050. 

Since 2009, however, members of the Montreal Protocol have been negotiating the phaseout of these global warming menaces, resulting in the 2016 signing of the Kigali Amendment. Countries from the Montreal Protocol, including big players like India, the European Union, and China, agreed to add HFCs to controlled substance lists and approve timelines to knock down usage 80 to 85 percent by 2040. Developed nations started their reductions in 2019, with developing nations to follow a few years behind. 

But notably, not the US. Donald Trump refused to sign it in 2016, even though it had bipartisan support and the backing of industry groups. Research from the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy and the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute even found that signing it would increase exports of goods with HFC alternatives by $5 billion by 2027—and net thousands of US manufacturing jobs. 

Another major step for US climate policy

Thankfully, a lot has changed in the past two years with climate policy. On September 21, 2022, the Senate quietly voted 69-27 to finally ratify Kigali and bring the US back on board with the the modern version of the Montreal Protocol. US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry called it “a profound victory ​for the climate and the American economy.” 

[Related: Scientists think we can get 90 percent clean energy by 2035]

If the Kigali Amendment follows in the footsteps of its CFC-focused predecessor, the impact could be major. Since 1990, the Montreal parties have phased out 98 percent of ozone-depleting substances, allowing the Earth’s protective layer to recover. (It’s estimated to be fully sealed up again by the 2050 or 2060s.) In the US alone, that means preventing 443 million cases of skin cancer, 2.3 million skin cancer deaths, and 63 million cases of cataracts by 2100. 

Assuming the US government fully follows through on Kigali, it could be the single largest contribution by people to keeping the planet below two degrees Celsius of warming—the threshold associated with keeping the planet livable for humans and other species. Wiping out HFC use under this agreement can help prevent more than 100 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, which means avoiding up to 0.5 degree Celsius of global temperature rise by 2100. 

Of course, there is still much to be done on climate change policy at home and abroad—but the ratification is a massive victory to climate-minded policymakers and activists. “This action will encourage other countries to join the agreement,” Dan Lashof, the US director of the World Resources Institute said in a release. “[It will] send a strong signal to the rest of the world that the nation is serious about addressing the climate crisis and investing in a cleaner, more sustainable economy.”

The post The US ban on hydrofluorocarbons is a climate game-changer appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Authorities in Denmark, Sweden, and Germany are investigating three separate leaks in two gas pipelines that run under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. Both Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines experienced a sudden drop in pressure Monday morning around 2 a.m. local time, raising concerns among European leaders on Tuesday about possible sabotage. According to The New York Times, neither of the pipelines had been active when the drop was first registered Monday morning, but both were filled with natural gas when they experienced the sharp drop in pressure.

In a statement, the Danish Energy Agency said it had found two leaks on the Nord Stream 1 pipeline located northeast of the Danish island Bornholm. The agency spotted a third in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline located in Swedish waters southeast of Bornholm. According to the Associated Press, the second blast was stronger than the first and was the equivalent of a magnitude-2.3 earthquake and seismic stations in neaby Norway and Finland also registered the explosions.

A five-mile exclusion zone for shipping was set up around the island earlier today, and flights below 3,280 feet (1,000 meters) are banned in the area.

“Breakage of gas pipelines is extremely rare”, Danish authorities said in a statement. “Therefore we see reason to raise the preparedness level as a result of the incidents we have seen over the past 24 hours.”

The Danish Defense command released footage on Twitter that shows a swirling mass of methane bubbling up onto the surface of the Baltic Sea.

[Related: The EU is struggling to phase out Russian oil and gas.]

Nord 1 and 2 have been a focal point of the broadened confrontation between Russia and Europe following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February. The European Union imposed economic sanctions on Russia following the invasion, and the oil and gas producing country began withholding natural gas. Europe has relied on Russian natural gas for decades, and damage to these pipeline threaten the continent’s energy supply as winter looms.

Already, statues and historic buildings are going dark at night. In parts of eastern Europe, people are stocking up on firewood. Residents in Germany are waiting six months to buy, energy-saving heat pumps, according to the AP. Relief programs and plans to shake up electricity and natural gas markets have begun across the continent.

Earlier this month, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz praised the early preparations, saying that the actions mean Europe’s biggest economy is, “now in a position in which we can go bravely and courageously into this winter, in which our country will withstand this.” It is uncertain yet if these efforts are enough to avoid government-imposed rationing and rolling blackouts in the months to come.

The post Gas leaks into the Baltic Sea from Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Humans have consumed meat all throughout history, but more recently, meat consumption has exploded. Global meat production reached about 375 million tons in 2018, more than triple the amount that the world produced fifty years ago. 

The production of animal-based foods carry heavy environmental impacts, using approximately 2422 cubic gigameters of water yearly. They also account for about 57 percent of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from food production—almost twice the emissions from plant-based foods—not to mention that livestock grazing takes up about 26 percent of the Earth’s ice-free land.

Given its impact on climate change, many argue that it’s time to reduce red meat consumption and explore viable alternatives. For some meat lovers, seafood may be the ideal swap.

Seafood is a relatively low climate impact source of highly nutritious food. The authors of a new Nature study analyzed the GHG emissions associated with the production of various seafood like whitefish and crustaceans as well as their respective nutrient densities. They found that reducing the consumption of red meat and replacing it with certain seafood species may improve nutrition and reduce GHG emissions at the same time.

[Related: Eating sustainably may mean skipping the lobster for now.]

Seafood contains nutrients that other foods don’t have, or only in very low levels, such as iodine, vitamin D, and omega-3 fatty acids, says Friederike Ziegler, study author and senior scientist at the RISE Research Institutes of Sweden. In terms of nutrition and greenhouse gas emissions, those that performed best or had the lowest emissions per nutrient density were small pelagic species (like anchovies, mackerels, and herrings), bivalves like mussels and oysters, and salmonids, she adds.

Based on the study, large pelagics like yellowfin tuna also had high nutrient density scores, but they produced more emissions than small pelagics, bivalves, and salmonids. Meanwhile, most whitefish species—like the Atlantic cod—had fewer GHG emissions per edible product than large pelagics, but they weren’t as nutritious.

“Diet shift is a key strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” says Greg Keoleian, director of the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability who was not involved in the study. Shifting from beef to different seafood may lead to a large reduction in emissions, but sustainability is hardly ever that simple. 

A primary concern for switching from turf to surf is the sustainable production of each seafood species. This depends on various factors such as the source and production method as well as the feed for aquaculture, he adds.

In 1974, about 10 percent of fish stocks were being fished at biologically unsustainable levels, meaning they were being caught at a rate faster than the fish can recover its population. Since then, this percentage has tripled—rising to 31 percent in 2013 and 34 percent in 2020. Overfishing, the main driver of ocean wildlife population decline, can cause the loss of breeders, disruption of natural communities, and a massive depletion of many species, thereby harming ocean biodiversity.

“Many small pelagic fish stocks are currently overfished and they play a vital role in aquatic ecosystems,” says Keoleian. “These fish are also heavily fished for fishmeal used in aquaculture.  Many salmon stocks are also overfished and bivalves populations are declining due to climate change, so sustainability of production from increased demand could be a concern.”

There is potential to increase production and total consumption of small pelagic species by making use of underexploited species. Additionally, utilizing other species that typically end up in fishmeal and fish oil in aquafeeds could be beneficial, says Ray Hilborn, professor at the University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences.

Salmon, on the other hand, is pretty much fully exploited. “Any hopes for increased hatchery production are dubious because there appears to be competition for food in the North Pacific ocean, so more hatcheries would not likely increase total production,” says Hilborn.

Policymakers play a major role in shaping sustainable seafood production. They affect the food system from different angles, ranging from dietary advice that influences people’s eating habits to fishing regulations or aquaculture licensing procedures that shape the sustainability and volume of production in fisheries and aquaculture, says Ziegler.

For example, the Keep Finfish Free Act of 2019 aimed to prohibit the issuance of permits to conduct finfish aquaculture in the US Exclusive Economic Zone, unless specifically authorized by Congress. The health and integrity of Alaska’s wild fish stock must be protected and properly managed, otherwise, industrial aquaculture operations may threaten the ecosystem with non-native and genetically modified fish species, according to Alaska Rep. Don Young who filed the legislation.

[Related: How to eat sustainably without sacrificing your favorite foods.]

To increase seafood production without causing further environmental harm, all wild stocks must be managed sustainably, which means fishing within their biological limits and protecting the ecosystem they depend on, says Ziegler. This maximizes the harvest from capture fisheries.

Ensuring that the harvested fish biomass is used for food and not wasted along the supply chain would also make a difference. A lot of fish processing trimmings are used in feeds, even though it is fully possible to utilize more of these side streams to produce nutritious food or food ingredients, she adds.

Meanwhile, designating marine protection areas (MPA) can be effective in restoring ecosystems, says Keoleian. Labels informing consumers of sustainable seafood production may also influence consumers’ consumption, he adds. For instance, the Marine Stewardship Council certification is a way to show that a particular fishery meets established standards and best practices for sustainable fishing.

Overall, if you want to reduce your carbon footprint and eat red meat less frequently, try incorporating more sustainably-sourced seafood into your diet. Not only will you be helping the planet, but you’ll also benefit from having a more varied diet.

The post Eating seafood can be more sustainable and healthy than red meat appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Despite being a wealthy country, clean water crises continue to plague the US. Late last week, residents of Jackson, Mississippi filed a class action lawsuit over a major water crisis that left 150,000 people in the capital city without clean running water. The crisis started after major flooding in August, but follows years of neglect to the infrastructure in the majority-Black city. Simultaneously, an arsenic scare in New York City’s Jacob Riis Houses further sounded the alarm on critical updates to aging water infrastructure.

Arguably the biggest water wake-up-calls have come from the city of Flint, Michigan. On April 25th, 2014, the city government switched its water supply from Lake Huron and the Detroit River to the Flint River. The water supply then wasn’t properly treated to prevent lead and other elements from leaching out of the city’s old water pipes and into the drinking water. Virtually all Flint residents were consequently exposed to drinking water with unsafe levels of bacteria, disinfection byproducts, and lead (a neurotoxicant).

Now, a new study published in the journal JAMA Network Open reveals the serious mental toll that these water crisis can have on the residents affected. The study looked at data from the largest mental health survey of the Flint community. In the five years after the water crisis began, one in five adults (about 13,600 people) were estimated to have clinical depression, and one in four (about 15,000 people) were estimated to have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) five years after the water crisis began.

[Related: Michigan health director charged with involuntary manslaughter due to Flint water woes.]

“The mental health burden of America’s largest public-works environmental disaster clearly continues for many adults in Flint,” said Aaron Reuben, a postdoctoral scholar at Duke University who led the research, in a press release.

The drinking water in Flint wasn’t declared lead-free until January 24, 2017, but residents were cautioned that it could take over a year for the water to be completely safe. Tens of thousands of children and adults developed high blood-lead levels, putting them at greater risk for cognitive deficits, mental health problems, and other health problems later in life.

“We know that large-scale natural or human-caused disasters can trigger or exacerbate depression and PTSD,” said Dean Kilpatrick, a psychiatry professor at the Medical University of South Carolina and senior author of the study, in a press release. Kilpatrick noted that there was evidence of high rates of mental health problems in the community during the first years of the crisis. “What we did not know until now was the extent to which Flint residents continued to have mental health problems at the clinical diagnosis level five years after the crisis began.”

Past year rates of depression and PTSD identified in Flint and today they are three to five times greater than national estimates among US adults overall, according to Kilpatrick. This is likely due to a combination of higher base rates of mental health problems in Flint (lower incomes and systemic poverty, for example) before the crisis and significant exacerbation of problems resulting from the crisis.

[Related: The devastating effects of childhood lead exposure could last a lifetime.]

“The vast majority of our respondents were never offered mental health services despite clear indication that the crisis was psychologically traumatic. Now that pipes are being replaced, the time is right to begin a second phase of recovery from the water crisis – one that focuses on providing additional resources to heal psychological wounds,” Reuben added.

The findings in this study suggest that more should be done to provide mental health treatment for residents of Flint. “There is a clear unmet need. Nearly 100 percent of surveyed Flint residents reported that they changed their behavior to avoid consuming contaminated water during the crisis, and the vast majority still worry that the exposures they had may cause future health problems for themselves or their family members,” concluded Reuben.

While this problem isn’t unique to Flint, the city and its people shone a glaring spotlight on a nationwide issue. One of the enduring faces of this Flint crisis is Mari Copeny aka Little Miss Flint. At eight years-old, she wrote a letter to then President Barack Obama to draw attention to the crisis. The president shared that “letters from kids like you are what make me so optimistic about the future” and he visited Flint in 2016. Now 15 years-old, Copeny has continued to advocate for environmental justice and even launched a GoFundMe to raise money for Jackson residents.

The post PTSD found in 1 in 4 adults in Flint, Michigan, after water crisis appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In August and September of 2018, hundreds of people in and around the central Chilean region of Quintero-Puchuncavi were hospitalized with symptoms of toxic gas poisoning. The two towns lie within a four-mile radius of 17 heavy industries, including copper smelting and refining, a coal-powered electricity generating plant, and an oil terminal. Today, 50,000 or so residents report dealing with chronic headaches and nausea, even when clouds of toxic gas aren’t escaping from the facilities.

Quintero-Puchuncavi is the most well-known of Chile’s five “zonas de sacrificio medioambiental,” or environmental sacrifice zones. In these areas, a concentration of historically unregulated industrial operations have resulted in negative health outcomes for the 200,000 people currently living in the affected regions, as well as damage to natural resources like water.

“The point was never to ruin these areas, or the quality of life of the people who live in them,” explains Fernando Coz, the director of the Chilean environmental nonprofit Lagos Limpios and environment and sustainability coordinator at University of California, Davis Chile. “In the ‘60s and ‘70s, the focus was on economic policy to produce jobs and move the country forward by driving development in certain zones. There was no consideration for the environment.”

In the decades since, the world has become more aware of the connection between extractive industries and environmental degradation, climate change, and frustration with social inequality. These issues are exemplified by sacrifice zones, which are regions and communities across the planet that suffer disproportionate harms from toxic pollution and heavy industrial activity. (New Orleans’ Cancer Alley fits the mold here in the US.) Now, Chile is in the process of replacing its constitution with a doctrine that could put an end to sacrifice zones and their misuse.

How this constitutional convention prioritizes climate and the environment will not just impact the 200,000 Chileans living in sacrifice zones, but the trajectory of the entire renewable energy transition, which will require a lot of lithium and copper, both of which the country has in abundance. Also at stake is the biodiversity across its many ecosystems.

[Related on PopSci+: The race to close the EV battery recycling loop]

Chile is as rich in diverse environments as it is valuable resources, including the rugged peaks of Patagonia, the world’s driest desert called the Atacama, old-growth forest, glaciers, and miles of coastline. But for much of its history, the Latin American power has struggled to steward its natural environments while capitalizing on them for economic development. The sacrifice zones mark one of the most extreme examples of that imbalance. 

Chile’s five sacrifice zones date back to before the current constitution, which was written in 1980 under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. The first industrial facility in Quintero-Puchuncavi was built by the national oil company ENAP in 1954. 

Since then, “environmental policy and regulation have been running behind, trying to catch up with development,” Coz explains. The wealth generated from mining, chemical processing, and other extractive industries helped grow Chile’s GDP rapidly. Today, the country exports nearly a third of the world’s copper, more than any other nation. It’s the leading producer of rare minerals like rhenium, iodine, and potassium nitrate; plus, 50 percent of the planet’s lithium lies within Chile’s borders, although it only produces 23 percent of the supply bought and sold around the world each year. 

The byproduct of extracting and selling those minerals—and the corresponding economic growth—has polluted soil and waterways, poisoned air, and caused illness and death in communities where corporations had free reign. 

In the last few years, however, it’s started to seem like regulation might be able to catch up to industry. The environmental injustices in the sacrifice zones, and the social inequities caused by them, has pushed the country to consider new constitutional protections for nature. As global demand for Chile’s resources grows, how it will be regulated is the subject of contentious debate. 

[Related: What would America be like without the EPA?]

The first proposed revised constitution made the environment central in policy and the government’s decision-making, but was rejected by the people in a popular vote in early September. But sustainability experts like Coz see other avenues to making Chile’s future cleaner and more livable for its residents. After all, the constitution that’s been used for decades (with some revisions) explicitly gives people the right to a pollution-free environment. Over time, the nation’s leaders prioritized privatization and deregulation, showing that written law only goes as far as it’s enacted.

Coz is optimistic that change—and balance—is possible in his country, despite the recent downvote on the constitutional amendments. He points to the many environmental goals the federal government has already set, including transitioning to renewable energy and conserving endangered species. Just last year, it passed a new law protecting urban wetlands from development. “There has been a culture shift,” Coz says. ”Communities and citizens are saying that the environment needs to be a priority.”

The post For years, Chile exploited its environment to grow. Now it’s trying to save it. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on High Country News.

Lake Merritt, in the center of Oakland, California, is a tidal estuary connected to the Pacific Ocean. It usually teems with life, both human and marine. In early September, its 3-mile shoreline was bustling with joggers. But in the sunset-blackened waters, the gleaming white corpses of thousands of decaying fish bobbed along in the gentle tide and piled up in mounds along the lagoon’s edges.

In late July, an algae bloom began spreading in San Francisco Bay, which stretches 60 miles north to south. The bloom has since exploded, expanding north into San Pablo Bay, including the shores of Napa County, and conditions in mid-September were still dire, with the fish kill reaching into the tens of thousands. It is the largest and longest-lasting algae bloom in the bay’s recorded history.

Though the conditions—a combination of warm summer waters, sunlight and heavy nutrients—have been ripe for an algae bloom for decades, the scale of the resulting fish die-off exceeded scientists’ most dire models. Tens of thousands of anchovies, bat rays, striped bass, leopard sharks, bottom-dwelling worms and mollusks — even humongous, decades-old white sturgeon—are washing ashore dead while countless more are sinking to the bottom.

The devastating casualties are linked to an algae bloom of Heterosigma akashiwo. In the first stage of the bloom, H. akashiwo kills fish through some kind of toxic effect, the specifics of which are still unknown. Once the algae start to die, bacteria in the seawater get busy decomposing them, a process which sucks up oxygen, as confirmed by the dissolved oxygen readings taken by scientists throughout Lake Merritt and the bay in early September. And fish can’t survive in oxygen-depleted water. “It’s like a wildfire in the water,” said Jon Rosenfield, a senior scientist at the San Francisco Baykeeper, an environmental advocacy group. “Once this got to a certain stage, there was really nowhere for (the fish) to swim to.”

Lake Merritt was once a healthy estuary that provided water, food and a way of life to the Ohlone people who lived near its shores. But in the 19th century, after pushing Indigenous people out of the area, European colonists used Lake Merritt’s waters as a dumping ground for sewage and wastewater. For decades the city still routed sewage pipes into its waters. As one historian noted, by the turn of the 20th century, Lake Merritt had become “a cesspool and a menace to public health.” It wasn’t until the 1980s that the city began infrastructure projects to clean up the lake, including rerouting the sewage pipes to wastewater treatment plants. Since then, Lake Merritt has seen a steady increase in water quality.

On a recent Sunday in late August, Damon Tighe, a local naturalist who documents Lake Merritt’s incredible biodiversity, went out to Lake Merritt and told me that he was horrified by what he saw. “Every corner had dead gobies”—a type of small bony fish—he said. It was a heart-wrenching reversal of the lagoon’s centuries-long recovery story. Worried about the mounting death toll and frustrated by the lack of public information available, Tighe set up a community science iNaturalist project page, where people could upload their observations of dead fish and compile data points in real time. Because fish decay within days of death, timely data collection is essential for understanding the magnitude of the disaster.

Keith Bouma-Gregson, a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s California Water Science Center, was taking water samples around the bay when he saw dead sturgeon floating in the water. “That’s like going out to the forest and seeing your old-growth long-lived species (like redwoods) getting hit pretty hard,” he said. “That was a real sobering moment of recognizing that this this bloom truly was harmful.”

Though the current bloom is unprecedented, it’s not unexpected; this particular species of algae is commonly found throughout the bay. In order to grow, algae need sunlight, warm water and nutrients. In the summertime, San Francisco Bay gets plenty of sunlight. The average temperature of the bay’s waters has also increased over the years, following the general patterns of climate change. And nutrients regularly flow into the water from urban stormwater and agricultural runoff, though the largest contributor by far is recycled sewage from the region’s 37 wastewater treatment plants.

During a recent phone interview, Rosenfield compared the bloom to a catastrophic wildfire where the conditions — created by human mismanagement — are prime for ignition. “The spark is analogous to the cigarette that starts the big wildfire,” he said. “The conditions were always here to start this algal bloom.”  Scientists are still working to figure out what exactly set off this year’s destructive bloom, but the key to preventing disasters of this scale is better management.  “We know what we can do to mitigate algal blooms or prevent them from happening in the future,” he said. 

One solution would be to recycle more water. Restoring the marshes around the bay could also help by sucking excess nutrients out of the water, and it would also provide other benefits to people and wildlife. “But,” Rosenfield said, “policy is slow, and people are slow to spend money until we have disasters.”

The post California’s mega algae bloom is like a ‘wildfire in the water’ appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Hakai Magazine, an online publication about science and society in coastal ecosystems. Read more stories like this at hakaimagazine.com.

At 49 Black Sand Beach, in Honoka‘ope Bay, Hawai‘i, a strange, moat-ringed mound sits in the middle of the beach. This tiny island, made of sand piled about half a meter or so high, was built by a beach shower. Every time a beachgoer steps under the shower to rinse off, water cascades from its base, carving gullies into the sand.

But while the shower’s obvious effect on the beach is mostly benign, it belies a more subtle, and potentially more destructive, consequence.

As new research shows, the water that flows from the shower into the nearby surf is laden with a toxic mix of contaminants—including UV filters, microplastics, and parabens. Scientists who’ve tested the water say that this beach shower, like the thousands of others dotted along coastlines around the world, is a source of pollution that sends chemicals flowing into the ocean at concentrations high enough to cause serious damage to marine life.

The problem, says Craig Downs, an ecotoxicologist at Haereticus Environmental Laboratory in Virginia who coauthored the new paper, is that most beach showers are not plumbed into the local wastewater system. Instead, the runoff spills out onto the land and into the ocean.

Swimmers shed copious amounts of sunscreen and other contaminants into the ocean, and scientists have gathered plenty of evidence that these contaminants can harm marine life. But the concentrations of contaminants flowing from beach showers, Downs explains, are startlingly high. Beach showers, says Downs, are point sources of pollution that can cause concentrations of pollution that seriously threaten local corals, crustaceans, and fish. King tides and monsoons can push these concentrations even higher when all of the contaminants built up in the sand are released in one giant pulse.

Because the showers are point sources of pollution, Downs and his colleagues argue that their owners and operators—which are mainly municipalities—could be sued for violating the US Clean Water Act.

Downs, however, would like to see the situation solved more proactively. “We don’t really want to get rid of the showers,” he says. Instead, “what we can do is apply technologies, or legislation, to end [the showers] being a source of pollution.”

Fixing the showers, however, won’t be easy. Plumbing beach showers into municipal sewer systems won’t work: beach sand can clog traditional wastewater treatment systems. Municipal systems also aren’t built to remove such high levels of these contaminants.

There are technologies that will work, though.

One possibility for addressing the high levels of contaminants in beach showers, says Ranil Wickramasinghe, a chemical engineer at the University of Arkansas who wasn’t involved in the research, is to use a membrane bioreactor. This all-in-one wastewater treatment system uses a thermoplastic or ceramic membrane to catch contaminants and allows clean water to flow through. Microbes ingest the contaminants, rendering them harmless. But there’s a couple of catches: setup costs are high and the microbes must be matched to each contaminant.

Another option, says Carlos Martinez-Huitle, an environmental electrochemist at Brazil’s Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, who also wasn’t involved in the research, is using advanced oxidation processes (AOP). There are two modes which could be put to use at the showers, he says: direct AOP, where electricity is applied to the AOP cell, enabling its inner surface material to break pollutants down; or indirect AOP, where the current pulls pollutants to one end, while oxidizers form at the other. The oxidizers then transform the pollutants into benign compounds. Municipalities could collect shower wastewater, filter out the sand, and then apply an AOP device to clear pollutants before discharging the water into the ocean, suggests Martinez-Huitle.

AOP is a power-hungry technology, though, so the key is to pair it with a source of renewable energy. In their lab, Martinez-Huitle and his team have developed a system that uses AOP to clean industrial wastewater with electricity supplied by solar panels or wind turbines.

But even the most cost-effective wastewater treatment technology will test meager municipal budgets. Agreeing which one to use, and then implementing it, will also take time.

In the meantime, the researchers are hoping that consumer education, wider use of ultraviolet protection factor (UPF) clothing, and regulations, like Maui’s incoming chemical sunscreen ban, will help stem the flow of pollutants into the environment.

For Downs, now that we know beach showers can be potent sources of pollution that can threaten marine life, the next steps are obvious. “If you can identify a point source of pollution,” Downs says, “then you have the … responsibility to mitigate that pollutant.”

The post Beach showers are washing pollutants into the ocean appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

For decades, our oceans have been filling up with trash. The North Pacific Garbage Patch, also called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, has accumulated approximately 80,000 tons of plastic waste—and that estimate continues to climb. Most of the litter in the ocean is delivered by rivers that carry waste and human pollution from land to sea. But the origins of floating debris in offshore patches haven’t been fully understood. A  recent study published in Scientific Reports has identified one important source of the trash: the fishing industry. 

Between 75 to 86 percent of the plastics floating in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch come from offshore fishing and aquaculture activities, according to an analysis of the trash collected by nonprofit project the Ocean Cleanup. Major industrialized fishing nations, including Japan, China, South Korea, the US, Taiwan, and Canada, were the main contributors of the fishing waste. “These findings highlight the contribution of industrial fishing nations to this global issue,” says Laurent Lebreton, lead study author and head of research at the Ocean Cleanup. 

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a region twice the size of Texas between the West Coast of North America and Japan, is one of several vortexes in the ocean where waste accumulates. Created by spinning currents, or gyres, each vortex churns and crushes plastics into tiny undegradable bits that are tricky for cleanup efforts to scoop up. Plankton nets are used to collect these microplastics, often no more than 5 millimeters in size, says Lebreton. “But it is currently impossible to retrace an accurate origin for this pollution,” he says. 

[Related: The great Pacific garbage patch is even trashier than we thought]

Since 2018, the Ocean Cleanup has been working to remove less common larger debris, which can sometimes be identified. The team’s approach uses vessels that pull a long U-shaped barrier through the water, guiding the larger plastics into the catch system. “This provided us with a unique opportunity to study larger plastic objects that were not the focus of previous research efforts,” says Lebreton. 

In a 2019 mission, the system pulled up more than 6,000 plastic objects that were larger than 5 centimeters (the threshold for large debris). While a third of the haul was unidentifiable, the research team sorted fish boxes, oyster spacers, and eel traps. This fishing and aquaculture gear was the second most common type of hard plastic collected, making up 26 percent. 

Like the rest of the sectors of our economy, fisheries adopted plastics for its light weight and cheap manufacturing costs. Those plastics can persist for decades.

“We found a fishing buoy dating from the 60s and a crate from the 70s, so this must have been building over time,” Lebreton says, noting that the fishing industry has only expanded since the last century. “More than half the ocean surface is now being fished, increasing the chance of fishing gear being lost, discarded, or abandoned in the ocean.”   

[Related: Humans created an extra 8 million tons of plastic waste during the pandemic]

Generally, the debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has been increasing in concentration and in size, according to a 2020 study by the organization. “This would suggest the situation is worsening, which is expected at this stage with an exponential increase in plastic production over the last two decades,” Lebreton says. “This is why it is important to study and identify this pollution so that future inputs can be mitigated.”

The Ocean Cleanup project has an ambitious goal to remove 90 percent of marine plastic waste by 2040. Since last year, the team’s upgraded system plucked over 100,000 kilograms of floating plastics from the ocean; however, marine biologists have expressed skepticism about the efficiency of such cleanup efforts and raised serious concerns these techniques could harm wildlife. Lebreton says that the nonprofit’s efforts should not be a permanent solution: “We want to go out of business eventually.” The best way to decrease plastic waste in these waters is to stop it at the source, he says—cleanup technologies can help pin down the cause and origin of pollution to inform regulation and management. This could include regulating the gear fishing vessels use or how the ships manage their waste, Lebreton says. 

“I trust making this pollution visible [through cleanup efforts] has a significant impact on awareness and also the general understanding of the issue,” he says. “Documenting floating plastic pollution should play a role in the design of mitigation strategies. General public awareness can help in pushing legislation.”

Images and captions from the Ocean Cleanup.

The post A close look at the Great Pacific Garbage Patch reveals a common culprit appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In the early 1970s, petroleum products ruled the ink production market. Back then, the supply of vegetable oils was too limited to use for ink products. However, the rising prices of petroleum in the late 1970s compelled the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) to find a possible cheaper alternative. They tested various vegetable oil formulations before coming up with the idea to use soybean oil, which had its first successful practical printing run in 1987 in The Gazette from Iowa.

Although the majority of US newspaper printers still use petroleum-based ink today, there is now consumer pressure to move in the direction of more environmentally friendly options. One of which is soy-based ink. Here’s why the growable ink is considered greener than its petroleum-based counterpart. 

Soybean oil is renewable and emits less volatile compounds

When it comes to determining the sustainability of a product, it often all comes down to where the core resources come from. Traditional ink is based on finite petroleum-based resources, while soy-based ink is made from soybean oil, which, as a plant product, is naturally renewable, says Shelie Miller, Jonathan W. Bulkley Collegiate Professor in Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan. 

Like most bio-based products—goods that are wholly or mostly derived from biological materials—the carbon footprint of soy ink is lower compared to that made with petroleum, she adds. That’s because plants absorb and store carbon during their growth, thereby removing carbon from the atmosphere.

[Related: Where does your paper come from? The good and the bad news.]

This product is then refined and mixed with environmentally friendly, natural resins and waxes to make the final product, says Wendy Brannen, Senior Director of Marketing & Communications at the American Soybean Association (ASA). 

Aside from being renewable and having a low carbon footprint, petroleum-based inks produce more volatile organic compounds (VOCs) while they dry. “VOCs are the chemical compounds that evaporate off the paper surface and often create a noticeable chemical smell that can contribute to air quality impacts and can be harmful to human health,” says Miller. A 1994 EPA document found that soy inks had over 80 percent less volatile components compared to petroleum-based inks.

VOCs affect human and environmental health by irritating the eyes, nose, and throat, and producing ozone pollution. Some of the VOCs emitted by petroleum-based inks include benzene, toluene, and xylene, says Brannen. They also contain alkanes, measurable amounts of metals, and hydrocarbons. “For inks, reduced VOCs will likely have the greatest benefit by reducing workplace exposures rather than benefits to customers,” says Miller.

Brannen adds that soy ink is biodegradable and more easily removed from paper, which makes recycling easier as well because waste paper needs to be deinked first before it can be reprocessed into new paper products.

However, bio-based products have environmental trade-offs, too. “Soybeans are usually grown in monocultures that consume large amounts of energy and [use] pesticides that reduce biodiversity,” says Miller. Using crops for purposes other than feeding the hungry—like making biofuel—also raises moral and ethical dilemmas. According to a 2022 report from the independent think tank Green Alliance, about 3.5 million people could be fed every year if the United Kingdom stopped using crop-based biofuels.

According to a 1995 manual from the Iowa Waste Reduction Center, soy ink is about 2 to 5 percent more expensive than petroleum-based inks. This price difference is likely a factor against the major industry shift to greener ink, although more recent data comparing the cost of the two is needed. As demand for natural materials increases, the use of genetically modified feedstocks (in soy ink’s case, soybean) will also become more likely.

Printing with soy ink may be visually beneficial

Soy ink is slower to dry than other inks and not ideal for glossy magazines, but it still has some advantages. For instance, it spreads about 15 percent further than petroleum inks, which means printers may need less ink to print on the same amount of paper, potentially helping reduce ink use and cleanup costs as a result. 

In addition, “soy ink produces brighter and more vibrant colors than petroleum-based ink,” says Brannen. Because soybean oil is clearer than petroleum-derived oils, less pigment is necessary to produce the desired print density. “Because of the more intense colors, less ink may be needed to print materials, thereby lowering costs,” she adds. “Also, [color] soy ink is better at resisting rub off on the reader’s hands.”

The authors of a 2018 study published in the Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials compared the printing quality of inks made of vegetable oils and petroleum-derived mineral oils. They concluded that both inks show similar printing performances in terms of printing quality, therefore ink choice should be based on human and environmental health impacts and ease of recycling and printing, among other reasons. The study recommended that inks from petroleum-derived mineral oils should then be replaced by vegetable oil-based inks.

[Related: You may need to read dozens of books each year to offset that new e-reader.]

More than 90 percent of US daily newspapers are printed with color soy ink today. But overall, only about 33 percent of the country’s newspaper printers use soy ink at all. Aside from newspapers, other products like children’s books and booklets in K-pop albums are sometimes printed with soy ink as well.

If a product has the “Printed with Soy Ink” certification mark, that means it met or exceeded the soy ink standards of the ASA, which regulates the use of the SoySeal. Brannen hopes that the merits of soy ink, such as its environmental benefits and ease of use for printers and end users, will encourage more vendors to use it. While the mass of ink on a single package or sheet of paper can be negligible, small environmental impacts add up, especially when associated with a product like ink that is everywhere, says Miller. 

That said, we shouldn’t focus on improving the sustainability of products and packaging materials without also addressing the environmental issues associated with overconsumption. Simple actions like buying secondhand books or refraining from mass purchasing albums can go a long way, especially if a lot of people do it. 

“If we reduce the amount of things that we consume,” Miller adds, “we also eliminate the need for packaging and all of packaging’s impacts—including the ink.”

The post Should we switch from petroleum ink to soy-based ink? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

New York City has some of the most congested streets in the US, and a new plan hopes to address that problem. The city is working on implementing congestion pricing in Manhattan, which means drivers would be forced to pay a fee to drive through the business- and tourist-heavy borough between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. This policy could reduce vehicle traffic in Manhattan—and bring some climate benefits, too.

Drivers would have to pay up to $23 to drive through Manhattan in one of the proposals. That said, New Jersey and outer-borough residents would be able to subtract any tunnel tolls they paid during their commute from the fee. About half of New York’s carbon emissions currently come from transportation; fewer cars inching down the roads and more people using public transit could cause a steep reduction in the city’s air pollution.

Nicholas Klein, an assistant professor of city and regional planning at Cornell University, says that congestion pricing is indeed the best way to reduce congestion. “For many decades in the US, people foolishly tried to solve this problem adding more lanes,” he explains. “It does not work because of induced demand. Any time you add capacity, it causes people to change their behavior.”

When people see there are more lanes, Klein says, they tend to change their behavior. They might take a different route to their destination because they’re aware there are more lanes available, or change where and how they decide to travel. More generally, someone who hadn’t been planning on driving might decide to get behind the wheel instead of taking a bus or subway. 

[Related on PopSci+: The future of open city streets could start with smarter traffic lights]

A more straight-shot solution would be to take vehicles off the streets—and charging people to drive through dense, smoggy areas is one way to do that. “[Congestion pricing] has been implemented in other places. We know it’s been implemented Singapore since the 1970s, and in London, Stockholm, Milan, and elsewhere,” Klein says. “It’s not a new idea. It works. You’re basically just adding a price to discourage some travel.”

Klein says congestion pricing isn’t just good for combating greenhouse gas emissions, it’s also good for public health. Reducing the number of cars that spew noxious fumes in an area has been shown to improve air quality, and studies have found this can benefit a community’s respiratory heath. It’s also less expensive for a city to choose congestion pricing over highway expansions. From Klein’s perspective, adding new lanes is “wasteful from an economic perspective and foolish from a climate perspective.”

Some have argued the New York City fee would be harmful to working class drivers who can’t afford it, and still not deter wealthier drivers who may be willing to pay up. Klein says the important thing when considering a congestion pricing plan is to make sure working class people have other ways to get where they need to go. The New York City subway has the most stations of any underground transit system in the world, but service is limited in some of the outer boroughs. New bus and bike lanes could provide more options for residents and commuters.

“In London, they addressed this by ramping up bus service. They already had a good public transit system, and they made it better,” Klein says. “In some ways, it depends on what the alternatives are, and that’s very context-dependent.”

[Related: US pedestrian deaths are reaching a new high]

Klein also thinks many working class people will be okay with the fee if they can afford it because they’ll be driving on less-congested streets, which saves on time and fuel. Congestion pricing could reduce the number of cars entering Manhattan by up to 20 percent, New York City officials have stated.

If the congestion pricing plan works well in New York, Klein expects the strategy to catch on in other parts of the US. Los Angeles has already launched a study to look into its benefits, and Chicago could expand the rideshare tax it passed in 2020. 

The post Why congestion pricing reduces traffic better than new highway lanes appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A big change is coming down the pike in how the federal government encourages people to buy clean cars like electric vehicles. The Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) on August 7, and the House of Representatives could pass it today. Barring any last-minute shifts, automakers and car buyers will find themselves with new tax rules that are baked into that massive legislation after President Biden signs it into law. 

The changes, experts say, are restrictive in terms of what electric vehicles and potential buyers will qualify. However, it’s not all bad news, either. 

Here’s a look at what to expect in the EV space if the IRA becomes law. 

The current landscape 

First, it makes sense to consider the way tax credits have worked in the clean vehicle space, pre-IRA, in the United States. Currently, in some cases, as much as $7,500 is available as a tax credit to people who want to buy an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid. “The amount of money that you could credit from your taxes was based on the battery size, although the battery size limits were so low, that basically everything qualified for the $7,500,” says James Di Filippo, a senior policy analyst with Atlas Public Policy. 

The current system has some important rules. One of those is that the $7,500 is a tax credit towards the sum a person might owe the federal government in taxes. For example, imagine that a taxpayer owes exactly $7,500 in federal taxes for a certain year, and has been careful about their withholdings in their paycheck, paying the exact right amount throughout the year. Typically, come tax time in April, when that person and the IRS reconciled, neither party would owe anything. But, if that individual bought an EV that qualified for the $7,500 tax credit, the IRS would then cut them a check for that amount. “Typically, the way that it was working was people were just getting their money back when they filed their taxes,” Di Filippo observes. 

But Di Filippo points out that that system wasn’t fair, or equitable, across income levels. “The key equity implication of that is that the less you earn—at a certain threshold, basically—the less you get in that credit.” Imagine you only owned $1,000 in federal taxes, then the maximum you could gain in a credit was also $1,000. 

There’s another issue with the current system, too. The full $7,500 credit only applies to the first 200,000 qualifying vehicles a company makes, and then it diminishes and ends. “That particular cap was a point of contention,” Di Filippo adds. General Motors and Tesla, for example, have since surpassed that 200,000 figure already. 

Interested in reading up more on all this? Here’s where it is spelled out in US Code. 

The road ahead 

If the IRA becomes law in its current form, the system outlined above will change. For one, the 200,000 limit disappears. “That is going to be a humongous help—in theory—for automakers like Tesla, as well as General Motors,” reflects Robby DeGraff, an industry analyst with AutoPacific. 

Another change restricts people who make over a certain amount of money annually from getting the credit. For example, households that make more than $300,000 a year are out of luck, at least in the tax-credit department. Also, there are caps on the price of the vehicles: For example, a pickup truck that costs more than $80,000 would not be eligible; others are capped at $55,000. In short, expensive vehicles are left out. 

But other changes have to do with where a vehicle—and the parts in it—comes from. “The vehicle must be assembled in North America,” says Di Filippo. “And right away, that removes quite a few current vehicles on the market from eligibility.”

An ID.4 made by Volkswagen in Tennessee is in good shape at least with this requirement, but a Hyundai Ioniq 5, which is made overseas, not so much. 

[Related: Can the Chips and Science Act help the US avoid more shortages?]

Then there are other requirements pertaining to the provenance of the vehicle’s components. In particular, in the spotlight are the questions of where the battery components (like the cells) are assembled, and where the minerals in the battery—such as lithium and cobalt—are mined from and processed. Whether or not an automaker checks these boxes determines how much of the $7,500 might apply. “The battery mineral content and components really make up the two halves of that $7,500,” Di Filippo says. (In other words, some vehicles could qualify for smaller tax credits based on what boxes they do tick.) 

“Battery components have to be manufactured and assembled in North America, and if you meet the thresholds, which expand over time—starting in 2023, it’s 50 percent—then the vehicle is qualified for $3,750,” he explains. 

As for the minerals that go in a battery (here’s more on how a lithium-ion battery works), that part is tricky.

The new restrictions state that by 2023, 40 percent of the battery’s critical minerals need to come from—be extracted from, and processed in—a country that the US has a free-trade agreement with. That percentage requirement increases over time. And by 2025, none can come from China (which refines lithium) or Russia, for example. So even if the lithium was mined in Australia or Chile, an issue could remain if it was processed in another country.

“My understanding is no car manufacturer can hit that 40-percent target in 2023, as of right now,” Di Filippo says. “They may be able to scramble and change that.” 

The takeaway

Ultimately, the changes are restrictive, says Di Filippo. “From a consumer’s perspective, this is going to probably reduce, or almost certainly reduce, the number and value of EV credits going forward for the next few years at least.” 

There are some bright spots, though. One is that there will be up to a $4,000 tax credit that a person can get when buying a used EV from a dealer, provided their income is below a certain level ($75,000 for an individual person, for example). “The used EV tax credit, or clean vehicle credit, is a huge perk for consumers looking to get into electrification,” says DeGraff, of AutoPacific. 

Also, previously the tax credit was money that someone would generally get when they filed their taxes; now there will be a way for it to go into effect when people actually purchase the vehicle at a dealer. 

But still, there’s general concern about the effects of the legal changes on the electric vehicle market, as the CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation wondered in a blog post titled: “What If No EVs Qualify for the EV Tax Credit? It Could Happen.” 

Ultimately, Di Filippo sees some improvements with the new policies over the old, but with an important caveat. “It’s a win for equity in the EV tax-credit policy space—of course none of that matters if nobody can buy a vehicle that can actually qualify for the tax credit,” he reflects. 

The post Everything you need to know about EV tax credits and the Inflation Reduction Act appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This story was originally published by ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

The “death map” tells the story of decades of sickness in the small northwest New Mexico communities of Murray Acres and Broadview Acres. Turquoise arrows point to homes where residents had thyroid disease, dark blue arrows mark cases of breast cancer, and yellow arrows mean cancer claimed a life.

Neighbors built the map a decade ago after watching relatives and friends fall ill and die. Dominating the top right corner of the map, less than half a mile from the cluster of colorful arrows, sits what residents believe is the cause of their sickness: 22.2 million tons of uranium waste left over from milling ore to supply power plants and nuclear bombs.

“We were sacrificed a long time ago,” said Candace Head-Dylla, who created the death map with her mother after Head-Dylla had her thyroid removed and her mother developed breast cancer. Research has linked both types of illnesses to uranium exposure.

Beginning in 1958, a uranium mill owned by Homestake Mining Company of California processed and refined ore mined nearby. The waste it left behind leaked uranium and selenium into groundwater and released the cancer-causing gas radon into the air. State and federal regulators knew the mill was polluting groundwater almost immediately after it started operating, but years passed before they informed residents and demanded fixes.

The contamination continued to spread even after the mill closed in 1990.

The failures at Homestake are emblematic of the toxic legacy of the American uranium industry, one that has been well-documented from its boom during the Cold War until falling uranium prices and concerns over the dangers of nuclear power decimated the industry in the 1980s. Uranium mining and milling left a trail of contamination and suffering, from miners who died of lung cancer while the federal government kept the risks secret to the largest radioactive spill in the country’s history.

But for four decades, the management of more than 250 million tons of radioactive uranium mill waste has been largely overlooked, continuing to pose a public health threat.

ProPublica found that regulators have failed to hold companies to account when they missed cleanup targets and accepted incorrect forecasts that pollution wouldn’t spread. The federal government will eventually assume responsibility for the more than 50 defunct mills that generated this waste.

At Homestake, which was among the largest mills, the company is bulldozing a community in order to walk away. Interviews with dozens of residents, along with radon testing and thousands of pages of company and government records, reveal a community sacrificed to build the nation’s nuclear arsenal and atomic energy industry.

Time and again, Homestake and government agencies promised to clean up the area. Time and again, they missed their deadlines while further spreading pollution in the communities. In the 1980s, Homestake promised residents groundwater would be cleaned within a decade, locals told the Environmental Protection Agency and ProPublica. After missing that target, the company told regulators it would complete the job around 2006, then by 2013.

In 2014, an EPA report confirmed the site posed an unacceptable cancer risk and identified radon as the greatest threat to residents’ health. Still, the cleanup target date continued shifting, to 2017, then 2022.

Rather than finish the cleanup, Homestake’s current owner, the Toronto-based mining giant Barrick Gold, is now preparing to ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent federal agency that oversees the cleanup of uranium mills, for permission to demolish its groundwater treatment systems and hand the site and remaining waste over to the U.S. Department of Energy to monitor and maintain forever.

Before it can transfer the site to the Department of Energy, Homestake must prove that the contamination, which exceeds federal safety levels, won’t pose a risk to nearby residents or taint the drinking water of communities downstream.

Part of Homestake’s strategy: buy out nearby residents and demolish their homes. Local real estate agents and residents say the company’s offers do not account for the region’s skyrocketing housing costs, pushing some who accept them back into debt in order to buy a new home. Those who do sell are required to sign agreements to refrain from disparaging Homestake and absolve the company of liability, even though illnesses caused by exposure to radioactive waste can take decades to manifest.

Property records reveal the company had, by the end of 2021, purchased 574 parcels covering 14,425 acres around the mill site. This April, Homestake staff indicated they had 123 properties left to buy. One resident said the area was quickly becoming a “ghost town.”

Even after the community is gone, more than 15,000 people who live nearby, many of them Indigenous, will continue to rely on water threatened by Homestake’s pollution.

The company said it has produced models showing that its waste won’t imperil the region’s water if it walks away. The NRC says it will only grant a groundwater cleanup exemption if that’s the case.

[ Related: “Once the Uranium Capital of the World, Moab, Utah, wants to unload its radioactive legacy“ ]

But while Homestake and other mining companies have polluted the region, it’s been the NRC and various other agencies that stood by as it happened. ProPublica found the NRC has issued exemptions from groundwater cleanup standards to uranium mills around the country, only to see pollution continue to spread. This has occurred as climate change hammers the West, making water ever scarcer.

“Groundwater moves. Groundwater doesn’t care about regulations,” said Earle Dixon, a hydrogeologist who reviewed the government’s oversight of uranium cleanup and pollution around Homestake for the New Mexico Environment Department and the EPA. Dixon and other researchers predict contamination at Homestake will likely spread if cleanup ends.

The company has denied that its waste caused residents’ illnesses, and judges ruled in Homestake’s favor in a case residents filed in 2004 alleging the site caused cancer. Doctors testified that the pollution was a substantial factor contributing to residents’ cancers, but tying particular cases to a single source requires communitywide blood, urine and other testing, which hadn’t been done.

“We are proud of our work done in remediating the Homestake Uranium Mill site,” Patrick Malone, Homestake’s president, said in a letter responding to questions from ProPublica. He said Homestake was entering the final stages of cleanup because “the site is at a point where it is not technically feasible to provide additional, sustainable improvements to water quality.”

David McIntyre, an NRC spokesperson, attributed cleanup delays to the area’s complex groundwater system. “We understand and share the concern that remediation is taking so long,” McIntyre said, adding that the agency’s priority is to protect public and environmental health rather than meet particular deadlines.

The EPA has oversight of the former mill’s cleanup under its Superfund program that aims to clean the country’s most toxic land. The EPA regional office did not respond to questions.

Larry Carver has implored an endless stream of regulators to take action since his family moved to Murray Acres in 1964, and neighbors defer to him to tell the community’s story. The 83-year-old leaned against his Chevrolet pickup on a blustery spring morning, peering from beneath a baseball cap at Homestake’s 10-story pile of waste. He lamented that the community would be sacrificed so uranium waste could remain.

For Carver, arrows on a map don’t tell the full story of uranium’s impact. His wife’s aunt and uncle owned the home closest to the waste piles. Her aunt died of liver cancer when she was 66 years old, and her son, who grew up playing in unfenced waste ponds, died of colon cancer when he was 55 years old. Now, Carver and his wife both have spots on their lungs, with hers recently requiring radiation treatment.

“All the houses are going to be gone. The wells are being plugged. The septic systems are being torn up,” Carver said. “There will be nothing.”

“A long time to keep the secret”

Saturday, April 26, 1958, was a momentous day in the towns of Grants and Milan, New Mexico.

Full-page newspaper ads announced the opening of Homestake’s new uranium mill. A military flyover kicked off the festivities, a high school band played, and the New Mexico secretary of state unveiled a plaque commemorating the occasion. An estimated 6,000 people, nearly three times Grants’ population at the beginning of that decade, toured the mill, the local newspaper, the Grants Beacon, reported. Grants would be the Carrot Capital of America no more. It was running headlong into the Atomic Age.

But the celebration was short-lived: Less than a year and a half after operations began, state and federal regulators, with the company’s help, began investigating whether contaminants were leaking from Homestake’s waste.

ProPublica found that, as with most uranium mills in the U.S., Homestake built no liner between the earth and the sandy waste left over from milling, known as tailings. This happened even though an engineer with the New Mexico Department of Health warned the company only weeks after the mill opened that it needed to at least compact the soil underneath its waste to prevent leaks. Without a liner, pollution seeped into aquifers that supplied drinking water. In 1961, the same engineer wrote that groundwater samples showed radium 226, a radioactive and cancer-causing element, at levels as much as 31 times higher than naturally occur in the area, indicating “definite pollution of the shallow ground water table by the uranium mill tailings’ ponds.”

A federal report a year later identified even higher levels of radium 226 in groundwater.

Residents drank that water, fed it to livestock and applied it to crops. They weren’t told of the issue or supplied with bottled water until the mid-1970s, neighbors said. “A long time to keep the secret,” Carver said.

The EPA in the 1970s found elevated levels of selenium, which can damage the nervous system at high doses. Homestake disputes what levels of contaminants are attributable to the mill versus other sources, a question regulators are currently studying. The company confirmed in 1976 that its waste had created a plume of contamination in the groundwater but waited another decade to connect residents to an uncontaminated water system, only doing so after pressure from the EPA.

Seventeen years after pollution was first detected, Homestake began a series of ultimately unsuccessful attempts to clean the groundwater. The company pumped contaminated water out of aquifers and evaporated it aboveground, treated it in filtration systems and dumped hundreds of millions of gallons of clean water on the waste to flush uranium out of the pile, collecting the newly contaminated water for disposal.

Homestake was still left with more polluted water than it could process, so the company irrigated crops, applying more than 3.1 billion gallons to farmland in the subdivisions. As a result, the topsoil contained elevated levels of uranium and selenium. The state and the NRC halted the practice, which the NRC said the company had done without its approval.

Much of the now-fallow farmland has turned to dust that’s an incessant headache for residents. Windstorms whip it up, piling it on roadways and pushing it through the slightest cracks in homes. Regulators have issued dozens of violation notices to the company, including for failing to fence off contaminated land and for exposing workers to high uranium levels without alerting them.

At the state level, New Mexico regulators waited until 2009, 49 years after first finding water pollution, to issue a formal warning that groundwater included substances that cause cancer and birth defects. They waited another nine years before barring people from drilling new or replacement wells in aquifers near the cleanup effort, but the order did not require existing wells to be plugged. A spokesperson for the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer said authorities had issued a “relatively small” number of domestic or livestock well permits in the contaminated area. That number, the spokesperson said, is 122.

Uranium exposure is pervasive in this part of the world.

Miners who worked before 1971, when the government was the sole purchaser of uranium, are eligible for compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. In June, President Joe Biden signed a bill postponing its expiration for two years. But miners who worked in the industry after other uranium buyers entered the market, as well as residents of communities that were impacted by uranium extraction and processing, like those next to Homestake, still receive no benefits. Spearheaded by the New Mexican delegation, bills pending before Congress would expand the legislation to include more miners and appropriate funds to study the health impacts of living near these sites.

Linda Evers is waiting on those reforms. She worked in the area’s mines and mills, including Homestake, after the 1971 cutoff. She stayed on the job through two pregnancies, removing trash from the ore until hours before she gave birth to her son. Both her children have birth defects, and she now lives with kidney failure, cysts on her organs and a degenerative bone disease.

“You worked in a never-ending dirt storm,” Evers remembered. “You were supplied a paper mask that was worthless in about 20 minutes.”

She also dealt with contamination at home. For more than 15 years, Evers lived across the street from Homestake. Her well water was so foul it stunted the plants in her garden, she said. Evers eventually accepted the company’s buyout offer and moved to a new home farther from the waste. A half-built greenhouse sits in her former backyard, her once-lively home stripped of its porch and part of the roof.

“I’m just left on the ground to seep”

Down the road, John Boomer doesn’t know where he’ll go if he sells to Homestake. An artist who paints with a Southwestern palette of sand and soil, he lives in an art studio and home he shares with his partner, Maggie Billiman, a member of the Navajo Nation and fellow artist.

The consequences of uranium production are constantly on the couple’s minds. More than 500 abandoned uranium mines pockmark the Navajo Nation, and Billiman’s father, a Navajo Code Talker in World War II, died of stomach cancer, an illness associated with downwind exposure to nuclear tests. Boomer has written the story of uranium into lyrics, singing about the harm caused by the waste that was left behind.

Those corporate little creeps

Will cause many a widow to cry and weep

While I’m just left on the ground to seep

Homestake is working on requests to both the NRC and the EPA for groundwater cleanup waivers, arguing it’s done all it can to clean up the area.

The company excavated soil from more than 3,500 acres where wind had carried contaminants off-site. Homestake also collected about 1.3 million pounds of uranium and 75,000 pounds of selenium by treating or evaporating more than 10 billion gallons of groundwater, according to company data.

Other uranium mines and mills polluted the area’s main drinking water aquifer upstream of Homestake. Residents worry what will happen to contamination from those sites and from Homestake when the company halts its water treatment.

Homestake says it has built a hydrological model that shows the former mill’s contamination will stay close to the site. (The model won’t be released until the company files its formal application for cleanup exemptions, likely in August.)

But researchers who have studied the hydrology around Homestake said the contamination will head downstream. “Would it keep on moving? Yes, that’s nature,” said Dixon, the hydrogeologist. The real question, he said, one that modeling can’t answer, is how quickly the pollution will migrate.

ProPublica identified sites across the West where regulators approved waivers based on modeling, only to later discover the predictions were flawed.

At a site in Wyoming called Bear Creek, the NRC found concentrations of uranium in groundwater more than 10 times higher than a model had predicted. At a site along the banks of the Colorado River, in Rifle, Colorado, the NRC approved a cleanup plan based on groundwater modeling that predicted uranium would fall to safe levels within 10 years. Monitoring showed concentrations remained dangerously high about a decade later, and new modeling predicted uranium levels wouldn’t reach safe levels for more than a century.

There’s also the cleanup of another Wyoming mill named Split Rock, which Homestake has compared its site to as it seeks a cleanup exemption. Regulators granted a waiver in 2006 after the responsible company presented a model showing contamination wouldn’t reach downstream wells for 1,000 years. “The recent data, however, have shown results that are not consistent with the model predictions,” the NRC wrote seven years later. Nitrates, which are sometimes used in the uranium refining process, were measured in a downstream monitoring well at more than four times approved limits.

McIntyre, the NRC spokesperson, said that in those cases, “NRC staff reviewed groundwater monitoring results and verified that the levels were and remain protective of public health and safety,” adding that the agency requires models used in waiver requests be conservative in their predictions.

Leaders of communities downstream from Homestake, including the Pueblo of Acoma, fear that wishful thinking could allow pollution from the waste to taint their water. The Acoma reservation, about 20 miles from Homestake’s tailings, has been continuously inhabited since before 1200. Its residents use groundwater for drinking and surface water for irrigating alfalfa and corn, but Donna Martinez, program coordinator for the pueblo’s Environment Department, said the pueblo government can’t afford to do as much air and water monitoring as staff would like.

“There are always going to be concerns with the plumes,” Martinez said.

Most days, Billiman contemplates this “poison” and whether she and Boomer might move away from it as she prays to Mother Earth and Father Sky toward Mount Taylor, one of the four sacred Diné peaks, which rises just east of the subdivisions.

“I tell her, gosh, we did this to you. I’m sorry,” Billiman said. “Then, we just say ‘hózho náhásdlii, hózho náhásdlii’ four times.”

“All will be beautiful again,” Boomer roughly translated.

As they prayed one recent morning, the dawn light tumbled over the mountain, illuminating the nearby Haystack Mountain, where a Diné man named Paddy Martinez discovered economically recoverable uranium in 1950 and ignited the region’s mining boom. The light cascaded over Homestake’s tailings piles, across the valley and onto the five subdivisions.

“Doing it right… …Right to the end”

The smell of pizza wafted through a Village of Milan government building down the road from the mill site, as about 20 locals trickled in to meet with Homestake one April evening. They caught up while JoAnne Martinez, a community liaison for Homestake, beseeched them to tuck into the food she had set out. A map taped to the wall showed the location of groundwater contamination, and a stack of glossy booklets celebrated the company’s reclamation project with the slogan: “Doing it right… …Right to the end.”

Tensions rose when residents spoke about the company’s offers to buy their properties. Homestake, whose parent company Barrick had nearly $12 billion in revenue last year, pays market value based on past sales prices of comparable properties, rather than the cost to replace what residents have, which is ballooning rapidly amid the housing crunch. Over the past five years, prices for residential properties around New Mexico have increased about 59%, while they’ve spent about half as long on the market, according to data from real estate companies Zillow and Redfin, respectively.

In the meeting, residents explained what that trend, coupled with Homestake’s offers, has meant for their own housing searches. “It’s like you spit on me,” one resident said of the company’s proposal to buy the property where she has lived for 61 years. Another neighbor told ProPublica she had asked a builder to assess the cost of constructing a nearly identical home and got an estimate $60,000 higher than what Homestake offered. But Homestake didn’t budge.

Neighbors have worried about Homestake’s impact on their property value for decades. They filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in 1983 for alleged property damages, later settling the case for what they deemed to be small payouts. In exchange, those residents agreed to release the company from further liability.

More recently, the company has rejected residents’ requests to move the waste to a lined disposal cell, which could prevent additional groundwater contamination and radon exposure and possibly allow them to stay in their homes. So far, cleanup has cost more than $230 million, including about $103 million that came from taxpayers through the Department of Energy. Homestake estimates it could cost as much as $2 billion more to move the entire pile. Buying out five subdivisions is the cheaper option.

Homestake argues capping the site and walking away is safer, citing reports that conclude moving the pile would lead to at least one workplace traffic-related death and a high likelihood of workers and residents developing cancer. The reports used calculations from the Department of Energy, which is moving 16 million tons of uranium waste off of a site in Moab, Utah. The department’s report found it posed far less risk to workers than later estimates for Homestake. Department of Energy staff said they could not comment on why there are such different risks for the Homestake and Moab sites.

As more neighbors at the meeting demurred about the company’s offers, Orson Tingey, a land manager for Homestake and Barrick, explained that the company has continued to offer the same rates for properties as it did before the COVID-19 pandemic to remain consistent. “We know that doesn’t necessarily work for everybody,” he said.

“I don’t even know how you fight it”

Jackie Langford set a radon detector on her kitchen table and shooed away her inquisitive 12-year-old, who was more interested in talking uranium policy than finishing his homework. She recalled when her family moved in a decade ago for her husband’s job. No one mentioned the risks posed by Homestake’s tailings pile, which looms less than a mile away.

Now, as a registered nurse tending to former uranium miners, Langford knows too much about the dangers. When it’s inhaled, radon breaks down in the lungs, releasing bursts of radiation that can damage tissue and cause cancer. Her patients have respiratory issues as well as lung cancer. They lose their breath simply lifting themselves out of a chair.

Radon, the radioactive gas formed as uranium decays, poses Homestake’s main cancer threat to residents, according to the EPA’s 2014 study. It is more concentrated in outdoor air near Homestake than in a nearby community with a former uranium mill that has fully covered its waste.

It hasn’t helped that the company has struggled to control radon emanating from its larger waste pile, exceeding federal safety standards each of the last six years, according to company readings reported to the NRC. This year, Homestake requested permission to add a new cover to the pile to reduce radon emissions, which the NRC is now reviewing.

During the pandemic Langford and her family began thinking more about Homestake’s possible impact on their respiratory health, driving them to buy a radon detector. The gas can seep into buildings through cracks in foundations. Indoor radon exposure is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States, behind smoking.

When Langford measured levels in her home, the radon detector registered 4 picocuries per liter and rose as high as 7 pCi/L, she said — levels high enough that the EPA recommends remediation.

She brought her concerns to Homestake, but “for the longest time, they wouldn’t talk to me,” she said. The company eventually connected her with one of their consultants, who told her not to worry because his own home tested above 4 pCi/L and the results did not concern him. He also told Langford, as well as ProPublica, that he is not a radon expert and suggested she complete a longer-term radon test and contact people better versed on the topic.

In 2010, before Langford moved in, EPA contractors placed radon detectors in homes near Homestake and found unsafe radon levels in a dozen homes.

While independent researchers suggested the uranium waste could be a source of indoor radon, the EPA has not determined that is the case, instead identifying naturally occurring gas seeping from the soil. The agency required Homestake to fund radon mitigation in homes but has not done any more radon testing or mitigation since.

“Best practice would be retesting at least every other year to assure things have not gotten worse,” said Michael Murphy, who is retired from the EPA’s indoor air quality team.

ProPublica spoke with eight households the EPA monitored, and all said they were never retested or advised to retest on their own. An EPA staffer told one resident the agency had no plans to conduct follow-up studies.

Because the EPA did not return to test, ProPublica did, placing certified indoor radon kits in nine area households. Three returned readings that exceeded the EPA’s threshold for mitigation, while a fourth registered above the World Health Organization’s lower suggested mitigation level. Langford’s tests averaged 6.95 pCi/L.

She immediately thought about her son. Children are more vulnerable to radon.

Early this spring, Homestake approached Langford and her husband with an offer to purchase their home. They wavered. The family loved the area and knew neighbors who had sold, only to find it impossible to buy a similar property elsewhere.

“I don’t think that’s fair,” Langford said, “but at this point I don’t even know how you fight it.”

With the results from their radon testing front of mind, Langford’s husband signed Homestake’s buyout deal. The family had made a decision. Their health was too important to remain in their home.

How we reported the story

Methodology: To report on the Homestake uranium mill’s impact on the area, ProPublica worked with residents to crowdsource indoor radon levels, home purchasing contracts and health-related documents.

Radon Testing: Indoor radon levels were collected using Air Chek 3- to 7-day radon test kits placed in nine houses in Milan and Grants, New Mexico. Air Chek’s devices and laboratories are included on the National Radon Proficiency Program’s approved device and analysis provider list.

Radon levels vary day to day and season to season, so ProPublica followed EPA recommendations to conduct two sequential short-term tests. A ProPublica reporter helped install the first test at each house to ensure the testing locations adhered to EPA testing protocols. After about five days, residents took down each test and sent the kits to Air Chek’s laboratory. Residents immediately placed the second Air Chek 3- to 7-day test in the same location. About five days later, residents shipped the second test to the lab. We averaged the results of the two tests to obtain an estimated indoor radon level for each house.

Three households were only able to obtain one result. In one case, this was because a test was not properly sealed and could not be analyzed; in another, a test had a manufacturing defect; due to a shipping delay the third arrived at the laboratory beyond the necessary time frame for testing. For these three households, we relied on the readings from one test. Each of the households that received only one test showed levels below the EPA and World Health Organization thresholds for radon mitigation.

Before placing the tests, we interviewed seven professionals with radon testing expertise and reviewed the EPA and American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists’ testing guidelines. These independent experts reviewed ProPublica’s methodology and provided feedback. After testing, ProPublica presented the results to the same experts.

We also discussed the results with residents of each household that hosted tests.

Outreach Methodology: To interview as many households living near the mill site as possible, we mirrored community engagement efforts conducted by federal and state authorities during previous environmental health studies. This included:

• publishing advertisements in the Cibola Citizen and Gallup Independent
• sending letters to every household in the area
• following up with phone calls and text messages to numbers associated with every area household
• door-knocking at households that did not respond to the ads, letters and phone calls

The post A mining company buys out homeowners to avoid cleanup appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Oahu, Hawaii’s third-largest island, faces a surprising quandary: a lack of fresh water. After all, hundreds of waterfalls cascade down its volcanic mountains and rivers snake through its foggy forests. Yet drinking water is scarce, the result of hundreds of years of exploitation and mismanagement—and toxic leaks. Most recently, fuel seeping from a Navy storage facility near Pearl Harbor has threatened the main source of Oahu’s freshwater. If the fuel contaminates nearby wells, it will place thousands of people at risk of losing access to a precious daily resource.

The leaks at the Naval facility, dire as they are, are just one of Oahu’s water woes. The island’s geographical history has been dictated by various commercial interests like the sugar plantation industry, real estate developers, and tourist attractions, which have diverted and sapped its public water supply for private gain. 

[Related: The US is losing some of its biggest freshwater reserves]

Water is so integral to the island that Shelley Muneoka, a social work specialist and Native Hawaiian board member of KAHEA, a community organization that protects the state’s natural and cultural resources, invokes the phrase Ola I Ka Wai, which roughly translates to “water is life” or “life is because of water.” That belief has been enshrined in a 1978 state law, known as the public trust doctrine, which ruled that water could not be bought or sold as property. As a result, landowners don’t own rights to the resource.

Taro and cotton farmers have used this doctrine to take back natural streams to grow their crops. In one recent case, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that the state violated this doctrine when it allowed a real estate company to divert millions of gallons of water without environmental review. “When that water is diverted, it’s not just the death of one patch. It’s the practices around it—the community around it that have practiced them for generations also goes away,” Muneoka says.

But the doctrine and other local solutions might not be enough to address the catastrophe at the Naval facility. In November 2021, 14,000 gallons of kerosene-based jet fuel flooded into a tunnel at Kapūkakī, also known as Red Hill—just one of the recent fuel leaks at the underground military compound. Many members of public and grassroots groups, including the Oahu Water Protectors, the Sierra Club of Hawaii, and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply, have criticized the recurring problem as a “humanitarian and environmental disaster.”

Calls to shut down the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility echo the growing rupture between Hawaiians and those who have exploited their land. The contamination is yet another example of the generational consequences of colonization on Indigenous lands and rights, experts and residents say. Without secure access to drinking water, the Navy is endangering island residents’ health and livelihoods.

Red Hill’s corrupt beginnings

The history of Red Hill goes back to 1893, when the American government annexed the islands and deployed troops, occupying the Kingdom of Hawaii. At the time, the US viewed land like Red Hill as a key hub for further Pacific conquest, explains Kyle Kajihiro, a professor of geography and ethnic studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and a board member of Hawai’i Peace and Justice. 

For the military, the land was no more than a tactical foothold. The fuel facility sits on a mountain ridge between two valleys on the southern edge of the island. Below this is the basal aquifer—groundwater that sits on top of a body of saltwater—which supplies water for over 400,000 residents. As the Kānaka Maoli, or Native Hawaiians, see it, the Indigenous water systems and surrounding land were linked to naturally form a productive ecosystem. 

“This was a very important geography for Kānaka Maoli. It sits in a very unique sort of location between where the two volcanoes, Wai’anae and Ko’olau, converge and then the watersheds flow into that estuary,” says Kajihiro.

Freshwater is channeled from these two mountain ranges into traditional land divisions called ahupua’a. These ahupua’a generally run from mountain to sea and encompass the streams and watersheds that flow down before converging on the shores of Pu’uloa, the lagoon now known as Pearl Harbor. 

Through this geographical landscape, Native Hawaiians were able to create sustainable and thriving ecosystems. Using freshwater, they grew wetland crops in the marshy areas and created enclosed mariculture systems, such as fish ponds that benefit from shallow estuaries rich in nutrients, Kajihiro explains. 

But the military expansion ignored that social and ecological value of Kapūkakī. The US government used the land for bulk storage instead, which is why today a 250-million-gallon fueling facility sits 100 feet above one of Oahu’s largest drinking reservoirs. Built in 1943, the facility’s 20 fuel tanks measure 250 feet in height and 100 feet in diameter, and are hidden inside cavities mined into the volcanic rock. The tanks are connected to three pipelines that run through a tunnel all the way to a pumping station at Pearl Harbor, 2.5 miles away.

“That is why Red Hill exists. It was used to create this fuel reserve that would be buried in the mountain secretively and supposedly protected from attack,” says Kajihiro. As a result, military engineering and infrastructure was prioritized over hydrology and ecology. This pattern has been repeated across the island with industrial interests as well.

Today, the sugar plantations that drained water from Oahu decades ago have been succeeded by real estate developers. Those companies use the old agricultural irrigation systems, which consist of tunnels drilled into the mountains and wells placed throughout drier, commerce-filled areas, to siphon away resources from local communities and businesses. Kajihiro points to this as both the development of capitalism in Hawaii and a major source of water conflict.

Leaking again and again

In 1947, just four years after Red Hill opened, the facility began to seep fuel. Data from the Sierra Club shows that over its 80-year history, the storage facility has leaked more than 188,000 gallons of chemicals into its surroundings. The Navy, meanwhile, denied knowledge of the ongoing leaks.

In 2014, a 27,000-gallon leak at the facility garnered criticism from the Honolulu Board of Water Supply, as well as local environmental advocates and communities. The crisis brought the aging facility’s issues into the spotlight, and when history repeated itself last year, the Navy publicly identified a leak of 14,000 gallons. That event contaminated water with nearly 350 times the level of hydrocarbons that is considered safe to drink. Drinking this unsafe water can cause a wide range of health conditions, with the most immediate being nausea, diarrhea, and stomach cramps. In a federal health survey, residents who drank the water also reported skin irritation, rashes, dizziness, exhaustion, and headaches. 

With persistent leaks over the decades, jet fuel has likely permeated through the ground substrate, says Wayne Chung Tanaka, the director of the Sierra Club of Hawai’i, who has been involved in the grassroot organizing that led the government to intervene. He adds that old historic spills could be pushed further down the water table.

To prevent nearby civilian wells from drawing in the tainted water, in December 2021, Hawaii’s Board of Water Supply shut down the Halawa Shaft, which as the island’s largest freshwater source, serves more than 100,000 residents. With three key wells shut down, Hawaiians were asked to reduce their water use by 10 percent due to the increased demand and strain on the remaining open wells in other parts of the island.

Eventually, the recurring leaks and sustained pressure from local environmental groups lead to a Department of Health emergency order to close and drain the fuel facility. In March 2022, the Department of Defense ordered the bulk fuel storage facility to shut down permanently. The decision signaled a reversal in the Pentagon’s years-long narrative that the facility was necessary to national security, Tanaka says. 

Despite the emergency order, however, more than 100 million gallons of fuel still remain at Red Hill. According to a defueling plan the Navy handed over to the Hawaii State Department of Health, the military plans to finish removing the chemicals by the end of 2024. But, on July 20, the Department of Health rejected the plan, citing a lack of substance and details on the defueling process.

As government agencies debate resolutions, the full extent of the crisis remains unknown: The Navy’s secrecy makes it unclear if more fuel has been leaking into the aquifer, says Tanaka. On June 13, branch officials released an internal report revealing that human error worsened the leaks. For the first time, they admitted that Red Hill is not safe for Oahu.

But there is a significant difference over the local response to the latest leak, Tanaka says. Shutting down the facility now has broad support, including from the city council and state legislation members, as well as local businesses and environmental and health organizations.

“Everyone is invested in the future of life on this island. Military spending is one of the pillars of the economy here, supposedly,” Tananka notes. “But you see this flip where everyone’s starting to question, that it isn’t in our best interest to let them run roughshod over our community. It’s pretty remarkable just to see that change.”

[Related: A new law is putting astronomy back in the hands of Native Hawaiians]

A dwindling water supply, shorter rainfalls, and an island-wide environmental crisis have brought new attention to just how precarious the ecosystem is. The water systems on Oahu are intricate and interconnected. With the Halawa Shaft and two other key wells shut down, water for residences is now being pulled from sources farther west, such as Honolulu and the surrounding valleys. 

But Tanaka warns that this isn’t sustainable. Overpumping coastal wells could lead to saltwater intrusion in the system, which results in undrinkable brackish water. Already, a rise in chloride levels in one of the Oahu wells that is being over pumped indicates that there is an unhealthy amount of stress on the island’s water resources. As chloride levels rise and reduced rainfall further strains the wells, the time is ticking to get the fuel at Red Hill drained and moved off of Hawaii. 

Disruptions to the water cycle also put the future of Oahu in peril. Underground water sources, for instance, move nutrients into the estuaries where fish feed. “The characteristics of our native plants and ecosystems are what allow us to recharge our aquifers because they capture rain and fog drip, and that percolates down to the groundwater table,” says Tanaka.

For Muneoka and other Native Hawaiians, it’s about more than the Navy at Red Hill. Muneoka equates the fuel in the water to death in a source of life. 

“This deep underground water source that should be pure and untouched, it’s our responsibility to make sure that it can continue to do its thing uninterrupted,” she says. “One of the properties of water is that you can’t touch water without getting wet, meaning that it’s all interconnected. And so what happens is that one actor’s use of that water impacts the rest of us.”

Correction (August 9, 2022): The dimensions and holding capacity of the Red Hill fuel tanks have been corrected.

The post What will it take to save Oahu’s freshwater from the Red Hill fuel leak? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on KHN.

A year after health officials issued a record number of alerts for high ozone levels on Colorado’s Front Range, federal and state officials are trying to rein in the gas that can make outdoor activities a health risk.

But new Colorado laws aimed at improving air quality along that urban corridor east of the Rocky Mountains aren’t expected to do much to directly reduce ozone, according to experts charged with bringing down the levels. “These are not the magic bullets that will bring us into compliance, but they will be helpful in reducing emissions,” said Michael Silverstein, executive director of the Regional Air Quality Council, the lead air-quality planning organization for nine counties of the Front Range.

In the most recent legislative session, Colorado lawmakers passed three bills aimed at improving air quality: One replaces highly polluting diesel buses with electric buses, another provides funding so residents can access public transportation free of charge for a month during the high-ozone season, and the third creates a system to alert the public to toxic emissions released from industrial sources.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to reclassify nine counties of the Front Range, including Denver, from “serious” violators of federal ozone standards to “severe” violators would bring more significant change, Silverstein said. (The EPA’s “nonattainment” classifications begin with “serious” and then move to “severe” and “extreme.”)

But other health experts say neither the federal nor the state actions will be enough to truly safeguard public health.

“At some point, you are just putting band-aids on, and this feels like that,” said James Crooks, an air pollution researcher at National Jewish Health, a Denver hospital that specializes in respiratory disorders. “Better to have the band-aids than not, but it’s not going to solve the problem.”

Ozone is created when chemicals emitted into the atmosphere via vehicle exhaust, oil and gas development, and wildfires are baked by the sun. Ozone pollution that exceeds federal limits is a stubborn problem in Mountain West valleys, especially in Phoenix; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Salt Lake City; and Denver.

The Front Range has one of the worst ozone problems in the country. Last year, health officials in the counties east of the Rocky Mountains issued “ozone action day alerts” on 65 days from May 31 to Aug. 31, peak season for ozone. That’s the highest number since record-keeping began in 2011.

The EPA determined that over the three-year period from 2018 to 2020, average ozone levels over eight hours on the Front Range were 81 parts per billion. The federal limit set in 2008 was 75 ppb, but the current one, set in 2015, is 70 ppb. Under the proposal to change a nine-county area of the Front Range from a “serious” to a “severe” violator, the region would have to meet that standard by 2026.

A final decision on the proposal is expected from the EPA this fall.

“Ground-level ozone remains one of the most challenging public health concerns we face, affecting large numbers of Coloradans and their families,” EPA Regional Administrator KC Becker said in an April news release announcing the proposed change.

Crooks said that 70 ppb is a difficult goal to achieve and that it isn’t low enough to protect public health. Indeed, no level of ozone is safe, he said. “We might be able to muddle through and get to 75,” said Crooks. “But 70 is going to be really hard to do without decarbonization,” which means replacing gas and diesel vehicles with electric vehicles.

One challenge in reducing ozone is trying to control the emission of ozone precursors from myriad sources. Thousands of oil and gas wells are along the Front Range, some in suburban neighborhoods, and their emissions, along with vehicle emissions, are the primary sources of ozone.

Complicating the matter is that one-half to two-thirds of the ozone that plagues the Front Range comes from outside the state, some from as far away as Asia. The background levels of ozone — naturally or human-created ozone that originates from outside the region — can be as high as 60 ppb.

Another problem is the wildfire smoke that blankets the state each summer. And rising temperatures, a result of climate change, are causing more ozone to be produced.

Ground-level ozone is the same chemical as the ozone that is high in the atmosphere, but up there, it provides a crucial shield that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays.

On the ground, the odorless gas can cause shortness of breath and stinging in the eyes and can trigger asthma attacks. It predisposes people to pulmonary inflammation and coronary damage. Globally, more than 1 million premature deaths were caused by high ozone levels in 2010, a study found. Ozone and other pollutants may also increase the risk of hospitalization and death for people infected with covid-19, according to a recent study.

Air pollution hits children, older adults, and people who work outside the hardest, and the impacts fall disproportionately on disadvantaged areas, whose residents often lack the resources to move to cleaner neighborhoods.

High levels of ozone also cause serious damage and death to vegetation.

Changing the Front Range’s ozone violator status from “serious” to “severe” could have some impact, some experts said. One result is that refineries would have to produce a special gasoline blend for cars in the nine counties of the Front Range that would be less volatile and contribute fewer precursors to the atmosphere. That could raise gas prices 5% to 10%.

“We’re going to go from some of the highest-emitting gasoline to the lowest-emitting gasoline” in the country, said Silverstein. “It won’t evaporate when it’s spilled on the ground and burns with fewer emissions. We’ll see ozone emissions benefits as soon as it’s at the station.” That may not be until next year or 2024.

Another consequence is that hundreds of companies that are not regulated under the current rules would come under the scrutiny of regulators and be forced to account for their emissions.

The Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental advocacy groups sued the EPA in an effort to force a “severe” ozone listing for the Front Range and other parts of the U.S. The lawsuit was filed before the EPA’s reclassification proposal.

Robert Ukeiley, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, thinks the change in status will make a difference.

“When we get bumped up from ‘serious’ to ‘severe,’ it lowers the pollution threshold of what is considered a major source,” he said. “The state should have to issue major source permits, and that will start to reduce pollution.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The post Why Colorado continues to have some of the worst ozone problems in the country appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the EPA did not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to decide which energy sources would be prioritized. Essentially, this means that EPA cannot curb carbon emission through “generation shifting.” Generation shifting was an EPA plan to move away from generating electricity using carbon-intensive fossil fuels like coal and towards utilizing lower-carbon energy sources. This policy would have resulted in the building of more wind and solar power.

The controversial decision to prevent the EPA from taking this action centered around former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan introduced in 2015. However, this plan fell through because the Supreme Court stayed it in 2016, but the Biden administration expressed interest in bringing it back to life.

The section of the Clean Air Act relevant in this case, Section 111, gave the EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions from various sources, such as coal plants. The Court argued that this provision doesn’t allow the EPA to shift which sources companies can use to generate electricity. 

Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the EPA did not have “clear congressional authorization” to go ahead with such a plan. Kagan hit back by stating, “Congress knows what it doesn’t and can’t know when it drafts a statute; and Congress, therefore, gives an expert agency the power to address issues—even significant ones—as and when they arise.”

“The EPA thought to use Section 111 in a new and ambitious way to address greenhouse gas emissions because Congress had failed to act. Everyone knew from the beginning that was an ambitious effort to redeploy existing authority,” Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. “No authority the EPA has traditionally exercised is affected by this decision.”

[Related: The Supreme Court’s EPA ruling may spell doom for US climate goals.]

While this is undoubtedly a blow to the climate movement, it may not be as detrimental as it seems, Adler says. “This has no effect on vehicle emission standards,” Adler says. “It doesn’t affect the EPA’s authority to do other things like make air quality standards more stringent.” So while the EPA can continue to crack down on the gigantic emissions from the US transportation sector, there are still ways to hit power generation.

The Supreme Court only said the EPA couldn’t regulate emissions through generation shifting under the Clean Air Act. Regarding regulating air quality standards, the EPA could regulate carbon emissions more generally by going after air pollution, which it is still permitted to do. 

Future regulations on soot, mercury, and nitrous oxides can help regulate carbon emissions since these pollutants are commonly found alongside coal-powered plants. These kinds of rules, paired with initiatives to force cleanup of water alongside the plants, could push coal plants to be increasingly expensive and not worth running. According to the New York Times, these tactics could push carbon emissions down 40 percent below 2005 levels by the end of the decade. 

Some environmental groups are pushing for pollution caps on greenhouse gas emissions, similar to how pollution caps have been set in previous years for carbon monoxide, lead, and ozone. After all, the EPA used this tactic to handle the crisis with power plants emitting sulfur dioxide, which ended up back on the planet as acid rain in the 80s. 

“The Supreme Court ruling forecloses some action under one Clean Air Act program but leaves the door wide open for Biden to make big cuts to fossil fuel emissions and steer the country away from climate chaos,” Maya Golden-Krasner, deputy director of the Center’s Climate Law Institute, said in a recent statement. “A nationwide climate pollution cap is the heart of the Clean Air Act, and it could achieve significant pollution reductions. We can’t afford any more half-measures and delays.”

Still, if the EPA wants to start changing what energy sources we use to generate electricity, Adler says, then Congress will have to give it that authority explicitly. “I think this really does put the onus on Congress to do what Congress should be doing,” he says, “which is coming up with legislation that addresses climate change.” 

The post The EPA needs to retool its fight against climate pollution. Here’s how. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

It’s hard to think of beachgoing season without our minds jumping to sharks. The predators tap our curiosity, fill movie theaters, and (whether it’s founded or not) stir fear of attacks. Our mere presence, new research hints, may be influencing their behavior in ways we didn’t predict. A study published earlier this month in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series has shown that cities may be drawing sharks closer to our shorelines. 

Researchers at the University of Miami and collaborators tracked the movement of three species—great hammerheads, bull sharks, and nurse sharks—in and around Florida’s Biscayne Bay between 2015 and 2019. Stressors on the region, including pollution from power plants and boat traffic, led the team to assume that the ocean predators would shy from the area, especially during periods when crowds descended. But the human presence may be having the opposite effect. 

Terrestrial creatures like black bears, bobcats, and coyotes tend to shy from cities—especially during the day—and the authors assumed sharks would be no different. “Few studies have investigated the movements of ocean predators in relation to urbanization, but since other studies have shown that land predators are urban avoiders, we expected sharks to be too,” said Neil Hammerschlag, lead author and director of the University of Miami Shark Research and Conservation Program, in a statement. 

Based on acoustic trackers the team placed on 36 great hammerheads, 24 bull sharks, and 27 nurse sharks, the scientists saw that the species were actually “urban adapters”—a.k.a., ones that prefer to hang out in and around cities now. Of the tagged animals, 14 hammerheads, 13 bulls, and 25 nurses were seen hanging out in the Miami area close to shore. The greatest density of sightings was in the northern end of the bay closer to hotspots like South Beach and the Seaquarium. 

[Related: Why we can’t stop searching for the megalodon]

A trio of causes may be contributing to this unexpected result. First, the sharks might be attracted to nutrient runoff from canal outflows and sewer discharge into the Biscayne Bay. Second, they could be scavenging for grub: Fishers tend to discard carcasses when they return to marinas, luring hungry predators in the process. Refuse and fish parts tossed by staff at the Seaquarium have anecdotally been known to draw in snacking sharks.

The authors also note that a range of other factors—including salinity, depth, nutrient density, and oxygenation—also influence where sharks like to hang out. 

It’s important to remember, though, that this behavioral change is worse for the sharks than it is for people. 

Shark attacks are rarer than Hollywood would have us believe. The predators kill only about five people a year, and, in 2020, sharks non-fatally nibbled on 57 people. Surfers, swimmers, and divers experienced the majority of unprovoked attacks; the highest geographical concentration in the US, however, was in fact Florida, with 16 incidents. 

[Related: How to fight off a shark]

Meanwhile, for marine life, swimming closer to urban areas has its own risks. Sharks searching for food closer to marinas and population centers often end up in spots with crummier water quality and pollutants. The Biscayne Bay is particularly bad in those regards. A 2021 analysis through the city of Miami found that water samples from high-traffic areas were as much 66 percent below acceptable contamination levels for recreational use at the time. 

Still, the study authors note that their tracking does help isolate areas where swimmers may be at greater risk for shark encounters. The data traced a greater density of sharks hanging out at the northern end of the bay, a zone where swimmers have been bitten in the past. Understanding how our own activities might invite those ruins is an important facet to prevention—and in teaching us how to share the shore with wildlife. 

The post Sharks are learning to love coastal cities appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Not even a tenth of all the plastic ever created has been recycled. Instead, millions of tons of waste end up in our oceans yearly, according to the US Interior Department. The department acknowledges that the US drives a significant amount of that waste, with the government being one of the largest consumers of plastic products.

To that end, US Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland recently ordered her agency to phase out the purchase or distribution of single-use plastics on the hundreds of millions of acres of public land the department oversees. But, an official ban on single-use plastics wouldn’t hit until 2032.

Within roughly nine months, the Interior Department’s various bureaus and offices will need to submit draft plans for how and when they will gradually reduce their purchase and use of single-use plastic products, according to the order. The order will also require staff to file “annual reporting on progress” and other related administrative milestones.

“Plastic waste is a priority environmental problem. Less than 10 percent of all the plastic ever produced has been recycled, and recycling rates are not increasing,” the order, published on World Ocean Day (June 8), states. “Plastics, including unnecessary and easily substituted single-use plastic products, are devastating fish and wildlife around the world.”

Some ocean advocacy groups want the department to eliminate its use of such products much faster than that, criticizing the federal agency’s decade-long timeline for reaching that goal. “With over 11 million metric tons of plastic entering our ocean each year and plastic production expected to triple by 2060, we cannot afford to wait ten years,” Nicholas Mallos, senior director of Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas Program, stated in a press release.

The Interior Department can and should institute a ban with a much sooner deadline, says Alison Waliszewski, policy and outreach manager at the 5 Gyres Institute, a non-profit dedicated to plastic pollution reduction and research. Neither the National Park Service (NPS) nor the Interior Department, which oversees the NPS, have made an official available for an interview on the timeline for the ban.

“It is commendable that they are working to phase out the sale of single-use plastics on federal lands and US national parks,” says Waliszewski. “However, the timeline, I’d say it’s less than ideal.” After all, she says, significant scientific achievements like putting a human on the moon took less time than that.

Still, despite a push for faster timelines, Mallos tells Popular Science that vendor contracts may hold the department back from a more rapid transition. Vendor agreements may not give officials much flexibility to end deals early, and certain contracts might only allow the bureaus and offices to select from certain single-use plastic goods. Those contracts often have a fixed period as well. 

To that end, Haaland’s order requires department officials to review vendor contracts “to identify single-use plastic product reduction opportunities and challenges.” Essentially, officials must look for language in the agreements that either expedite or hinder progress toward the goal. But what a more aggressive timeline might look like is difficult to calculate without more information about the current contracts and the products, Mallos says.

“It’s hard to know with precision an appropriate timeline for eliminating single-use plastics [within the department’s purview] because we’ve never tried,” says Mallos. “It’s not dissimilar to [electric vehicles]—a decade ago every car maker said it was impossible, now we have three different EV pickup trucks on the market.”

However, he notes that single-use plastic water bottles “are the easiest to remove,” partly because water reuse and refill technology, like reusable water bottle stations, is already normalized outside federal lands.

Mallos explained that safe dispensers and bins already exist for hygienic storage and sale of dry goods and snacks “could likely be the next shift we see” within the department. Still, any individually wrapped foods (like single-serving, plastic-wrapped granola bars ubiquitous on any national park trip) would be “the hardest items” to go plastic-free.

[Related: Horrific blobs of ‘plastitar’ are gunking up Atlantic beaches.]

Haaland’s order also instructed the Interior Department’s bureaus and offices to analyze “nonhazardous, environmentally preferable alternatives” to single-use plastics, including compostable or biodegradable products. “Bags made of paper, bioplastics, and composite can replace single use plastic bags, as can reusable cloth or thicker plastic alternatives,” the order stated. “Bottles made of bioplastics, glass, and aluminum, and laminated cartons can replace single-use plastic bottles, as can reusable bottles made of glass, aluminum, or stainless steel.”

But not all products that aren’t wholly derived from fossil fuels will necessarily be better options. Mallos added that the department shouldn’t rush the transition—products that are often just as environmentally unfriendly as single-use plastics can’t simply be swapped in. He notes that many compostable products only break down as intended in industrial facilities. Many containers seemingly made of paper will still have plastic liners, so it’s critical to have the “back-end infrastructure [to ensure] materials chosen aren’t equally indisposable.”

Mallos and Waliszewsk specifically expressed concern over bioplastics as a potential replacement avenue. They are made at least partly from plant-based materials like corn or sugarcane, bioplastic single-use utensils, bags, bottles, and even packing peanuts. But Mallos notes that while bioplastics may have a climate benefit because of their lack of fossil fuels, they still break down and pollute ecosystems. 

Additionally, chemical toxicity concerns with traditional plastics aren’t necessarily avoided with bioplastics, as bio-based plastics and conventional plastics often contain several chemicals that make them similarly toxic, according to a 2020 study in the journal Environment International.

“I think what the most concerning aspect … is the multiple mentions of bioplastics as a solution and that’s really alarming,” says Waliszewsk. “It doesn’t matter if plastics are made from plants, they still end up having the same impact as plastics derived from fossil fuels [because] they still end up being single use items that are toxic or used for maybe 15 minutes and then break up into smaller pieces.”

While visitors to America’s federal lands and national parks can help by only bringing and leaving with durable, reusable packaging and goods, Mallos says that a combination of legislation and commercial innovation will be the most effective tools to deal with the dilemma.

“Industry-led innovation was a major contributor to the plastic pollution crisis and it is going to have to be part of the solution to getting out of it,” says Mallos, calling the new Interior Department policy “an important forcing function.”

“We just need policies and regulations to step up and force [commercial manufacturers of plastic products] to use this innovation to drive towards a more circular economy.”

The post Single-use plastic is on its way out of national parks. But why is the pace so glacial? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

People use natural gas every day in their homes with kitchen stoves, furnaces, and heaters. The powerful fuel behind all of these appliances? Methane.

When methane leaks, which it often does, it can have a hefty impact on the environment. The gas has around 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide for its first 20 years in the atmosphere, and methane emissions from oil and gas basins can be seen from outer space. Methane leaks can also pose a serious health hazard, as they sneak toxic pollutants and gasses like toluene, benzene and hydrogen sulfide into the air.

But exactly what pollutants are natural gas appliances spreading around people’s homes? That has been a bit of a mystery. 

“It’s a really potent climate pollutant because it’s leaking everywhere, and everywhere we look, it seems to be leaking more than we think,” says Drew Michanowicz, a visiting scientist at Harvard University’s Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment. “We just kind of wanted to know what else is in this natural gas considering it is so widely used.”

Michanowicz and other researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health recently discovered that unburned natural gas from leaks contains nearly 300 unique chemical compounds—21 of which are federally designated as “hazardous air pollutants.”  For the study, which was published today in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, the team surveyed around 70 different kitchen stoves and building pipes in Boston, Massachusetts. What they found was that these samples contained varying amounts of hazardous air pollutants, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and hexane. The levels varied based on the time of year, with winter typically having the most pollution.

[Related: Gas stoves are bad for the environment—but what if the power goes out?]

The authors further concluded that the average person probably can’t smell every gas leak, especially the small, slow seeps. Natural gas is naturally odorless, so to help warn residents of leaks, gas companies often mix in an odorizer like methyl mercaptan (a separate compound from methane). This chemical is what gives gas leaks their fart-y, rotten-cabbage smell. 

Still, the researchers found that leaks with up to 10 times the amount of naturally occurring methane inside a building can still be hard to sense. “We don’t have anything [for methane] like a carbon monoxide detector or a smoke detector or sometimes a radon detector. Really, our line of defense for knowing there’s a leak in and around us are those odoring chemicals that they add,” says Michanowicz.  

What this means for human health is still up in the air—but Michanowicz notes that some of the harmful substances such as benzene are already in people’s homes because of other fuel sources and products. The next step for researchers is to calculate the baseline levels of everyday exposure with and without gas leaks, and see what toll that may have on human health. Too much benzene, for example, can lead to short-term symptoms like dizziness or vomiting and long-term illnesses like anemia.

Meanwhile, for folks using natural gas appliances, this study is just another reminder to keep your home as well-ventilated as possible. Opening windows and turning on an exhaust vent while cooking are both ways to make sure potentially hazardous air is continuously flushed out. If you’re interested in moving away from natural gas in your home, electric stoves and other appliances can be an option. Cities across states such as California, Massachusetts, and New York are already starting to ban new gas hookups in buildings. 

[Related: Two new bills could help pump up a climate-friendly system for heating and cooling homes]

“If climate change is vastly approaching, we already have really good reasons to try to reduce leakage of the methane that’s in natural gas,” Michanowicz says. “Here’s another reason to get us moving and thinking about different ways that our energy system may be harming us that we aren’t aware of.”

The post Gas appliances could be leaking up to 21 hazardous pollutants in your home appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Hundreds of scientific papers have been published about the threats of pesticide use. Still the movement to get away from them has been challenging. Global use of the chemicals nearly doubled between the years of 1990 and 2018, increasing from 2.3 to 4.1 million tonnes, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN. 

However, there is a bit of hope in the European Union at least. Just this week, the group of nations proposed binding targets to reduce risky pesticides by 50 percent by 2030. On top of this, they put forth an all-out ban in areas like public parks, gardens, playgrounds, public paths, and ecologically sensitive spots. 

“We need to reduce the use of chemical pesticides to protect our soil, air and food, and ultimately the health of our citizens,” European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides said in a release. “For the first time, we will ban the use of pesticides in public gardens and playgrounds, ensuring that we are all far less exposed in our daily lives.”

Farmers will be financially compensated for any losses  by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) during the transition for five years. This is especially important as many farms have been built for a pesticide-heavy agricultural system. Though ultimately the plan would offer relief: Prices for synthetic fertilizers have soared over the past year, placing direct financial burdens on farmers who depend on the chemicals for high yields of crops. 

“Since the ‘green revolution,’ countries around the world have relied heavily on pesticides to increase agricultural production,” says Laurie Beyranevand, Director of the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law School. “In many ways, our food system and the ways we produce our food rely very heavily on the use of pesticides—meaning farmers may need training and support for different pest management systems.”

This week’s proposal is a part of the larger Farm to Fork strategy, which is a post-COVID reassessment of the EU’s food system focused on changing production, processing and distribution, consumption, and food waste in order to have a sustainable system and mitigate climate change impacts. Farm to Fork itself is part of an even larger goal called the European Green Deal which aims to neutralize greenhouse gas emissions and decouple the economy from resource use. 

The milestone proposal could become law as soon as 2023, along with the first biodiversity legislation to be passed in the EU since 1992, when the Habitats Directive came into force which ensured protection of endangered flora and fauna, as well as 200 different types of unique environmental habitats. 

Still, not everyone is on board with the plan. French President Emmanuel Macron has been especially vocal about concerns relating to food security, emphasizing a need for “agricultural independence” over sustainability in the light of the food crises associated with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

These worries, however, aren’t necessarily based in reality. “While many suggest that the food system will suffer dire consequences if farmers are limited in their ability to use pesticides, that represents a false narrative,” Beyranevand says. 

There are ways to farm sustainably and continue to feed the world, adds Kathleen Merrigan, the executive director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University. Integrated Pest Management (IPM), for example, includes a range of  techniques like setting thresholds for pest populations before taking any steps to control them, monitoring and identifying specific organisms, implementing tools like crop rotations, and selecting pest-resistant plants. Controlling pests through highly targeted chemicals or trapping and weeding are a last resort before getting into the more serious stuff. 

Other  methods, like amping up female leadership in farming, could be an answer, adds Merrigan. A 2011 FAO study found that having women farmers with the same access to resources could increase yields by 20-30 percent. Getting food waste in order is also crucial, as about one third of global food supply is wasted every year.

“My point here is that we have enough food to feed the world now, and we’ve got over 800 million people who are hungry,” she says. “So when people say, ‘oh, can’t change the way we produce food because we can’t afford to have hungry people.’ Well, we have hungry people now.”

It’s important to note that this proposal doesn’t flat-out ban  pesticides. They are still an “important tool” for pest control, notes Leslie Hickle, CEO of insect monitoring technology company FarmSense. Deploying them will likely get even more complicated as the planet changes, biodiversity continues to struggle, and the environment degrades. But with technology and strategies focused on both protecting the environment and the food supply, more sustainable agricultural systems are possible, she continues. 

Continued public education and pressure will help push those goals forward. “It wasn’t until public outrage fueled by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, California oil spills and the Cuyahoga River Fire triggered the formation of the EPA,” Hickle says. “We are at a similar inflection point with the EU Commission’s position on reducing pesticide use.” 

The post The EU’s plan to halve pesticide use is ambitious, but realistic appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Out of all the plastic that has even been produced globally, less than 10 percent has been recycled. One of the biggest environmental dilemmas with this is that plastic does not decompose, it only breaks down into smaller pieces that can contaminate soil and water. Small plastic particles between one micrometer and five millimeters in length are called microplastics; those smaller than one micrometer are called nanoplastics.

So far, microplastics have been found in water sources like lake water, groundwater, and tap water, and they likely contain the even tinier nanoplastics too. In fact, studies have identified nanoplastics in tap water in China, lake water in Switzerland, and even ice samples in the Northern and Southern polar regions. However, the full extent of tiny plastic contamination of drinking water sources has yet to be known because it is challenging to detect them, which can make it more difficult to address the problem.

The potential health impact of small plastic particles

Microplastics were recently found in human blood and living lung tissues for the first time, but their effects on human health are not yet fully understood. Ingested microplastic particles may cause an imbalance in the human gut microbiome, which can play a role in the development of gastrointestinal disorders like irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease. However, a direct link has yet to be established.

Regardless of any risk considerations, releasing enormous amounts of non-biodegradable, synthetic material into the environment—which results in micro- and nano-plastic particles—is not wise, says Ralf Kägi, head of the Particle Laboratory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology.

“Nano-plastic particles may have unwanted effects on ecosystems and human health,” he adds. “The smaller the particles, the higher the likelihood that they can be taken up by any organism and distributed, for example, in the gastrointestinal tract.”

The number of nanoplastics in water sources is expected to increase in the future as plastics continue to degrade, therefore drinking water treatment processes must be equipped to remove them.

Various filtration processes may help provide drinkable water without plastics

Some studies show that drinking water treatment plants can filter nanoplastics well enough. According to a study published in Science of The Total Environment, a conventional drinking water treatment plant that uses sand and granular activated carbon (GAC) filters—the kind of filter that many water pitcher filters use—can remove nanoplastics by about 88.1 percent. The removal efficiency can increase to 99.4 percent if a coagulation process is also used.

Meanwhile, a different study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found that a treatment process called slow sand filtration is just as effective at retaining nanoplastic particles from water sources, if not more. In this method, water is treated using a thick, biologically active layer called schmutzdecke that lies on top of quartz sand. The untreated water passes through the biological layer first, and then the layers of sand below it.

The biologically active layer—which consists of organisms like algae, bacteria, and protozoans—is especially effective at retaining the vast majority of particulate materials, including micro- and nano-plastic particles, says Kägi, who is one of the authors of the study. 

Pilot-scale filtration experiments were conducted at the Zurich Water Works to compare different water treatment processes and simulate the removal of nanoplastics in a full-scale drinking water treatment plant.

In the pilot-scale slow sand filtration unit, about 70 percent of the nanoplastics were retained in the first 0.1 meters of the sand bed, and the retention reached 99.5 percent at 0.9 meters. Other processes were not as effective. For instance, ozonation or the infusion of ozone into water does not affect the retention of nanoplastics during water treatment. Meanwhile, activated carbon filtration retained only 10 percent in the first 0.9 meters of the filter.

As exciting as this news is, slow sand filtration is actually a pretty old technology. It was used in the United States for the first time back in 1875. Although it gradually fell out of favor in the late 1800s due to its slow flow rate and inadequacy to treat turbid source waters, it was still a promising filtration method for rural communities.

Slow sand filters are also being phased out in newly constructed water plants due to their extensive space requirements. These are then replaced by ultrafiltration, a kind of membrane filtration system, which uses synthetic polymer membranes to physically separate or strain substances from water, like sand or algae. They are generally more expensive, but the efficiency is comparable to slow sand filters and they don’t take up as much space, says Kägi. 

There is very limited research on the matter, but the removal of micro- and nano-plastic particles using membrane-based filtration technologies appears to be more effective compared to other techniques. A 2021 study published in Water Science & Technology found that the membrane filtration method displayed a 100 percent efficiency in removing microplastics from wastewaters, as demonstrated in both laboratory- and real-scale filtration results.

“Membrane filtration systems are expected to even outperform slow sand filtration systems regarding the retention of micro- and nano-plastic particles,” says Kägi. Although it’s very promising that some water treatment processes can be effective at removing plastic particles from contaminated water sources, the root of the problem must still be addressed. Minimizing plastic use as much as possible remains paramount in providing plastic-free, potable water.

The post The right kind of filter can keep microplastics out of drinking water appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When more than one type of pollution gets wrapped up in the same space, the result can be pretty darn yucky—not to mention dangerous. And the gobs scientists discovered recently on the beaches of the typically picturesque Canary Islands certainly fits the bill.

Plastitar—or a combination of microplastics and tar balls—is a pollution conglomerate discovered two years ago by researchers based across the Canary Islands. In recently published research, they described how they found the icky substance on half of the rocks investigated on Tenerife’s Playa Grande as well as areas of El Hierro and Lanzarote in the Atlantic island chain. 

The formations, which look like big squishy black balls littered with colorful plastic sprinkles, result when oil spills washing up on shore. The oil from a spill eventually becomes a tar ball which sticks to the rocky Canary Island shores. That goo captures plastic and debris from waves of ocean almost like “Play-Doh,” lead author Javier Hernández Borges told the Guardian. After time passes, those itty pieces of plastic are permanently wedged in the hardened tar’s crevices. 

Plastitar is only one recently discovered way that marine plastic debris has accrued  into more permanent formations. Plastiglomerates, for example, are types of stone that are made of natural debris and material held together by molten plastic. They were first discovered in Long Beach, California, in 2006. More than 200 samples have since been collected, frequently from Hawaii. Pyroplastics, on the other hand, are made when synthetic  plastics are burned—and they easily escape detection because they so closely resemble pebbles or rock fragments. Plasticrusts are the eerie effect of melted plastic that covers rocky surfaces, more or less becoming a geological marker of our  plastic-loving period. Finally, anthropoquinas are sedimentary rocks that have become cemented with human trash like bottle caps, earrings, and plastic fragments.

[Related: Microplastics are everywhere. Here’s what that means for our health.]

The effect of plastic on human health is still a bit of a mystery—but we now know that microplastics are pretty much everywhere. They can be found in the air, drinking water, food, and even human blood. Some potential risks of microplastic exposure are metabolic disturbances, neurotoxicity, and increased cancer risk. The pollution can delay how aquatic life grows and cause it to act abnormally. 

It’s much clearer that oil spills and tar can severely hurt wildlife, by physically harming animals or leaving chemicals and pollution on habitats and breeding grounds for years. This makes plastitar a scary combo. 

The combination of tar and plastic materials is a “a double threat to the marine ecosystem with unknown environmental consequences,” the study authors write. Because marine organisms eat plastics , plastitar might cause “intestinal blockage, internal injuries, oxidative stress and damage, inflammatory responses, among other important issues.”they warn. .

Not to mention how hot these balls of tar can get. Standing on asphalt on a summer day can immediately make your temperature soar, and having a similar dark material line the coasts could have disastrous consequences, Hernández Borges notes in an interview with Wired.

Meanwhile, the world is producing twice as much plastic as it was two decades ago and four times as much as 30 years ago. Only 9 percent of plastic waste properly gets recycled. Around 3 million tons of microplastics are released each year into the environment, along with over 5 million tons of larger chunks of plastic that may eventually break down into microplastics. We even know now that there is a global plastic cycle that mimics natural cycles like carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus.

The post Horrific blobs of ‘plastitar’ are gunking up Atlantic beaches appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Food waste isn’t just a problem for your wallet. Every time you scrape some scraps into the garbage to later drag to the curb for trash day, those uneaten morsels are likely destined for a landfill. Once at the landfill, the scraps significantly contribute to the climate crisis.

That’s because in a landfill, the scraps don’t just decompose and cycle back into the food web (and even then, biodegradable food left outside won’t necessarily degrade quickly, either). Piling up among our discarded goods and packaging, the scraps eventually begin to go through decomposition. 

But when scraps decompose anaerobically, the process creates methane. That’s the same potent greenhouse gas emitted through activities as varied as cow burps and farts to fossil fuel industry operations that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns in its latest report is exponentially more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide.

The US Environmental Protection Agency says in a recent report that there isn’t a “single agreed-upon comprehensive estimate” of food loss and waste in the US. Nevertheless, the agency says that existing assessments suggest that around 35 percent of the entire country’s food supply is wasted, with half of that occurring at home or in the hands of a food service provider.

This year, a separate report is slated for publication to address landfilled food waste-related emissions. But ReFED, a national nonprofit focused on food loss and waste reduction, calls food waste “the main contributor to methane [emissions] coming from landfills,” citing EPA data.

“Municipal solid waste landfills accounted for 15 percent of US methane emissions in 2019, making them the third largest source,” the nonprofit notes in a blog post. “And it turns out that food waste is the number one most prevalent material in our landfills — EPA estimates that in 2018, food scraps accounted for 24 percent of material sent to landfill.”

[Related: Anyone can compost their food waste (and everyone should.)]

But runaway methane emissions don’t occur in the oxygen-rich environment created when food scraps are composted. Food waste reduction advocates say more Americans composting their truly unusable food scraps would also lower climate change-fueling methane emissions. 

Yet relatively few food scraps are composted; in 2018, just around four percent of wasted food was composted in the US, according to the EPA. So how do we get more Americans to compost? 

Better government funding

Vermont bans food scraps from entering its waste stream (although compliance is voluntary). Washington state recently tightened its food waste reduction goal and codified new policies, like new package labeling standards, to get closer to target. And while the US Composting Council, an industry trade group, says there are a handful of other states that have outright bans or “aggressive legislation” around food scraps, observers say they won’t be alone for long.

“You’re seeing a lot of legislation coming out on a state-by-state level that restricts the use of or restricts food waste going to landfills, and therefore the food needs to be composted,” says Lauren Gropper, the founder and chief executive of Repurpose, a compostable products company. “There’s going to be a lot more legislation happening in the next, I would say, three to five years regarding what happens with where our food goes and requirements around composting.”

Because waste management plans are typically developed at the local level, the onus will be on the states to fund municipal measures to realistically implement any food waste minimization standards, she says.

But Frank Franciosi, executive director of the US Composting Council, says his organization wants to see more federal funding for composting infrastructure.

“The back of the envelope number that I’ve figured out is, we need somewhere between 800 and 1000 [composting] facilities that would handle … 50,000 tons of both food waste and yard waste combined,” he says. “That would be about a $2 billion investment.”

The communications team of the US Environmental Protection Agency told Popular Science that the agency “does not have dedicated funding amounts specific to food scrap collection or composting” and instead rolls any related funding within its “overall waste management/waste minimization budget.”

The US Department of Agriculture didn’t respond to a request for such figures. 

Tailor your programs and messaging—and show ’em the money

The environment isn’t always on the top of everyone’s mind, but saving money might. Sending less waste to the dump, and therefore lowering the amount spent on landfilled waste management and new landfills, saves taxpayers money, say compost advocates like Susanne Lee, a sustainable business faculty member focused on food waste reduction strategies at the University of Maine.

In fact, she says, creating compost as a community can displace the need to purchase manure and fertilizer—or even be sold at a profit.

“If you have an end product that has a market value, of course that is going to be saving you money versus trying to take up space in the landfill,” says Lee. She calls composting a potentially “unifying proposition” with the right messaging.

When it comes to municipalities reaching these goals, it’s all about meeting people where they are and speaking their kind of language. For example, a big football community might bring food scrap drop-off bins to tailgating parties to show people how easy collection can be, she suggested.

Making appropriate composting options available to the community will help spur more composting without burdening residents, she added. That could look like curbside collection, consolidated food scrap collection or a combination of offerings. Some communities might even offer vouchers for people to purchase their preferred model or style of compost bins.

[Related: Drug-resistant fungus could be lurking in your compost, but you can reduce the risk.]

“To get people to compost, it needs to be as convenient as trash to set up,” says Brenda Platt, who directs the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s community composting project.

While population density certainly helps make food scrap collection cheaper per capita, even dispersed, rural towns like in Lee’s state of Maine can find ways to make affordable inroads with their residents. “If you’re a really tiny town that can’t even do consolidated [food scraps] collection, you can support a program where you give home composting [equipment] to everybody and teach everybody how to do a compost pile at home,” she says.

Teach both adults and children

The greatest challenge of reducing food waste and encouraging composting is reminding people of the true value of food, says Lee.

“We forget about the nutrients, we just don’t seem to care about the money,” she says. Lee sees how helping adults connect the dots for where their tax dollars go, the money they spend on wasted food and the environmental benefits of composting can encourage someone to start composting when she hosts community events and teaches people how to do it in a way that works best for them.

For Gropper, something as simple as a well-organized home mailing campaign, that “spells out the problem with food waste” and what people can do can nudge them into getting a bin and collecting their scraps.

It’s also worthwhile to reach out and educate even the youngest citizens of a town. “I think a super important component of making this big shift [toward more composting] is explaining it to the children,” says Lee.

To that end, Lee has been supervising Hannah Mathieu, a University of Maine undergraduate student, who is managing a pilot program aimed at educating local kindergarteners through sixth graders about food waste and composting. Teachers were provided with a series of videos, slideshows, worksheets and hands-on activities to do with their students.

“I was so amazed at how much they were picking up because like some of these topics are kind of complex,” says Mathieu. “They were learning about the actual process of compost and decomposition and just reciting so easily to us how it works. It was really amazing to see how easily they were picking up on the information.”

The post The US stinks at composting. Here’s how we can change that. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.