ReportWire

Tag: Pollution

  • Advanced recycling: Plastic crisis solution or distraction?

    Advanced recycling: Plastic crisis solution or distraction?

    [ad_1]

    PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The plastics industry says there is a way to help solve the crisis of plastic waste plaguing the planet’s oceans, beaches and lands— recycle it, chemically.

    Chemical recycling typically uses heat or chemical solvents to break down plastics into liquid and gas to produce an oil-like mixture or basic chemicals. Industry leaders say that mixture can be made back into plastic pellets to make new products.

    “What we are trying to do is really create a circular economy for plastics because we think it is the most viable option for keeping plastic out of the environment,” said Joshua Baca, vice president of the plastics division at the American Chemistry Council, the industry trade association for American chemical companies.

    ExxonMobil, New Hope Energy, Nexus Circular, Eastman, Encina and other companies are planning to build large plastics recycling plants. Seven smaller facilities across the United States already recycle plastic into new plastic, according to the ACC. A handful of others convert hard-to-recycle used plastics into alternative transportation fuels for aviation, marine and auto uses.

    But environmental groups say advanced recycling is a distraction from real solutions like producing and using less plastic. They suspect the idea of recyclable plastics will enable the steep ramp up in plastic production to continue. And while the amount produced globally grows, recycling rates for plastic waste are abysmally low, especially in the United States.

    Plastic packaging, multi-layered films, bags, polystyrene foam and other hard-to-recycle plastic products are piling up in landfills and in the environment, or going to incinerators.

    Judith Enck, the founder and president of Beyond Plastics, says plastics recycling doesn’t work and never will. Chemical additives and colorants used to give plastic different properties mean that there are thousands of types, she said. That’s why they can’t be mixed together and recycled in the conventional, mechanical way. Nor is there much of a market for recycled plastic, because virgin plastic is cheap, she said.

    So what is more likely to happen than actual recycling, said Enck, a former regional administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is the industry will shift to burning plastics as waste or as fuel.

    Lee Bell, a policy advisor for the International Pollutants Elimination Network, thinks chemical recycling is a public relations exercise by the petrochemical industry. The purpose is to dissuade regulators from capping plastics production. Making plastic could become even more important to the fossil fuel industry as climate change puts pressure on their transportation fuels, Bell said.

    The industry has made roughly 11 billion metric tons of plastic since 1950, with half of that produced since 2006, according to industrial ecologist Roland Geyer. Global plastic production is expected to more than quadruple by 2050, according to the United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal in Norway.

    The international Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says the share of plastic waste that is successfully recycled is projected to rise to 17% in 2060 from 9% in 2019 if no additional policies are enacted to restrain plastic demand and enhance recycling, but that wouldn’t begin to keep up with the projected growth in plastic waste. With more ambitious policies, the amount of plastic waste that is recycled could rise to 40% to 60%, according to OECD.

    Two groups working to reduce plastic pollution, the Last Beach Clean Up and Beyond Plastics, estimated that the U.S. rate for recycling plastic waste in 2021 was even lower — 5% to 6%, after China stopped accepting other countries’ waste in 2018.

    The U.S. national recycling strategy says no option, including chemical recycling, should be ruled out. The way to think of these new plants, the industry says, is as manufacturing plants. They should be legally defined that way, and not as waste management. About 20 states have adopted laws in the past five years consistent with that wish. Opponents say it’s a way to skirt the more stringent environmental regulations that apply to waste management facilities.

    EXISTING PLANTS

    The U.S. facilities currently recycling plastic into new plastic are small — the largest is a 60-ton-per-day plant in Akron, Ohio, Alterra Energy, according to the ACC.

    Alterra Energy says it takes in the hard-to-recycle plastics, like flexible pouches, multi-layered films and rigid plastics from automobiles — everything except plastic water bottles since those are recycled mechanically, or plastics marked with a “3” since they contain polyvinyl chloride, or PVC.

    “Our mission is to solve plastic pollution,” said Jeremy DeBenedictis, company president. “That is not just a tag line. We all truly want to solve plastic pollution.”

    The Ohio facility typically takes in 40 tons to 50 tons per day, heating and liquifying the plastic to turn it back into an oil or hydrocarbon liquid, about 10,000 gallons to 12,000 gallons daily. About 75% of what comes into the facility can be liquified like that. Another 15% is turned into a synthetic natural gas to heat the process, while the remainder — paper, metals, dyes, inks and colorants — exit the reactor as a byproduct, or carbon char, DeBenedictis said. The char is disposed of as nonhazardous waste, though in the future some hope to sell it to the asphalt industry.

    The process doesn’t involve oxygen so there’s no combustion or incineration of plastics, DeBenedictis said, and their product is trucked as a synthetic oil to petrochemical companies, essentially the “building blocks on a molecular level for new plastic production.”

    The materials they take in, that haven’t been able to be recycled until now, should not be sent to landfills, dumped in the ocean or incinerated, DeBenedictis said.

    “That next level has to be a new technology, what you call chemical recycling or advanced recycling. That’s the next frontier,” he said.

    “Let’s not kid ourselves here. This is the right time to do it,” added company CEO Fred Schmuck. “There is absolutely no way we can meet our climate goals without addressing plastic waste.”

    DeBenedictis said he’s licensing the technology to try to grow the industry because that’s the “best way to make the quickest impact to the world.” A Finnish oil and gas company, Neste, is currently working to commercialize Alterra’s technology in Europe.

    The main chemical recycling technologies use pyrolysis, gasification or depolymerization. Neil Tangri, the science and policy director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, is skeptical. He says he has been hearing that pyrolysis is going to change everything since the 1990s, but it hasn’t happened. Instead, plastic production keeps climbing.

    GAIA views chemical recycling as a false solution that will facilitate greater production of virgin plastic — a high-energy process with high-carbon emissions that releases hazardous air pollutants, Tangri said. Instead, GAIA wants plastic production to be dramatically scaled back and only recyclable plastics to be produced.

    “Nobody needs more plastic,” Tangri said. “We keep trying to solve these production problems with recycling when really we need to change how much we make and what we make. That’s where the solution lies.”

    EQUITY ISSUES IN CITING PLANTS

    In Rhode Island, state lawmakers considered a bill this year to exempt such facilities from solid waste licensing requirements. It was vigorously opposed by environmental activists and residents near the port of Providence who feared it would lead to a new plant in their neighborhood. State environmental officials sided with them.

    Monica Huertas, executive director of The People’s Port Authority, helped lead the opposition. The neighborhood is already overburdened by industry, she said, so much so that she sometimes has asthma attacks after walking around.

    Dwayne Keys said it’s unfair that he and his neighbors always have to be on guard for proposals like these, unlike residents in some of the state’s wealthy, white neighborhoods. The port area has enough environmental hazards that residents don’t benefit from economically, he added. Keys calls it environmental racism.

    “The assessment is, we’re the path of least resistance,” he said. “Not that there’s no resistance, but the least. We’re a coalition of individuals volunteering our time. We don’t have wealth or access to resources or the legal means, as opposed to our white counterparts in higher income, higher net worth communities.”

    The chemistry council’s Baca said the facilities operate at the highest standards, the industry believes everyone deserves clear air and water, and he would invite any detractors to one of the facilities so they can see that firsthand.

    U.S. plastics producers have said they will recycle or recover all plastic packaging used in the United States by 2040, and have already announced more than $7 billion in investments in both mechanical and chemical recycling.

    “I think we are on the cusp of a sustainability revolution where circularity will be the centerpiece of that,” Baca said. “And innovative technologies like advanced recycling will be what makes this possible.”

    Kate O’Neill wrote the book on waste, called “Waste.” A professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at the University of California, Berkeley, she has thought a lot about whether chemical recycling should be part of the solution to the plastic crisis. She said she has concluded yes, even though she knows saying so would “piss off the environmentalists.”

    “With some of these big problems,” she said, “we can’t rule anything out.”

    ———

    Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Study: Cancer-causing gas leaking from CA stoves, pipes

    Study: Cancer-causing gas leaking from CA stoves, pipes

    [ad_1]

    Gas stoves in California homes are leaking cancer-causing benzene, researchers found in a new study published on Thursday, though they say more research is needed to understand how many homes have leaks.

    In the study, published in Environmental Science and Technology on Thursday, researchers also estimated that over 4 tons of benzene per year are being leaked into the atmosphere from outdoor pipes that deliver the gas to buildings around California — the equivalent to the benzene emissions from nearly 60,000 vehicles. And those emissions are unaccounted for by the state.

    The researchers collected samples of gas from 159 homes in different regions of California and measured to see what types of gases were being emitted into homes when stoves were off. They found that all of the samples they tested had hazardous air pollutants, like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX), all of which can have adverse health effects in humans with chronic exposure or acute exposure in larger amounts.

    Of most concern to the researchers was benzene, a known carcinogen that can lead to leukemia and other cancers and blood disorders, according to the National Cancer Institute.

    The finding could have major implications for indoor and outdoor air quality in California, which has the second highest level of residential natural gas use in the United States.

    “What our science shows is that people in California are exposed to potentially hazardous levels of benzene from the gas that is piped into their homes,” said Drew Michanowicz, a study co-author and senior scientist at PSE Healthy Energy, an energy research and policy institute. “We hope that policymakers will consider this data when they are making policy to ensure current and future policies are health-protective in light of this new research.”

    Homes in almost every region in the study — Greater Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento and Fresno — had benzene levels that far exceed the limit determined to be safe by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment. But the region with the highest benzene levels by far was the North San Fernando and Santa Clarita valleys.

    This finding in particular didn’t surprise residents and health care workers in the region who spoke to The Associated Press about the study. That’s because many of them experienced the largest-known natural gas leak in the nation in Aliso Canyon in 2015.

    Back then, 100,000 tons of methane and other gases, including benzene, leaked from a failed well operated by Southern California Gas Co. It took nearly four months to get the leak under control and resulted in headaches, nausea and nose bleeds.

    Dr. Jeffrey Nordella was a physician at an urgent care in the region during this time and remembers being puzzled by the variety of symptoms patients were experiencing. “I didn’t have much to offer them,” except to help them try to detox from the exposures, he said.

    That was an acute exposure of a large amount of benzene, which is different from chronic exposure to smaller amounts, but “remember what the World Health Organization said: there’s no safe level of benzene,” he said.

    Kyoko Hibino was one of the residents exposed to toxic air pollution as a result of the Aliso Canyon gas leak. After the leak, she started having a persistent cough and nosebleeds and eventually was diagnosed with breast cancer, which has also been linked to benzene exposure. Her cats also started having nosebleeds and one recently passed away from leukemia.

    “I’d say let’s take this study really seriously and understand how bad (benzene exposure) is,” she said.

    ———

    Follow Drew Costley on Twitter: @drewcostley.

    ———

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New Zealand farmers hit streets to protest cow-burp tax plan

    New Zealand farmers hit streets to protest cow-burp tax plan

    [ad_1]

    WELLINGTON, New Zealand — Farmers across New Zealand took to the streets on their tractors Thursday to protest government plans to tax cow burps and other greenhouse gas emissions, although the rallies were smaller than many had expected.

    Lobby group Groundswell New Zealand helped organize more than 50 protests in towns and cities across the country, the biggest involving a few dozen vehicles.

    Last week, the government proposed a new farm levy as part of a plan to tackle climate change. The government said it would be a world first, and that farmers should be able to recoup the cost by charging more for climate-friendly products.

    Because farming is so big in New Zealand — there are 10 million beef and dairy cattle and 26 million sheep, compared to just 5 million people — about half of all greenhouse gas emissions come from farms. Methane from burping cattle makes a particularly big contribution.

    But some farmers argue the proposed tax would actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions by shifting farming to countries less efficient at making food.

    At the protest in Wellington, farmer Dave McCurdy said he was disappointed in the small turnout, but said most farmers were working hard on their farms during a spell of good spring weather at a particularly busy time of year.

    He said farmers were good environmental stewards.

    “It’s our life, our family’s lives,” he said. “We’re not out there to wreck it, we wouldn’t make any money. We love our farms. That’s what annoys us. We’re painted at these bad guys, but a lot of farmers have spent generations looking after that land.”

    He said the proposed tax didn’t take proper account of all the trees and brush he and other farmers had planted, which helped trap carbon and offset emissions. He said if the proposed tax and herd reductions went ahead, it would be ruinous to many farmers.

    “I’m out,” he said. “Waste of time.”

    Farming remains vital to New Zealand’s economy. Dairy products, including those used to make infant formula in China, are the nation’s largest export earner.

    McCurdy said farmers had almost singlehandedly kept the economy afloat during the COVID-19 lockdowns, and now that the threat had passed and a recession was looming, the government was coming after them.

    New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has pledged the nation will become carbon neutral by 2050. Part of that plan includes reducing methane emissions from farm animals by 10% by 2030 and by up to 47% by 2050.

    The government had worked with farmers and other groups to try to come up with an emissions plan they could all live with. But many farmers have been incensed by the government’s final proposal, while environmentalists have said it doesn’t go nearly far enough.

    Farmer Matt Swansson said he’d “had a gutsful” of the government and would consider refusing to pay the new tax.

    He said on beautiful evenings on his farm, he thinks he has the best job in the world.

    “But when it’s rain, drizzle, and you get home and listen to the news,” Swansson said. “Why do you bother?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Australia and Singapore strike agreement to achieve net-zero

    Australia and Singapore strike agreement to achieve net-zero

    [ad_1]

    CANBERRA, Australia — Australian and Singaporean leaders announced Tuesday what they described as a world-first agreement to cooperate in transitioning their economies to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

    Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese outlined their so-called Green Economy Agreement between the two countries after an annual meeting in the Australian Parliament House.

    The agreement has 17 components that cover facilitating trade and investment in green services, harmonizing standards and building green growth sectors through collaboration between business.

    Australia has committed to reducing its emissions to net-zero by 2050 and Singapore is considering adopting the same target.

    Albanese described Singapore as “one of the most innovative economies in the world,” while Australia had the potential to become a “renewable energy superpower” due to its vast open spaces and relatively small population.

    The agreement “will support clean energy innovation, unlock business opportunities and create jobs, and help deliver our mission’s targets while positioning Australia as a renewable energy superpower,” Albanese said.

    Lee foreshadowed further cooperation in cross-border electricity trade and “sustainable aviation” through what he described as the “world’s first such agreement.”

    ”These are all areas which are of interest to Singapore and to Singapore businesses and we hope with a Singapore-Australia GEA they’ll be able to move forward,” Lee said.

    “But we also hope with this GEA will encourage other countries to look at what we have been able to do and to ask whether some of this may not make sense to them to do with Singapore or to do with each other,” Lee added.

    Singapore is already planning to use solar power from northern Australia transmitted by a 4,200-kilometer (2,600-mile) submarine cable.

    Singaporean company Sun Cable plans to start construction in 2024 of the 30 billion Australian dollar ($19 billion) Australia-Asia PowerLink project that will include 12,000 hectares (30,000 acres) of solar panels near the northern Australian city of Darwin.

    Albanese described the export of Australian solar power to Singapore as an “ultimate win-win.”

    “If this project can be made to work — and I believe it can be — you will see the world’s largest solar farm, you will see the export of energy across distances … (and) the production of many jobs here in Australia, including manufacturing jobs,” Albanese said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Vancouver’s air quality affected as several wildfires rage | CNN

    Vancouver’s air quality affected as several wildfires rage | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Wildfires burning in British Columbia and Washington state have triggered an air quality advisory for metro Vancouver, according to a Metro Vancouver district press release.

    The smoke is contributing to high concentrations of fine particulate matter in the area, which pose the greatest risk to health, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

    Local Canadian officials have urged residents to “postpone or reduce outdoor physical activity while PM 2.5 concentrations are high, especially if breathing feels uncomfortable.”

    United States Environmental Protection Agency

    Fine particulate matter, also known as PM 2.5, refers to airborne solid or liquid droplets with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less, the press release explained. That’s 30 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair, according to the US EPA. PM 2.5 can easily penetrate indoors because of its small size, according to the press release.

    Stagnant weather conditions are forecast to persist for at least the next few days, according to Vancouver officials, meaning the air quality is also not likely to change.

    “Smoke concentrations may vary widely across the region as winds and temperatures change, and as wildfire behaviour changes,” the Metro Vancouver press release said.

    There are currently nine active wildfires in Washington, according to a Friday update from Northwest Interagency Coordination Center. This includes the Cedar Creek Fire, which is 40% contained. It has burned 122,794 acres since it began on August 1, according to the Incident Information System.

    There is also smoke from a wildfire on Cypress Mountain, a popular ski area in West Vancouver, “contributing to hazy conditions already being experienced in Metro Vancouver,” said the press release.

    Due to unseasonably warm and dry conditions, Metro Vancouver officials have also extended lawn watering restrictions from Saturday until October 31 in order to better conserve the region’s drinking water,” according to a Metro Vancouver water conservation advisory.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cancer deaths in Italy: environmental pollution plays an important role

    Cancer deaths in Italy: environmental pollution plays an important role

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Today, cancer represents the second leading cause of death in the world after cardiovascular diseases. In the last decades of cancer research, lifestyle – especially physical inactivity, poor diet, obesity, alcoholism, and smoking – and random or genetic factors have been identified as major causes in the development of tumors. Nevertheless, there is a growing understanding of how environmental pollution is among the main factors inducing cancer proliferation.

    To further investigate this issue, a group of scholars from the University of Bologna, the University of Bari, and the CNR (National Research Council) used advanced artificial intelligence methods to analyze the relationship between cancer mortality, socio-economic factors, and environmental pollution sources in Italy on a regional and provincial level. The results and the analysis of the investigation have been published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, while the entire ten-year dataset with cancer mortality rates for all Italian municipalities has been published in the journal Nature Scientific Data, an open-access and user-friendly journal.

    “Contrary to what has been believed so far, our analysis showed that the distribution of cancer mortality among Italian citizens is neither random nor spatially well-defined,” explains Roberto Cazzolla Gatti, professor at the Department of Biological, Geological, and Environmental Sciences at the University of Bologna as well as first author of the study. “Instead, cancer mortality exceeds the national average especially where environmental pollution is higher, even if in these areas living habits are generally healthier.”

    Researchers took into consideration 35 environmental sources of pollution such as industries, pesticides, incinerators, and motor vehicle traffic. Among these, they found that air quality is the most important factor in terms of its association with the average cancer mortality rate. This is followed by the presence of sites to be reclaimed, urban areas, motor vehicle density and pesticides. Moreover, other specific sources of environmental pollution are relevant for specific types of tumour. For instance, cultivated areas are associated with tumours of the gastrointestinal system, roads and steelworks proximity with bladder tumours, industrial activities in urban areas with prostate tumour and lymphomas.

    The Italian province with the highest cancer mortality rate in the decade 2009-2018 was Lodi. It was followed by those of Naples, Bergamo, Pavia, Sondrio, and Cremona. The highest-ranked province in central Italy is Viterbo (11th position), followed by Rome (18th). In southern Italy, in addition to the province of Naples in second place, only that of Caserta (8th) is in the top 10 for cancer mortality. Anyone can check the ten-year mortality rate in its municipality by visiting the open-access dataset published by the authors of the study.

    “Of course, these results do not question the fact that a healthier lifestyle helps to reduce the risk of cancer, just as they don’t question the efforts to get to the genetic basis that may favour the onset of cancer,” adds Cazzolla Gatti. “Our results, however, give us good reason to believe that living in a highly polluted area can cancel out the benefits that come with a healthy lifestyle and induce the development of cancers with a higher frequency.”

    Every year in Italy, there are 400,000 new cases of malignant tumours, with an annual average of about three deaths per thousand people according to the Italian cancer registries. On both national and regional level, the analysis carried out by the scholars showed the relevance of the environment on the onset of tumours even if compared to other socio-economic factors and lifestyle. Moreover, it was possible to determine on a provincial level what potential sources of pollution could cause an excess of cancer mortality compared to the national average, thus also providing a focus on environmental factors that are mostly associated with specific types of cancer.

    “From a global health perspective, following the approach known as One Health, it is now evident that the quality of life of our species is closely dependent on that of the environment in which we live and of the entire planet,” explains Cazzolla Gatti. “It is, therefore, necessary to give the highest priority not only to research for cancer cures but also to the reduction and prevention of environmental contamination. These are essential actions in the difficult fight against cancer onset. We need to know how to cure our planet to be able to avoid getting sick.”

    According to the study, Italian regions with a relatively high cancer mortality rate have a relatively high degree of pollution, despite registering a relatively low frequency of the usual cancer risk factors such as being overweight, smoking, having a low income, high meat consumption, and low fruit and vegetable consumption. Furthermore, on a provincial level, for both malignant and benign tumors in general and for 16 out of 23 specific types of cancer, significant spatial associations were found with certain sources of pollution and explained more than half of the association between environment and cancer. This confirmed that, in most cases, being exposed to a contaminated environment has a significant impact on cancer mortality in Italy.

    “Data show good, albeit preliminary, evidence that a better lifestyle and greater attention to socio-economic and health issues can only partially reduce the risk of dying from cancer if the quality of the environment is overlooked,” explains Cazzolla Gatti. “This could explain why we have observed that people living in northern Italian regions – particularly in those located in the Po Valley, between the Lombardy and Veneto regions, which are highly industrialized areas – and exposed to very high levels of environmental pollution show a significant excess of cancer mortality compared to those who live in the central-southern regions (except for some other highly polluted areas, such as the so-called Terra dei Fuochi (Land of Fires) in the Campania region), even though they enjoy better health, have higher incomes, consume more food of plant origin than animal one, and have easier access to health care.”

    The entire ten-year database (2009-2018) on cancer mortality rates developed by researchers from ISTAT (Italian National Institute of Statistics) registers has been published with open access. In the database, 23 cancer macro-categories in Italy on a municipal, provincial, and regional level are considered. “We want to make a complete, up-to-date and ready-to-use data source on cancer mortality in Italy easily accessible to be consulted by interested bodies and local and national authorities, and to provide researchers useful data to carry out further studies,” Cazzolla Gatti concludes.

    The study was published in open access in the journal Science of the Total Environment under the title “The spatial association between environmental pollution and long-term cancer mortality in Italy”, while the entire dataset can be found in Nature Scientific Data. The authors of the study are Roberto Cazzolla Gatti (University of Bologna), Arianna Di Paola (CNR – National Research Council, Institute for BioEconomy), Alfonso Monaco (University of Bari ‘Aldo Moro’), Alena Velichevskaya (Tomsk State University, Russia), Nicola Amoroso (INFN – National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Bari Section), Roberto Bellotti (University of Bari ‘Aldo Moro’).

    [ad_2]

    Universita di Bologna

    Source link

  • White House is pushing ahead research to cool Earth by reflecting back sunlight

    White House is pushing ahead research to cool Earth by reflecting back sunlight

    [ad_1]

    Full frame sun, Climate change, Heatwave hot sun, Global warming from the sun and burning

    Chuchart Duangdaw | Moment | Getty Images

    The White House is coordinating a five-year research plan to study ways of modifying the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth to temper the effects of global warming, a process sometimes called solar geoengineering or sunlight reflection.

    The research plan will assess climate interventions, including spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space, and should include goals for research, what’s necessary to analyze the atmosphere, and what impact these kinds of climate interventions may have on Earth, according to the White House‘s Office of Science and Technology Policy. Congress directed the research plan be produced in its spending plan for 2022, which President Joe Biden signed in March.

    Some of the techniques, such as spraying sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, are known to have harmful effects on the environment and human health. But scientists and climate leaders who are concerned that humanity will overshoot its emissions targets say research is important to figure out how best to balance these risks against a possibly catastrophic rise in the Earth’s temperature.

    Getting ready to research a topic is a very preliminary step, but it’s notable the White House is formally engaging with what has largely been seen as the stuff of dystopian fantasy. In Kim Stanley Robinson’s science fiction novel, “The Ministry for the Future,” a heat wave in India kills 20 million people and out of desperation, India decides to implement its own strategy of limiting the sunlight that gets to Earth.

    Chris Sacca, the founder of climate tech investment fund Lowercarbon Capital, said it’s prudent for the White House to be spearheading the research effort.

    “Sunlight reflection has the potential to safeguard the livelihoods of billions of people, and it’s a sign of the White House’s leadership that they’re advancing the research so that any future decisions can be rooted in science not geopolitical brinkmanship,” Sacca told CNBC. (Sacca has donated money to support research in the area, but said he has “zero financial interests beyond philanthropy” in the idea and does not think there should be private business models in the space, he told CNBC.)

    Harvard professor David Keith, who first worked on the topic in 1989, said it’s being taken much more seriously now. He points to formal statements of support for researching sunlight reflection from the Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the creation of a new group he advises called the Climate Overshoot Commission, an international group of scientists and lawmakers that’s evaluating climate interventions in preparation for a world that warms beyond what the Paris Climate Accord recommended.

    To be clear, nobody is saying sunlight-reflection modification is the solution to climate change. Reducing emissions remains the priority.

    “You cannot judge what the country does on solar-radiation modification without looking at what it is doing in emission reductions, because the priority is emission reductions,” said Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative. “Solar-radiation modification will never be a solution to the climate crisis.”

    Three ways to reduce sunlight

    The idea of sunlight reflection first appeared prominently in a 1965 report to President Lyndon B. Johnson, entitled “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” Keith told CNBC. The report floated the idea of spreading particles over the ocean at a cost of $100 per square mile. A one percent change in the reflectivity of the Earth would cost $500 million per year, which does “not seem excessive,” the report said, “considering the extraordinary economic and human importance of climate.”

    The estimated price tag has gone up since then. The current estimate is that it would cost $10 billion per year to run a program that cools the Earth by 1 degree Celsius, said Edward A. Parson, a professor of environmental law at UCLA’s law school. But that figure is seen to be remarkably cheap compared to other climate change mitigation initiatives.

    A landmark report released in March 2021 from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine addressed three kinds of solar geoengineering: stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, and cirrus cloud thinning.

    Stratospheric aerosol injection would involve flying aircraft into the stratosphere, or between 10 miles and 30 miles skyward, and spraying a fine mist that would hang in the air, reflecting some of the sun’s radiation back into space.

    “The stratosphere is calm, and things stay up there for a long time,” Parson told CNBC. “The atmospheric life of stuff that’s injected in the stratosphere is between six months and two years.”

    Stratospheric aerosol injection “would immediately take the high end off hot extremes,” Parson said. And also it would “pretty much immediately” slow extreme precipitation events, he said.

    “The top-line slogan about stratospheric aerosol injection, which I wrote in a paper more than 10 years ago — but it’s still apt — is fast, cheap and imperfect. Fast is crucial. Nothing else that we do for climate change is fast. Cheap, it’s so cheap,” Parson told CNBC.

    “And it’s not imperfect because we haven’t got it right yet. It’s imperfect because the imperfection is embedded in the way it works. The same reason it’s fast is the reason that it’s imperfect, and there’s no way to get around that.”

    One option for an aerosol is sulfur dioxide, the cooling effects of which are well known from volcanic eruptions. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, for instance, spewed thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, causing global temperatures to drop temporarily by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

    A giant volcanic mushroom cloud explodes some 20 kilometers high from Mount Pinatubo above almost deserted US Clark Air Base, on June 12, 1991 followed by another more powerful explosion. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991 was the second largest volcanic eruption of the twentieth century.

    Arlan Naeg | Afp | Getty Images

    There’s also a precedent in factories that burn fossil fuels, especially coal. Coal has some sulfur that oxidizes when burned, creating sulfur dioxide. That sulfur dioxide goes through other chemical reactions and eventually falls to the earth as sulfuric acid in rain. But during the time that the sulfur pollution sits in the air, it does serve as a kind of insulation from the heat of the sun.

    Ironically, as the world reduces coal burning to curb the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming, we’ll also be eliminating the sulfur dioxide emissions that mask some of that warming.

    “Sulfur pollution that’s coming out of smokestacks right now is masking between a third and a half of the heating signal from the greenhouse gases humans have already emitted into the atmosphere,” Parson said.

    In other words, we’ve been doing one form of sunlight reflection for decades already, but in an uncontrolled fashion, explained Kelly Wanser, the executive director of SilverLining, an organization promoting research and governance of climate interventions.

    “This isn’t something totally new and Frankenstein — we’re already doing it; we’re doing it in the most dirty, unplanned way you could possibly do it, and we don’t understand what we’re doing,” Wanser told CNBC. 

    Spraying sulfur in the stratosphere is not the only way of manipulating the amount of sunlight that gets to the Earth, and some say it’s not the best option.

    “Sulfur dioxide is likely not the best aerosol and is by no means the only technique for this. Cloud brightening is a very promising technique as well, for example,” Sacca told CNBC.

    Marine cloud brightening involves increasing the reflectivity of clouds that are relatively close to the surface of the ocean with techniques like spraying sea salt crystals into the air. Marine cloud brightening generally gets less attention than stratospheric aerosol injection because it affects a half dozen to a few dozen miles and would potentially only last hours to days, Parson told CNBC.

    Cirrus cloud thinning, the third category addressed in the 2021 report from the National Academies, involves thinning mid-level clouds, between 3.7 and 8.1 miles high, to allow heat to escape from the Earth’s surface. It is not technically part of the “solar geoengineering” umbrella category because it does not involve reflecting sunlight, but instead involves increasing the release of thermal radiation.

    Known risks to people and the environment

    There are significant and well-known risks to some of these techniques — sulfur dioxide aerosol injection, in particular.

    First, spraying sulfur into the atmosphere will “mess with the ozone chemistry in a way that might delay the recovery of the ozone layer,” Parson told CNBC.

    The Montreal Protocol adopted in 1987 regulates and phases out the use of ozone depleting substances, such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) which were commonly used in refrigeration and air conditioners, but that healing process is still going on.

    Also, sulfates injected into the atmosphere eventually come down as acid rain, which affects soil, water reservoirs, and local ecosystems.

    Third, the sulfur in the atmosphere forms very fine particulates that can cause respiratory illness.

    The question, then, is whether these known effects are more or less harmful than the warming they would offset.

    “Yes, damaging the ozone is bad, acid deposition is bad, respiratory illness is bad, absolutely. And spraying sulfur in the stratosphere would contribute in the bad direction to all of those effects,” Parson told CNBC. “But you also have to ask, how much and relative to what?”

    The sulfur already being emitted from the burning of fossil fuels is causing environmental damage and is already killing between 10 million to 20 million people a year due to respiratory illness, said Parson. “So that’s the way we live already,” he said.

    Meanwhile, “the world is getting hotter, and there will be catastrophic impacts for many people in the world,” said Pasztor.

    “There’s already too much carbon out there. And even if you stop all emissions today, the global temperature will still be high and will remain high for hundreds of years. So, that’s why scientists are saying maybe we need something else, in addition — not instead of — but maybe in addition to everything else that is being done,” he said. “The current action/nonaction of countries collectively — we are committing millions of people to death. That’s what we’re doing.”

    For sunlight-reflection technology to become a tool in the climate change mitigation toolbox, awareness among the public and lawmakers has to grow slowly and steadily, according to Tyler Felgenhauer, a researcher at Duke University who studies public policy and risk.

    “If it is to rise on to the agenda, it’ll be kind of an evolutionary development where more and more environmental groups are willing to state publicly that they’re for research,” Felgenhauer told CNBC. “We’re arguing it’s not going to be some sort of one big, bad climate event that makes us all suddenly adopt or be open to solar geoengineering — there will be more of a gradual process.”

    A man waits for customers displaying fans at his store amid rising temperatures in New Delhi on May 27, 2020. – India is wilting under a heatwave, with the temperature in places reaching 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) and the capital enduring its hottest May day in nearly two decades.

    Jewel Samad | Afp | Getty Images

    Research it now or be caught off guard later?

    Some environmentalists consider sunlight relfection a “moral hazard,” because it offers a relatively easy and inexpensive alternative to doing the work of reducing emissions.

    One experiment to study stratospheric aerosols by the Keutsch Group at Harvard was called off in 2021 due to opposition. The experiment would “threaten the reputation and credibility of the climate leadership Sweden wants and must pursue as the only way to deal effectively with the climate crisis: powerful measures for a rapid and just transition to zero emission societies, 100% renewable energy and shutdown of the fossil fuel industry,” an open letter from opponents said.

    But proponents insist that researching sunlight-modification technologies should not preclude emissions-reduction work.

    “Even the people like me who think it’s very important to do research on these things and to develop the capabilities all agree that the urgent top priority for managing climate change is cutting emissions,” Parson told CNBC.

    Keith of Harvard agreed, saying that “we learn more and develop better mechanism[s] for governance.”

    Doing research is also important because many onlookers expect that some country, facing an unprecedented climate disaster, will act unilaterally to will try some version of sunlight modification anyway — even if it hasn’t been carefully studied.

    “In my opinion, it’s more than 90 percent likely that within the next 20 years, some major nation wants to do this,” Parson said.

    Sacca put the odds even higher.

    “The odds are 100 percent that some country pursues sunlight reflection, particularly in the wake of seeing millions of their citizens die from extreme weather,” Sacca told CNBC. “The world will not stand idly by and leaders will feel compelled to take action. Our only hope is that by doing the research now, and in public, the world can collaboratively understand the upsides and best methods for any future project.”  

    Correction: The Climate Overshoot Commission has not issued a formal statement of support for sunlight reflection.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Allen Coral Atlas at ASU launches improved tool to uncover reef threats and support conservation measures

    Allen Coral Atlas at ASU launches improved tool to uncover reef threats and support conservation measures

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — The loss of coral reefs is a serious threat to the health of marine ecosystems around the world. 

    Rising ocean temperatures and coastal pollution are among many environmental stressors that contribute to the degradation of critical coral reef environments. Additional threats including deforestation, agricultural pollutants and land development, are damaging coastal marine zones at an alarming rate.

    Today, the Allen Coral Atlas at Arizona State University is launching a novel turbidity monitoring tool, which is part of a new toolkit called “Reef Threats.” The Reef Threats system provides global, real-time, integrated data on bleaching, ocean temperature and turbidity. Turbidity is the ‘muck’, mostly from neighboring land use, that can harm coastal coral habitats. 

    The expanded capability of the Atlas’s monitoring system will provide crucial information for conservation managers around the world tasked with deciding where and how to best protect, support and save coral reefs.

    “Each Allen Coral Atlas monitoring tool we create offers new insight into how conditions are changing on coral reefs,” says Greg Asner, director of ASU’s Center for Global Discovery and Conservation with the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory.

    “The new Reef Threats toolkit will link changes in ocean temperature, turbidity and coral bleaching to coral loss and reef change over time. This is important because now we’ll see both the human drivers and the reef response with increasing breadth and detail. We’re hopeful that innovative mitigation measures will emerge for coral reefs worldwide,” says Asner.

    Brianna Bambic leads the Allen Coral Atlas engagement team by facilitating workshops and field opportunities to use data from the Atlas in real time. Working directly with researchers, students, governments, and coastal managers in reef communities around the world, Bambic says the new tool will make a global impact in reef management.

    “In a time of increasing human disturbance both on land and in our oceans, dynamic turbidity monitoring at this scale will drastically improve time and efficiency, as well as prioritize areas for conservation,” says Bambic, senior manager of global engagement with the ASU Center for Global Discovery and Conservation. “These new data can help local communities make more informed decisions about where to restore reefs and mangroves, and it will help identify sources of pollution caused by coastal land development and urban runoff.”

    Having a visual, real-time tool provides an immediate focus on conservation action, and can help reduce the time it takes to complete a report. For example, the Ministry of Environment of Sri Lanka is creating an Environmentally Sensitive Areas map of Sri Lanka. The Atlas data will dramatically cut down the time and resources it takes to compile these reports, thus more time can be used for mitigation and conservation action.

    Bambic says with real-time feedback to see where the coast is being disturbed, coastal communities can monitor if and when their restoration efforts are making a difference. 

    What is ocean turbidity?

    Turbid water is cloudy and heavy with sediment, contaminants and pollutants stemming from land damage and disturbances. Coastal ocean turbidity is an accepted index of water quality that has been widely applied in field-based water quality monitoring programs. For example, the United States Geological Survey and National Water Quality Program use this index.

    However, field-based point recordings have extremely limited spatial coverage. As a result, it is challenging to scale field data to large regions to capture the extent, temporal variation and sources of turbid waters. 

    Saving coral reefs requires the identification and reduction of local stressors and the cumulative impacts caused by human activities, particularly overfishing, coastal water pollution and land development.

    “The muck smothers corals that generate habitat for other marine species and for humans. The improved turbidity monitor uses satellite imagery taken on a regular basis worldwide,” says Asner. “The tool uses European Sentinel-2 data, and while it does come with some satellite-based artifacts, it’s important to push our monitoring boundaries to provide timely, detailed information about the health of coral reefs.”

    Mapping the health of coral reefs

    The Atlas uses satellite imagery, advanced analytics and global collaboration to create maps of and monitor threats to marine ecosystems’ benthic and geomorphic data in unprecedented detail. The Atlas is a collaborative project led by the ASU Center for Global Discovery and Conservation Science in partnership with Vulcan Inc., Planet Inc., the University of Queensland and the Coral Reef Alliance.

     

    ###

     

    [ad_2]

    Arizona State University (ASU)

    Source link

  • All you need to know about the Nord Stream gas leaks — and why Europe suspects ‘gross sabotage’

    All you need to know about the Nord Stream gas leaks — and why Europe suspects ‘gross sabotage’

    [ad_1]

    Climate scientists described the shocking images of gas spewing to the surface of the Baltic Sea as a “reckless release” of greenhouse gas emissions that, if deliberate, “amounts to an environmental crime.”

    Anadolu Agency | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

    Two subsea pipelines connecting Russia to Germany are at the center of international intrigue after a series of blasts caused what might be the single largest release of methane in history — and many suspect it was the result of an attack.

    An initial crime scene investigation last week into what caused the gas leaks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines reinforced suspicions of “gross sabotage.”

    As investigations continue, many in Europe suspect the incident was the result of an attack, particularly as it occurred during a bitter energy standoff between the European Union and Russia.

    The Kremlin has repeatedly dismissed claims it destroyed the pipelines, calling such allegations “stupid” and “absurd,” and claiming that it is the U.S. that had the most to gain from the gas leaks.

    The White House has denied any involvement in the suspected attack.

    What happened?

    On Sept. 26, a flurry of detonations on two underwater pipelines connecting Russia to Germany sent gas spewing to the surface of the Baltic Sea. The explosions triggered four gas leaks at four locations — two in Denmark’s exclusive economic zone and two in Sweden’s exclusive economic zone.

    The magnitude of those explosions was measured at 2.3 and 2.1 on the Richter scale, respectively, Swedish and Danish authorities said, and likely corresponded to an explosive load of “several hundred kilos.”

    Neither of the Nord Stream pipelines was transporting gas at the time of the blasts, although they both contained pressurized methane — a potent greenhouse gas.

    Remarkably, the signature of the gas bubbling at the surface of the Baltic Sea could be seen from space.

    A satellite image of the Nord Stream leak in the Baltic Sea, captured on Sept. 26, 2022.

    Planet

    Climate scientists described the shocking images of the methane erupting from the burst as a “reckless release” of greenhouse gas emissions that, if deliberate, “amounts to an environmental crime.”

    At the time, Denmark’s armed forces said video footage showed the largest gas leak created a surface disturbance of roughly 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) in diameter, while the smallest leak caused a circle of approximately 200 meters.

    The Nord Stream gas pipelines have become a focal point of tensions between Russia and Europe in recent months, with Moscow accused of weaponizing gas supplies in a bid to gain sanctions relief amid its onslaught in Ukraine.

    Who’s to blame?

    Sweden’s national security service said Thursday that detonations caused “extensive damage” to the pipelines and “strengthened suspicions of gross sabotage.”

    Sweden’s Security Service said certain seizures had been made, without offering further details, and that these would now be reviewed and analyzed.

    “The continued preliminary investigation must show whether someone can be served with suspicion and later prosecuted,” Sweden’s Security Service said.

    Sweden’s prosecutor’s office said in a separate statement that the area was no longer cordoned off.

    The European Union has warned that any deliberate attack on European energy infrastructure would be met with the “strongest possible response,” calling what it suspects is an intentional attack “utterly unacceptable.”

    Most Western governments have stopped short of pointing the finger directly at Russia, while the Kremlin has sought to pin the blame on the West.

    U.S. President Joe Biden described the blasts on the Nord Stream pipelines as a “deliberate act of sabotage” late last month, saying Washington was working with its allies to work out exactly what happened.

    Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, said at a conference in Paris last month that it was “very obvious” who was responsible for the gas leaks, Reuters reported. He did not say who that was, however.

    Russia has denied it was responsible for the gas leaks. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said at a briefing on Thursday that such claims were “absurd,” according to Tass news agency.

    Zakharova emphasized the “enormous investment” that the Kremlin took in the infrastructure project and lashed out at the West for blocking Moscow from taking part in the investigations.

    Environmental impact

    The unexplained Nord Stream gas leaks pose serious questions about the incident’s environmental impact.

    Climate scientists acknowledged in the aftermath of the event that it was hard to accurately quantify the exact size of the emissions and said the leaks are a “wee bubble in the ocean” compared with the massive amounts of methane emitted around the world every day.

    Methane is 84 times more potent than carbon and doesn’t last as long in the atmosphere before it breaks down. That makes it a critical target for combatting climate change quickly while simultaneously minimizing other greenhouse gas emissions.

    “It was a deliberate act and in my opinion it can very likely be linked to the push for constant provocation by the Kremlin,” Spanish Energy Minister Teresa Ribera told reporters last month, according to Reuters.

    Europa Press News | Europa Press | Getty Images

    The two Nord Stream pipelines were estimated to have contained enough gas to release 300,000 tons of methane — more than twice the amount released by the 2015 Aliso Canyon leak in California, the largest known release of methane in U.S. history.

    While that means it could be one of the largest single releases of methane, the incident pales in comparison with the roughly 70 million tons of methane emitted by the oil and gas industry each year.

    The European Space Agency estimated that the emissions leak from the Nord Stream gas pipelines was roughly equivalent to one and a half days of global methane emissions.

    Nonetheless, environmental campaigners argued the incident serves as yet another reminder of the risks associated with fossil fuel infrastructure.

    — CNBC’s Emma Newburger contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New Zealand proposes taxing cow burps, angering farmers

    New Zealand proposes taxing cow burps, angering farmers

    [ad_1]

    WELLINGTON, New Zealand — New Zealand’s government on Tuesday proposed taxing the greenhouse gasses that farm animals make from burping and peeing as part of a plan to tackle climate change.

    The government said the farm levy would be a world first, and that farmers should be able to recoup the cost by charging more for climate-friendly products.

    But farmers quickly condemned the plan. Federated Farmers, the industry’s main lobby group, said the plan would “rip the guts out of small town New Zealand” and see farms replaced with trees.

    Federated Farmers President Andrew Hoggard said farmers had been trying to work with the government for more than two years on an emissions reduction plan that wouldn’t decrease food production.

    “Our plan was to keep farmers farming,” Hoggard said. Instead, he said farmers would be selling their farms “so fast you won’t even hear the dogs barking on the back of the ute (pickup truck) as they drive off.”

    Opposition lawmakers from the conservative ACT Party said the plan would actually increase worldwide emissions by moving farming to other countries that were less efficient at making food.

    New Zealand’s farming industry is vital to its economy. Dairy products, including those used to make infant formula in China, are the nation’s largest export earner.

    There are just 5 million people in New Zealand but some 10 million beef and dairy cattle and 26 million sheep.

    The outsized industry has made New Zealand unusual in that about half of its greenhouse gas emissions come from farms. Farm animals produce gasses that warm the planet, particularly methane from cattle burping and nitrous oxide from their urine.

    The government has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the country carbon neutral by 2050. Part of that plan includes a pledge that it will reduce methane emissions from farm animals by 10% by 2030 and by up to 47% by 2050.

    Under the government’s proposed plan, farmers would start to pay for emissions in 2025, with the pricing yet to be finalized.

    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said all the money collected from the proposed farm levy would be put back into the industry to fund new technology, research and incentive payments for farmers.

    “New Zealand’s farmers are set to be the first in the world to reduce agricultural emissions, positioning our biggest export market for the competitive advantage that brings in a world increasingly discerning about the provenance of their food,” Ardern said.

    Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor said it was an exciting opportunity for New Zealand and its farmers.

    “Farmers are already experiencing the impact of climate change with more regular drought and flooding,” O’Connor said. “Taking the lead on agricultural emissions is both good for the environment and our economy.”

    The liberal Labour government’s proposal harks back to a similar but unsuccessful proposal made by a previous Labour government in 2003 to tax farm animals for their methane emissions.

    Farmers back then also vehemently opposed the idea, and political opponents ridiculed it as a “fart tax” — although a “burp tax” would have been more technically accurate as most of the methane emissions come from belching. The government eventually abandoned the plan.

    According to opinion polls, Ardern’s Labour Party has slipped in popularity and fallen behind the main opposition National Party since Ardern won a second term in 2020 in a landslide victory of historic proportions.

    If Ardern’s government can’t find agreement on the proposal with farmers, who have considerable political sway in New Zealand, it’s likely to make it more difficult for Ardern to win reelection next year when the nation goes back to the polls.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • European countries face an air-conditioning Catch-22 after its red hot, record-breaking summer

    European countries face an air-conditioning Catch-22 after its red hot, record-breaking summer

    [ad_1]

    Europe is facing a tough winter, as inflation and energy prices continue to rise. The continent also faces tough decisions following its scorching hot summer

    Heat waves in Europe broke records, sparked widespread wildfires and even damaged a busy runway at a London airport.

    Unlike the U.S., European countries don’t rely on air conditioning to cope with high temperatures. Fewer than 10% of households in Europe owned air conditioners as of 2016, according to the International Energy Agency.

    “If we were looking at the beginning of this summer, it was fairly quiet. We were getting typically 20 inquiries a day maybe for people interested in air conditioning,” said Richard Salmon, director of The Air Conditioning Co., which is based in central London.

    Demand for air conditioners spiked as temperatures crossed 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the United Kingdom.

    “I’ve been here for 15 years and I’ve never seen anything quite like it,” Salmon said.

    As countries around the globe rapidly adopt ways to cool their homes and businesses, it becomes more important to install cooling technology that doesn’t contribute to higher temperatures in the future via carbon emissions.

    “It is clear that if no effective mitigation strategies will be put in place on a global scale to cut emissions then this kind of summer and these kinds of events will become the new norm,” said Andrea Toreti, senior climate researcher at the European Commission, the executive body of the EU.

    Watch the video to learn more about why large parts of Europe don’t have air conditioning, how ACs contribute to climate change, and new kinds of efficient cooling technologies that can mitigate carbon emissions.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Germany wants climate losses issue on agenda at UN talks

    Germany wants climate losses issue on agenda at UN talks

    [ad_1]

    BERLIN — Germany wants the question of loss and damage due to global warming to be discussed at this year’s United Nations climate talks, Germany’s foreign minister said Friday.

    Vulnerable countries have long demanded that big polluters be held accountable for the effects that their greenhouse gas emissions are having around the world, including the tangible destruction caused by extreme weather and sea level rise resulting from rising global temperatures.

    But rich nations that account for the majority of planet-warming emissions since the start of the industrial era have largely opposed efforts to formally debate the ‘loss and damage’ issue for fear they might have to pay climate reparations.

    Last year’s U.N. climate talks in Glasgow failed to reach agreement on establishing a special fund for loss and damage.

    Speaking after a meeting with her counterpart from Pakistan, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said the recent devastating floods in the South Asian nation had shown “what dramatic consequences the climate crisis is having in all regions.”

    “As one of the hardest-hit countries worldwide, Pakistan is paying a high price for global CO2 emissions,” Baerbock, a member of the environmentalist Greens party, told reporters in Berlin.

    “That’s why Germany will work toward a fair sharing of the costs at the COP27 in Egypt, putting the question of climate adaptation, but in particular also the question of loss and damage, on the agenda,” she said, referring to the U.N. climate talks next month in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

    Germany is also giving Pakistan a further 10 million euros in flood aid, taking its total commitment to 60 million euros, Baerbock said.

    Pakistan’s foreign minister, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, said the “biblical floods” had affected 33 million people and at one point a third of the country was under water. Many roads, hospitals and farms were destroyed.

    U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned Friday that Pakistan was “on the verge of a public health disaster” due to the risk of diseases such as cholera, malaria and dengue fever, while malnutrition also was spiking.

    ———

    Follow all AP stories on climate change at https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Facing risk of blackouts this winter, the UK will drill for more oil | CNN Business

    Facing risk of blackouts this winter, the UK will drill for more oil | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN Business
     — 

    The UK government could award oil and gas companies more than 100 new licenses to drill in the North Sea, as it looks for ways to bolster energy security amid a global supply crunch.

    Launched Friday, the licensing round won’t lead to new UK production for several years. And when drilling does begin, Britain will still be dependent on energy imports, according to the government, leaving it vulnerable to soaring prices and supply disruptions of the kind that threaten blackouts this winter.

    UK utilities company National Grid

    (NGG)     warned Thursday that households and businesses could be left without power for up to three hours at a time in a worst-case scenario of very cold weather, low levels of wind, gas shortages and an inability to import electricity from Europe. It said it would take steps to mitigate the risk, including bringing old coal-fired power stations back online if necessary.

    Starting November 1, National Grid will also offer financial incentives to customers to reduce power consumption at peak times.

    Kathryn Porter, an energy consultant at Watt-Logic, told CNN Business that National Grid was still underestimating the risks to supply, but that blackouts for households were unlikely because it could disconnect large energy users at peak times if necessary.

    The latest licensing round won’t improve the immediate supply picture and could face a legal challenge from environmental activists. Greenpeace said that new oil and gas licenses were “potentially unlawful” and that it would be looking for ways to act.

    “New oil and gas licenses won’t lower energy bills for struggling families this winter or any winter soon nor provide energy security in the medium term,” Philip Evans, energy transition campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said in a statement.

    “New licenses — and more importantly more fossil fuels — solve neither of those problems but will make the climate crisis even worse,” he added.

    Analysis by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), the regulator that grants licenses, shows the average time between discovery of oil and gas deposits and first production is close to five years, though that lag is “falling.”

    In a statement on Friday, the NSTA said it will prioritize areas in the southern North Sea that can be developed quickly and where gas has already been discovered. Companies have until January 12 to apply for licenses, with permits expected to be issued as soon as the second quarter of 2023.

    The NSTA said the licensing round has been subject to a “climate compatibility check” to ensure it aligns with the UK government’s commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. It added that producing gas domestically has a much lower carbon footprint than importing it from abroad.

    The International Energy Agency said last year that investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, including drilling for oil and gas, must stop immediately if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

    The UK government set out plans earlier this year to generate 95% of Britain’s electricity from low carbon sources by 2030. The plan, which allows drilling for oil and gas, will also ramp up nuclear power and wind energy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • On-site reactors could affordably turn CO2 into valuable chemicals

    On-site reactors could affordably turn CO2 into valuable chemicals

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — New technology developed at the University of Waterloo could make a significant difference in the fight against climate change by affordably converting harmful carbon dioxide (CO2) into fuels and other valuable chemicals on an industrial scale.

    Outlined in a study published today in the journal Nature Energy, the system yields 10 times more carbon monoxide (CO) – which can be used to make ethanol, methane and other desirable substances – than existing, small-scale technologies now limited to testing in laboratories.

    Its individual cells can also be stacked to form reactors of any size, making the technology a customizable, economically viable solution that could be installed right on site, for example, at factories with CO2 emissions.

    “This is a critical bridge to connect CO2 lab technology to industrial applications,” said Dr. Zhongwei Chen, a chemical engineering professor at Waterloo. “Without it, it is very difficult for materials-based technologies to be used commercially because they are just too expensive.”

    The system features devices known as electrolyzers that convert CO2, a major greenhouse gas produced by burning fossil fuels, into CO using water and electricity.

    Electrolyzers developed by the researchers have new electrodes and a new kind of liquid-based electrolyte, which is saturated with CO2 and flowed through the devices for conversion into CO via an electrochemical reaction.

    Their electrolyzers are essentially 10-centimetre by 10-centimetre cells, many times larger than existing devices, that can be stacked and configured in reactors of any size.

    “This is a completely new model for a CO2 reactor,” said Chen, the Canada Research Chair in Advanced Materials for Clean Energy. “It makes the whole process economically viable for industrialization and can be customized to meet specific requirements.”

    The researchers envision on-site reactors at coal-fired power plants and factories, perhaps the size of a house or more, that would be directly fed CO2 emissions, further reducing costs by eliminating the need to capture and collect CO2 first.

    They are also developing plans to power the reactors with on-site renewable energy sources such as solar panels, contributing to the environmental benefits.

    “I’m excited by the potential of this technology,” Chen said. “If we really want to make a difference by reducing emissions, we have to concentrate on reducing costs to make it affordable.”

    Chen’s collaborators at Waterloo included postdoctoral fellow Dr. Guobin Wen and chemical engineering professors Dr. Aiping Yu and Dr. Jeff Gostick. Several researchers at the South China Normal University also contributed.

    [ad_2]

    University of Waterloo

    Source link

  • Particle radioactivity linked to pollution-associated heart attack and stroke death

    Particle radioactivity linked to pollution-associated heart attack and stroke death

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — DALLAS, Oct. 5, 2022 — Particle radioactivity, a characteristic of air pollution that reflects the colorless, odorless gas radon found in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution, enhances PM2.5 toxicity and increases risk of death from cardiovascular disease, especially from heart attack or stroke, according to new research published today in the Journal of the American Heart Association, an open access, peer-reviewed journal of the American Heart Association.

    Previous scientific research has confirmed that PM2.5, a component of air pollution, causes cardiovascular disease and death, and that PM2.5 exposure is a modifiable cardiovascular disease risk factor. In 2021, the American Heart Association joined with three other leading cardiovascular organizations urging the medical community and health authorities to mitigate the impact of air pollution on people’s health. According to the statement, an estimated 6.7 million deaths in 2019, or 12 percent of all deaths worldwide, were attributable to outdoor or household air pollution. As many as half of these were due to cardiovascular disease. Air pollution also increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes and respiratory diseases.

    Particle radioactivity is a characteristic of particulate matter that reflects radon, which primarily comes from radon gas, a radioactive, colorless and odorless gas. The particle radioactivity occurs naturally as a product of radioactive decay of uranium found in soil and rocks. Radon migrates into the atmosphere, decaying to alpha-, beta- and gamma-radiation-emitting isotopes.

    “We know that PM2.5 are very small particles in the air that can be inhaled and cause many health problems. However, little is known about which physical, chemical or biological properties of PM2.5 fuel its toxicity,” said study author Shuxin Dong, S.M., a Ph.D. student in population health sciences at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston. “We studied gross beta-activity, a property of fine particulate matter that is a result of radon that attaches to particles and makes them radioactive, resulting in particle radioactivity. When inhaled, these very small particles penetrate deeply into the lungs and enter the bloodstream and circulate throughout the body.”

    The researchers used spatiotemporal predictions of gross beta-activity, a way to use different variables across space and time, to provide refined predictions of exposure. Examining health records from more than 700,000 non-accidental deaths in Massachusetts between 2001 and 2015, they estimated how long-term (months/year) gross beta-activity exposure impacts death from cardiovascular disease, heart attack or stroke and death from all non-accidental causes. They also predicted PM2.5 on cardiovascular disease-related death and examined the interaction between PM2.5 and particle radioactivity.

    The study found:

    • Chronic particle radioactivity and PM2.5 exposure were similarly associated with increased risks of death from total cardiovascular disease, heart attack or stroke and all causes of non-accidental death.
    • Based on the middle 50% of the data spread, particle radioactivity exposure alone was associated with a 16% increased risk of death from heart attack; an 11% increased risk of death from stroke; a 7% increased risk of death from all types of cardiovascular disease; and a 4% increased risk of death from all non-accidental causes.
    • Based on the middle 50% of the data spread, PM2.5 exposure alone increased the risk of death from heart attack by 6%; death from stroke by 11%; death from all cardiovascular disease by 12%; and death from all non-accidental causes by 10%.

    “The risk of death from cardiovascular disease, heart attack or stroke and all causes due to PM2.5 was higher and, therefore, more toxic when gross beta-activity levels were higher,” Dong said. “These findings suggest that particle radioactivity increases the risk of death from cardiovascular disease and enhances the damage from particulate matter. This must be further investigated and may lead to targeted, cost-effective air quality regulations.”

    A study limitation is that the research was based on information from one state, Massachusetts, and therefore, the results may not be generalizable to the rest of the U.S.

    Co-authors are Petros Koutrakis, Ph.D.; Longxiang Li, Ph.D.; Brent A. Coull, Ph.D.; Joel Schwartz, Ph.D.; Anna Kosheleva, M.S.; and Antonella Zanobetti, Ph.D. Authors’ disclosures are listed in the manuscript.

    The study was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health.

    Studies published in the American Heart Association’s scientific journals are peer-reviewed. The statements and conclusions in each manuscript are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the Association’s policy or position. The Association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability. The Association receives funding primarily from individuals; foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific Association programs and events. The Association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and biotech companies, device manufacturers and health insurance providers and the Association’s overall financial information are available here.

    Additional Resources:

    ###

    About the American Heart Association

    The American Heart Association is a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives. We are dedicated to ensuring equitable health in all communities. Through collaboration with numerous organizations, and powered by millions of volunteers, we fund innovative research, advocate for the public’s health and share lifesaving resources. The Dallas-based organization has been a leading source of health information for nearly a century. Connect with us on heart.org, Facebook, Twitter or by calling 1-800-AHA-USA1.

    [ad_2]

    American Heart Association (AHA)

    Source link

  • ‘Forever chemicals’ in deer, fish challenge hunters, tourism

    ‘Forever chemicals’ in deer, fish challenge hunters, tourism

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Maine — Wildlife agencies in the U.S. are finding elevated levels of a class of toxic chemicals in game animals such as deer — and that’s prompting health advisories in some places where hunting and fishing are ways of life and key pieces of the economy.

    Authorities have detected the high levels of PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, in deer in several states, including Michigan and Maine, where legions of hunters seek to bag a buck every fall. Sometimes called “forever chemicals” for their persistence in the environment, PFAS are industrial compounds used in numerous products, such as nonstick cookware and clothing.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched an effort last year to limit pollution from the chemicals, which are linked to health problems including cancer and low birth weight.

    But discovery of the chemicals in wild animals hunted for sport and food represents a new challenge that some states have started to confront by issuing “do not eat” advisories for deer and fish and expanding testing for PFAS in them.

    “The fact there is an additional threat to the wildlife — the game that people are going out to hunt and fish — is a threat to those industries, and how people think about hunting and fishing,” said Jennifer Hill, associate director of the Great Lakes Regional Center for the National Wildlife Federation.

    PFAS chemicals are an increasing focus of public health and environmental agencies, in part because they don’t degrade or do so slowly in the environment and can remain in a person’s bloodstream for life.

    The chemicals get into the environment through production of consumer goods and waste. T hey also have been used in firefighting foam and in agriculture. PFAS-tainted sewage sludge has long been applied to fields as fertilizer and compost.

    In Maine, where the chemicals were detected in well water at hundreds of times the federal health advisory level, legislators passed a law in 2021 requiring manufacturers to report their use of the chemicals and to phase them out by 2030. Environmental health advocates have said Maine’s law could be a model for other states, some working on their own PFAS legislation.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed a bill in September that bans the chemicals from cosmetics sold in the state. And more than 20 states have proposed or adopted limits for PFAS in drinking water, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

    More testing will likely find the chemicals are present in other game animals besides deer, such as wild turkeys and fish, said David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, a hunting and outdoors advocacy group.

    The discovery could have a negative impact on outdoor tourism in the short term, Trahan said. “If people are unwilling to hunt and fish, how are we going to manage those species?” he said. “You’re getting it in your water, you’re getting it in your food, you’re getting it in wild game.”

    Maine was one of the first states to detect PFAS in deer. The state issued a “do not eat” advisory last year for deer harvested in the Fairfield area, about 80 miles (129 kilometers) north of Portland, after several of the animals tested positive for elevated levels.

    The state is now expanding the testing to more animals across a wider area, said Nate Webb, wildlife division director at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. “Lab capacity has been challenging,” he said, “but I suspect there will be more facilities coming online to help ease that burden — in Maine and elsewhere in the country.”

    Wisconsin has tested deer, ducks and geese for PFAS, and as a result issued a “do not eat” advisory for deer liver around Marinette, about 55 miles (89 kilometers) north of Green Bay. The state also asked fishermen to reduce consumption of Lake Superior’s popular rainbow smelt to one meal per month.

    Some chemicals, including PFAS, can accumulate in the liver over time because the organ filters the chemicals from the blood, Wisconsin’s natural resources department told hunters. New Hampshire authorities have also issued an advisory to avoid consuming deer liver.

    Michigan was the first state to assess PFAS in deer, said Tammy Newcomb, senior executive assistant director for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

    The state issued its first “do not eat” advisory in 2018 for deer taken in and near Oscoda Township. Michigan has since issued an advisory against eating organs, such as liver and kidneys, from deer, fish or any other wild game anywhere in the state. It has also studied waterfowl throughout the state in areas of PFAS surface water contamination.

    The state’s expanded testing also has proven beneficial because it helped authorities find out which areas don’t have a PFAS problem, Newcomb said.

    “People like to throw up their arms and say we can’t do anything about it. I like to point to our results and say that’s not true,” Newcomb said. “Finding PFAS as a contaminant of concern has been the exception and not the rule.”

    The chemical has also been found in shellfish that are collected recreationally and commercially. Scientists from the Florida International University Institute of Environment sampled more than 150 oysters from around the state and detected PFAS in every one, according to their study in August. Natalia Soares Quinete, an assistant professor in the institute’s chemistry and biochemistry department, described the chemicals as “a long-term poison” that jeopardizes human health.

    Dr. Leo Trasande, a professor of pediatrics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine who has studied PFAS, said the best way to avoid negative health effects is reducing exposure. But, Trasande said that’s difficult to do because the chemicals are so commonplace and long-lasting in the environment.

    “If you’re seeing it in humans, you’re likely going to see the effects in animals,” he said.

    Wildlife authorities have tried to inform hunters of the presence of PFAS in deer with posted signs in hunting areas as well as advisories on social media and the internet. One such sign, in Michigan, told hunters that high amounts of PFAS “may be found in deer and could be harmful to your health.”

    Kip Adams, chief conservation officer for the National Deer Association, said the discovery of PFAS in states like Maine and Michigan is very concerning to hunters.

    “With the amount of venison my family eats, I can’t imagine not being able to do that,” Adams said. “To this point, everything we’ve done has been about sharing information and making sure people are aware of it.”

    ———

    Follow Patrick Whittle on Twitter: @pxwhittle

    ———

    Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ruptured oil pipeline off California approved for repairs

    Ruptured oil pipeline off California approved for repairs

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — A Texas oil company was granted permission to repair an underwater pipeline that ruptured off the coast of Southern California a year ago, spilled tens of thousands of gallons of crude, and forced beaches and fisheries to close.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granted the approval Friday to Amplify Energy Corp., clearing the way to rebuild the aging pipeline that burst months after it was apparently weakened when it was snagged by the anchors of ships adrift in a storm.

    The Oct. 1, 2021, rupture spilled about 25,000 gallons (94,600 liters) of oil into the Pacific Ocean, closed miles of beaches for a week, shuttered fisheries for months and coated birds and wetlands in oil.

    The approval to rebuild the pipe running from an oil rig off Huntington Beach to tanks in Long Beach comes less than a month after Amplify pleaded guilty to federal charges of negligently discharging oil. The Houston-based company and two subsidiaries also agreed to plead no contest in state court to polluting water and killing birds.

    Amplify said the approval will allow it to remove and replace the damaged segments of pipe from the ocean floor.

    It estimated the work would take up to a month after a barge is in place. If it passes a series of safety tests after being fixed, the company said it expected to begin operating in the first quarter of 2023.

    Environmentalists who want the pipeline shut down criticized the permit approval and renewed calls to put an end to offshore oil operations.

    “The Biden administration just ramped up the risk of yet another ugly oil spill on California’s beautiful coast,” said Brady Bradshaw of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Unfortunately, people living near offshore drilling infrastructure are all too familiar with this abusive cycle of drill, spill, repeat.”

    On Wednesday, the environmental group sued the federal government for allowing the platform where the pipeline originated to operate under outdated plans that indicated the platform should have been decommissioned more than a decade ago. The lawsuit also said the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management failed to review and require plan revisions, despite the spill.

    Amplify contended that the spill wouldn’t have occurred if two ships hadn’t dragged their anchors across the pipeline and damaged it during a January 2021 storm. It said it wasn’t notified about the anchor snagging until after the spill.

    While the size of the spill was not as bad as initially feared, U.S. prosecutors said the company should have been able to turn off the damaged line much sooner had it recognized the gravity of a series of leak-detection alarms over a 13-hour period.

    The first alarm sounded late on the afternoon of Oct. 1, 2021, but workers misinterpreted the cause, according to the federal plea agreement.

    When the alarm sounded throughout the night, workers shut down the pipeline to investigate and then restarted it after deciding they were false alarms. That spewed more oil.

    It wasn’t until after daybreak that a boat identified the spill and the line was shut down.

    As part of a federal court agreement to pay a $7 million fine and nearly $6 million in expenses incurred by agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard, the company and subsidiaries agreed to install a new leak-detection system and train employees to identify and respond to potential leaks.

    The company agreed to plead guilty to six state misdemeanor charges and pay $4.9 million in penalties and fines as part of a settlement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Newsom relaxes refinery rules as California gas prices soar

    Newsom relaxes refinery rules as California gas prices soar

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday announced that oil refineries could start selling more polluting winter-blend gasoline ahead of schedule to ease soaring fuel prices, directly contradicting his own goals for reducing climate pollutants.

    The average cost of a gallon of gas was $6.30 in California on Friday, far above the national average of $3.80, according to AAA. Newsom administration officials said the difference between state prices and the national average has never been larger.

    The Democratic governor also called on state lawmakers to pass a new tax on oil company profits and return the money to California taxpayers. Lawmakers don’t return to the Capitol until January, Newsom’s office provided few details on the proposal.

    “They’re ripping you off,” he said of the oil industry in a video posted to Twitter.

    Oil industry representatives said it is state regulations that cause higher prices in California than the rest of the country. The summer blend of gasoline that refineries are required by law to produce in the hotter months costs more money to make but is designed to limit pollutants like smog. Most refineries can’t switch to the winter blend until November.

    Switching from the summer to winter blend would likely save consumers 15 to 20 cents per gallon, said Doug Shupe, a spokesman for the Southern California Automobile Club, an affiliate of AAA. Gas prices in Los Angeles are close to breaking a record of $6.46 set in June, he said.

    “If these prices go up to $7 a gallon, a 15-cent drop is not really going to mean much to drivers,” Shupe said.

    Prices are spiking in part due to limited supply because some oil refineries are offline due to routine maintenance or other problems, he said. The California Air Resources Board, which regulates refineries, said high prices could also be due to part to a refinery fire and Hurricane Ian.

    It’s the latest spat between Newsom and the oil industry, which holds political and economic sway in California despite the state’s aggressive climate policies. But Newsom’s dual actions Friday also illustrate the complicated reality Newsom faces as he tries to wean the state off oil and gas while responding to economic reality.

    Earlier this year, for example, Newsom’s administration turned to generators and power plants that run on fossil fuels to help avoid rolling power blackouts during a heat wave.

    By urging air regulators to let oil companies switch to a winter blend earlier, Newsom is acknowledging that state rules play a role in prices, said Kara Greene, a spokeswoman for the Western States Petroleum Association.

    Refineries typically perform maintenance in the spring or fall as they prepare to switch fuel blends, she said. It will take time for refineries to prepare the winter blend, and Newsom’s order may have little immediate effect, she said. If Newsom truly wanted to lower prices, he could suspend the state’s gas tax or relax other regulations, she said.

    “It’s a conscious decision to try and put the responsibility back on the oil industry,” she said.

    Newsom said he expected the relaxation of refinery rules to increase supplies by 5% to 10% because refiners have already started to produce and store the gas.

    “Any impacts on air quality caused by this action are expected to be minimal and outweighed by the public interest in temporarily relaxing” the limits, the air board said in a statement.

    Starting in January, oil companies will be required to disclose their monthly profits to the state under legislation Newsom recently signed. Consumer Watchdog called on Newsom earlier this week to call a special legislative session to approve a tax on those profits.

    Jamie Court, the group’s president, said he applauded Newsom’s efforts to deal with “an industry that’s out of control.”

    Democratic leaders in the state Legislature said a windfall tax on oil profits deserves “strong consideration,” while Republicans said Newsom should immediately suspend the state gas tax to provide relief.

    Major oil companies saw record profits this summer, and the price of crude oil has dropped since the end of the summer.

    The California Energy Commission on Friday wrote a letter to executives of five major oil companies asking why prices rose so dramatically, what actions the state could take to lower prices and why refinery inventory levels have dropped.

    Greene, of the petroleum association, said California regulations raise the price of oil by just under $1 in California, but other observers say its lower. Court, of Consumer Watchdog, says its around 60 cents, while Severin Borenstein, an energy economist with the University of California, Berkeley, says its closer to 70 cents.

    Borenstein has also identified an unexplained surcharge that he says has caused Californians billions of dollars since 2015.

    Newsom in 2019 directed the state attorney general to look into whether oil companies were overcharging Californians. Attorney General Rob Bonta has said his office is still investigating.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 8 things to know about the environmental impact of ‘unprecedented’ Nord Stream leaks

    8 things to know about the environmental impact of ‘unprecedented’ Nord Stream leaks

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    The apparent sabotage of both Nord Stream gas pipelines may be one of the worst industrial methane accidents in history, scientists said Wednesday, but it’s not a major climate disaster.

    Methane — a greenhouse gas up to 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide — is escaping into the atmosphere from three boiling patches on the surface of the Baltic Sea, the largest of which the Danish military said was a kilometer across.

    On Tuesday evening, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen condemned the “sabotage” and “deliberate disruption of active European energy infrastructure.” 

    Here are eight key questions on the impact of the leaks.

    1. How much methane was in the pipelines?

    No government agency in Europe could say for sure how much gas was in the pipes.

    “I cannot tell you clearly as the pipelines are owned by Nord Stream AG and the gas comes from Gazprom,” said a spokesperson for the German climate and economy ministry. 

    The two Nord Stream 1 pipelines were in operation, although Moscow stopped delivering gas a month ago, and both were hit. “It can be assumed that it’s a large amount” of gas in those lines, the German official said. Only one of the Nord Stream 2 lines was struck. It was not in operation but was filled with 177 million cubic meters of gas last year.

    Estimates of the total gas in the pipelines that are leaking range from 150 million cubic meters to 500 million cubic meters.

    2. How much is being released?

    Kristoffer Böttzauw, the director of the Danish Energy Agency, told reporters on Wednesday that the leaks would equate to about 14 million tons of CO2, about 32 percent of Denmark’s annual emissions.

    Germany’s Federal Environment Agency estimated the leaks will lead to emissions of around 7.5 million tons of CO2 equivalent — about 1 percent of Germany’s annual emissions. The agency also noted there are no “sealing mechanisms” along the pipelines, “so in all likelihood the entire contents of the pipes will escape.”

    Because at least one of the leaks is in Danish waters, Denmark will have to add these emissions to its climate balance sheet, the agency said.

    But it is not clear whether all of the gas in the lines would actually be released into the atmosphere. Methane is also consumed by ocean bacteria as it heads through the water column.

    3. How does that compare to previous leaks?

    The largest leak ever recorded in the U.S. was the 2015 Aliso Canyon leak of roughly 90,000 tons of methane over months. With the upper estimates of what might be released in the Baltic more than twice that, this week’s disaster may be “unprecedented,” said David McCabe, a senior scientist with the Clean Air Task Force.

    Jeffrey Kargel, a senior scientist at the Planetary Research Institute in Tucson, Arizona, said the leak was “really disturbing. It is a real travesty, an environmental crime if it was deliberate.”

    4. Will this have a meaningful effect on global temperatures?

    “The amount of gas lost from the pipeline obviously is large,” Kargel said. But “it is not the climate disaster one might think.”

    Annual global carbon emissions are around 32 billion tons, so this represents a tiny fraction of the pollution driving climate change. It even pales in comparison to the accumulation of thousands of industrial and agricultural sources of methane that are warming the planet. 

    “This is a wee bubble in the ocean compared to the huge amounts of so-called fugitive methane that are emitted every day around the world due to things like fracking, coal mining and oil extraction,” said Dave Reay, executive director of the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute.

    Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, said it was roughly comparable to the amount of methane leaked from across Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure on any given working week. 

    A leak was reported near the Nord Stream 2 pipeline off the coast of Denmark’s Bornholm island | Danish Defence Command

    5. Is the local environment affected?

    While the gas is still leaking, the immediate vicinity is an extremely dangerous place. Air that contains more than 5 percent methane can be flammable, said Rehder, so the risk of an explosion is real. Methane is not a toxic gas, but high concentrations can reduce the amount of available oxygen. 

    Shipping has been restricted from a 5 nautical mile radius around the leaks. This is because the methane in the water can affect buoyancy and rupture a vessel’s hull.

    Marine animals near the escaping gas may be caught up and killed — especially poor swimmers such as jellyfish, said Rehder. But long-term effects on the local environment are not anticipated.

    “It’s an unprecedented case,” he said. “But from our current understanding, I would think that the local effects on marine life in the area is rather small.”

    6. What can be done?

    Some have suggested that the remaining gas should be pumped out, but a German economy and climate ministry spokesperson on Wednesday said this wasn’t possible.

    Once the pipeline has emptied, “it will fill up with water,” the spokesperson added. “At the moment, no one can go underwater — the danger is too great due to the escaping methane.”

    Any repair would be the responsibility of pipeline owner Nord Stream AG, the Germans said.

    7. Should they set it on fire?

    Not only would it look impressive, setting the gas on fire would hugely slash the global warming impact of the leak. Methane is made of carbon and hydrogen, when burned it creates carbon dioxide, which is between 30 and 80 times less planet-warming per ton than methane. Flaring, as it is known, is a common method for reducing the impact of escaping methane.

    From a pure climate perspective, setting the escaping methane on fire makes sense. “Yes, definitely — it will help,” said Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds. 

    But there would be safety issues and potential environmental concerns, including air pollution from the combustion. “With land — in particular the inhabited and touristic island of Bornholm — nearby, you would not venture into this,” said Rehder.

    No government has yet indicated that this is under consideration.

    8. How long will it last and what next?

    “We expect that gas will flow out of the pipes until the end of the week. After that, first of all, from the Danish side, we will try to get out and investigate what the cause is, and approach the pipes, so that we can have it investigated properly. We can do that when the gas leak has stopped,” Danish Energy Agency director Böttzauw told local media.

    This article is part of POLITICO Pro

    The one-stop-shop solution for policy professionals fusing the depth of POLITICO journalism with the power of technology

    Exclusive, breaking scoops and insights

    Customized policy intelligence platform

    A high-level public affairs network

    [ad_2]

    Karl Mathiesen and Zia Weise

    Source link

  • These were the best and worst places for air quality in 2021, new report shows | CNN

    These were the best and worst places for air quality in 2021, new report shows | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Air pollution spiked to unhealthy levels around the world in 2021, according to a new report.

    The report by IQAir, a company that tracks global air quality, found that average annual air pollution in every country — and 97% of cities — exceeded the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines, which were designed to help governments craft regulations to protect public health.

    Only 222 cities of the 6,475 analyzed had average air quality that met WHO’s standard. Three territories were found to have met WHO guidelines: the French territory of New Caledonia and the United States territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.

    India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were among the countries with the worst air pollution, exceeding the guidelines by at least 10 times.

    The Scandinavian countries, Australia, Canada, Japan and United Kingdom ranked among the best countries for air quality, with average levels that exceeded the guidelines by 1 to 2 times.

    In the United States, IQAir found air pollution exceeded WHO guidelines by 2 to 3 times in 2021.

    “This report underscores the need for governments around the world to help reduce global air pollution,” Glory Dolphin Hammes, CEO of IQAir North America, told CNN. “(Fine particulate matter) kills far too many people every year and governments need to set more stringent air quality national standards and explore better foreign policies that promote better air quality.”

    Above: IQAir analyzed average annual air quality for more than 6,000 cities and categorized them from best air quality, in blue (Meets WHO PM2.5 guildline) to worst, in purple (Exceeds WHO PM2.5 guideline by over 10 times). An interactive map is available from IQAir.

    It’s the first major global air quality report based on WHO’s new annual air pollution guidelines, which were updated in September 2021. The new guidelines halved the acceptable concentration of fine particulate matter — or PM 2.5 — from 10 down to 5 micrograms per cubic meter.

    PM 2.5 is the tiniest pollutant yet also among the most dangerous. When inhaled, it travels deep into lung tissue where it can enter the bloodstream. It comes from sources like the burning of fossil fuels, dust storms and wildfires, and has been linked to a number of health threats including asthma, heart disease and other respiratory illnesses.

    Millions of people die each year from air quality issues. In 2016, around 4.2 million premature deaths were associated with fine particulate matter, according to WHO. If the 2021 guidelines had been applied that year, WHO found there could have been nearly 3.3 million fewer pollution-related deaths.

    IQAir analyzed pollution-monitoring stations in 6,475 cities across 117 countries, regions and territories.

    In the US, air pollution spiked in 2021 compared to 2020. Out of the more than 2,400 US cities analyzed, Los Angeles air remained the most polluted, despite seeing a 6% decrease compared to 2020. Atlanta and Minneapolis saw significant increases in pollution, the report showed.

    “The (United States’) reliance on fossil fuels, increasing severity of wildfires as well as varying enforcement of the Clean Air Act from administration to administration have all added to U.S. air pollution,” the authors wrote.

    Researchers say the main sources of pollution in the US were fossil fuel-powered transportation, energy production and wildfires, which wreak havoc on the country’s most vulnerable and marginalized communities.

    “We are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, especially in terms of transportation,” said Hammes, who lives a few miles from Los Angeles. “We can act smartly on this with zero emissions, but we’re still not doing it. And this is having a devastating impact on the air pollution that we’re seeing in major cities.”

    Climate change-fueled wildfires played a significant role in reducing air quality in the US in 2021. The authors pointed to a number of fires that led to hazardous air pollution — including the Caldor and Dixie fires in California, as well as the Bootleg Fire in Oregon, which wafted smoke all the way to the East Coast in July.

    China — which is among the countries with the worst air pollution — showed improved air quality in 2021. More than half of the Chinese cities analyzed in the report saw lower levels of air pollution compared to the previous year. The capital city of Beijing continued a five-year trend of improved air quality, according to the report, due to a policy-driven drawdown of polluting industries in the city.

    The report also found that the Amazon Rainforest, which had acted as the world’s major defender against the climate crisis, emitted more carbon dioxide than it absorbed last year. Deforestation and wildfires have threatened the critical ecosystem, polluted the air and contributed to climate change.

    “This is all a part of the formula that will lead to or is leading to global warming.” Hammes said.

    The report also unveiled some inequalities: Monitoring stations remain scant in some developing countries in Africa, South America and the Middle East, resulting in a dearth of air quality data in those regions.

    “When you don’t have that data, you’re really in the dark,” Hammes said.

    Hammes noted the African country of Chad was included in the report for the first time, due to an improvement in its monitoring network. IQAir found the country’s air pollution was the second-highest in the world last year, behind Bangladesh.

    Tarik Benmarhnia, a climate change epidemiologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography who has studied the health impact of wildfire smoke, also noted that relying only on monitoring stations can lead to blind spots in these reports.

    “I think it is great that they relied on different networks and not only governmental sources,” Benmarhnia, who was not involved in this report, told CNN. “However, many regions do not have enough stations and alternative techniques exist.”

    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in its 2021 report that, in addition to slowing the speed of global warming, curbing the use of fossil fuels would have the added benefit of improving air quality and public health.

    Hammes said the IQAir report is even more reason for the world to wean off fossil fuel.

    “We’ve got the report, we can read it, we can internalize it and really devote ourselves to taking action,” she said. “There needs to be a major move towards renewable energy. We need to take drastic action in order to reverse the tide of global warming; otherwise, the impact and the train that we’re on (would be) irreversible.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link