Sustainability

President Biden has taken another step in his quest to make the U.S. a leader in clean energy. On Monday, he invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA) in hopes of lowering energy costs, strengthening the power grid, and creating more lucrative jobs.

“Today’s clean energy technologies are a critical part of the arsenal we must harness to lower energy costs for families, reduce risks to our power grid, and tackle the urgent crisis of a changing climate,” the White House said in an announcement. 

“Since President Biden took office, the private sector has committed over $100 billion in new private capital to make electric vehicles and batteries in the United States. We have made historic investments in clean hydrogen, nuclear, and other cutting-edge technologies. And companies are investing billions more to grow a new domestic offshore wind industry.”

What the latest action means for the consumer

This most recent move follows previous efforts by the administration to create more wind farms and produce more electric vehicle batteries. Biden feels there’s enough positive momentum in Congress’ interest on clean energy investments and tax cuts that his newest effort will create a “bridge'' to an American-made clean energy future.

The White House said the latest use of the Defense Production Act would rapidly expand American manufacturing of five critical clean energy technologies:

• Solar panel parts (such as photovoltaic modules and module components)

• Building insulation

• Heat pumps

• Equipment for making and using clean electricity-generated fuels, including electrolyzers, fuel cells, and related platinum group metals

• Critical power grid infrastructure (like transformers)

The Biden-Harris Administration said all jobs that come as a result of this move will encourage the use of strong labor standards and make sure all wages are set at or above the prevailing rate and include local hire provisions. 

What’s to gain vs. what’s to lose

Biden’s team says his initiatives will lead to more domestic manufacturing, construction projects, and good-paying jobs, all of which will contribute to energy savings for families and a stronger utility grid. 

In its announcement, the White House said consumers will suffer if Congress fails to pass tax cuts or approve the investments that are necessary to advance U.S. clean energy. 

“Failing to take these actions would deny consumers access to cost-cutting clean energy options, add risks to our power grid, and stall domestic clean energy construction projects that are critical to tackling the climate crisis,” the administration stated. “At the same time, President Biden will keep using his executive authority to take bold action to build an American-made clean energy future."

A new study conducted by researchers from Cornell University explored how technology can help reduce consumers’ food waste. Their work tested a milk carton QR code that, when scanned, gave consumers a more accurate best-by date for their milk (as opposed to traditional cartons that have the dates printed on the product.) 

They learned that not only were the study participants eager to adopt this technology, but they were less likely to waste fresh milk when using it. 

“During the two-month study, over 60% of customers purchased the milk with the QR code, showing a considerable interest in using this new technology,” said researcher Samantha Lau. “This revealed that the use of QR codes on food products can be an innovative way to address the larger issue of food waste.” 

Improving food waste

The purpose of the study was to gauge consumers’ interest in milk carton QR codes and then see how successful the codes were at reducing food waste. The researchers noted that milk accounts for 65% of dairy product food waste in the U.S., which translates to over $6 billion in costs. 

Lau explained that much of this stems from confusion related to best-by and sell-by dates on cartons. She said shoppers tend to naturally gravitate towards milk that’s dated the farthest out; however, this means a lot of milk sits on shelves and ultimately goes unused. 

This experiment revealed some promising trends. When given the choice between purchasing milk with a printed best-by date or one with a QR code that would display the more accurate best-by date when scanned, the majority of participants opted for the QR code. 

Another component of the study was offering the participants a discount for buying milk that was closer to its best-by date. This helped the participants save money on milk and was also an effective way to reduce waste by getting more drinkable milk off store shelves. 

While the researchers want to see more of this technology integrated throughout the food industry, these findings highlight a valuable way to help reduce a significant portion of dairy waste in the U.S. 

“This makes digital trends really valuable, particularly if they’re combined to really allow us to collect data along the food chain,” said researcher Martin Wiedmann.

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences explored patterns related to plastic packaging waste around the world. Ultimately, they learned that both consumers and producers of goods are responsible for the burden of plastic waste that exists globally. 

“We wanted to follow the plastic packaging waste embedded in the global supply chain,” said researcher Sandy Dall’erba. “This work allows us to conclude that the problem is a responsibility shared between economic agents, from the producers and their intermediaries to the retail stores and their consumers.” 

Food wrapping contributes to a lot of pollution

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from the World Bank and EXIOBASE. The latter platform tracks plastic packaging waste around the world based on global input and output data. This helped them identify where the biggest burden of plastic waste comes from and what the biggest culprits were in terms of waste. 

North America proved to be the biggest producer of plastic packaging waste, with consumers in the region being responsible for the largest portions of such waste. From a production standpoint, North America was linked to more than 40% of plastic waste; the U.S. alone was responsible for nearly half of that. Additionally, consumers in North and South America produced more than 35% of the world’s plastic waste. 

“High-protein food such as meat, fish, and dairy is a trademark in the Americas and those generate a lot of plastic packaging waste,” said Dall’erba. “For instance, every 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of fish consumed will lead to an average of about 1.6 kg (2.5 lbs) of waste. This includes plastic bags, trays, and cellophane used to wrap and cover the fish during transportation, storage, and sales.

“Plastic is not easy to replace. There is no other material to protect the freshness of a food product that will be shipped around the world. We need to further develop technologies that make plastics more biodegradable, such as products based on algae. But we also need stricter regulations to discourage plastic packaging production and use.” 

Finding solutions

The team explained that many developing countries had relocated their plastic waste to Asia. However, as the quantities of this kind of waste have shot up in recent years, this solution has backfired for two reasons: many countries don’t want to accept more waste, and this doesn’t actually solve the problem – it just moves the waste from one place to another. 

Instead, the researchers hope legislators work on recycling efforts that are targeted toward both producers and consumers. 

“All agents along the supply chain and final consumers need incentives to reduce plastic use,” said researcher Xiang Gao. “Some examples are taxes on waste management or refunds for returning plastic bottles. 

“Other steps include banning single-use plastic straws, or imposing fees for grocery store plastic bags. Consuming locally-grown, seasonal food would help, and so would better transparency about true recyclability associated with the resin identification code stamped on plastic packaging.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison explored the health and financial benefits associated with reducing air pollution emissions. According to the findings, eliminating emissions from industrial activities, transportation, and electricity generation can save over 50,000 lives in the U.S. and $600 billion each year. 

“Our work provides a sense of the scale of the air quality health benefits that could accompany deep decarbonization of the U.S. energy system,” said researcher Nick Mailloux. “Shifting to clean energy sources can provide enormous benefits for public health in the near term while mitigating climate change in the longer term.” 

Longevity and financial benefits of eliminating emissions

For the study, the researchers analyzed a predictive model from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to understand how eliminating air pollution emissions can impact consumers’ health and health care costs. They looked specifically at fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. 

Eliminating these pollutants entirely would have significant benefits on consumers’ longevity and associated health care costs. The study showed that these efforts would save nearly $610 billion in health care- and death-related costs. They would also save over 53,000 lives each year. 

“Our analysis is timely, following last month’s report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that called for urgent action to transform the world’s energy economy,” said researcher Jonathan Patz. “My hope is that our research findings might spur decision-makers grappling with the necessary move away from fossil fuels, to shift their thinking from burdens to benefits.” 

Different benefits across the country

The researchers looked at how different parts of the country would benefit if only specific regions were successful at eliminating energy emissions. For example, if just the Southwest region of the country cut these emissions, consumers in those areas would reap 95% of the health and financial benefits.

However, this figure doesn’t hold up across the country. In the Mountain region, just over 30% of the benefits remain in those states because of wind patterns. Despite that, the researchers explained that when one part of the country benefits from cutting energy emissions, those benefits are likely to be wide-reaching. 

“The Great Plains, for example, gets more than twice as much benefit from nationwide efforts as it does from acting alone,” said Mailloux. “The more that states and regions can coordinate their emissions reductions efforts, the greater the benefit they can provide to us all.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from the Desert Research Institute explored the potential health risks that outdoor workers face in extreme heat.

According to their findings, working outdoors in extremely high temperatures makes consumers more susceptible to heat stress, heat illnesses, and overall discomfort. 

“We expected to see a correlation between high temperatures and people getting sick – and we found that there was a very clear trend in most cases,” said researcher Erick Bandala, Ph.D. “Surprisingly, this type of analysis hadn’t been done in the past, and there are some really interesting social implications to what we learned.” 

High temperatures affect health outcomes

The researchers focused their study on three of the hottest cities in the U.S. – Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. The team compared the heat indices across the three cities from 2011 through 2018 with workplace injuries and heat-related illnesses. Demographic information was taken into consideration in the study, as was how long the participants had been at their jobs. 

The researchers learned that the heat index in Las Vegas and Phoenix started at “extreme caution” when the study began and had escalated to “danger” by the end of the study. The rising temperatures were linked with an increase in injuries and heat-related illnesses for outdoor workers in these cities.

In 2011, the number of cases of heat-related illnesses and workplace injuries for outdoor workers was below the national average; by 2018, those numbers were well above the national average. 

“Our data indicate that the increases in heat are happening alongside increases in the number of nonfatal occupational injuries across these three states,” said Dr. Bandala. “Every year we are seeing increased heat waves and higher temperatures, and all of the people who work outside in the streets or in gardens or agriculture are exposed to this.” 

Women may be more at risk 

The researchers also identified two important factors that could impact the risk of heat-borne illnesses for outdoor workers – gender and time spent on the job. The study showed that women went from making up as much as 50% of the heat-related illnesses and injuries in 2011 to comprising more than 85% of such illnesses and injuries in 2018. 

Participants who spent more time in their outdoor jobs were also more likely to be negatively affected by the heat. The researchers learned that participants who had spent more than five years in their roles were much more likely to struggle in the heat than those with less than one year under their belts. 

These findings are a cause for concern for all outdoor workers across the country, as these health issues can keep consumers out of work for a month or more. The researchers say more serious health concerns could develop among these workers, including damage to the liver and kidneys, disruptions to the central nervous system, and issues with blood clotting. 

“As temperatures continue to rise and heat-related illnesses and deaths continue to rise, the need for public policies to alleviate health and economic impacts is growing,” Dr. Bandala said. “I hope to continue doing research on this problem so that we can have a better understanding of the impacts of extreme heat and how to help the people who are most vulnerable.”

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Utah explored how parents who idle at school drop-off and pick-up lines can impact air quality and air pollution.

According to their findings, when schools implement rules to limit how long parents are allowed to idle during these high-traffic times, they’re likely to reduce unhealthy air pollution and improve air quality. 

“Idling at schools during drop-off and pick-up times is a substantial problem,” said researcher Daniel Mendoza. “The anti-idling campaign was effective in reducing not only the number of vehicles idling but also the length of idling.” 

Improving air pollution near schools

This study was conducted in two parts. For the first part, the researchers used a van with air sensors to monitor pollution while parked outside of two Utah elementary schools during drop-off and pick-up times for a week. The second part of the study utilized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Idle-Free Schools Toolkit. The team analyzed the effect of two schools that had implemented anti-idling campaigns during pick-up and drop-off times. 

Ultimately, the researchers learned that the anti-idling campaign was effective in two ways. The team found that cars spent nearly 40% less time idling in front of schools after the campaigns; the number of cars idling dropped by 11% after the campaign. 

The researchers explained that consumers are likely to keep their cars idling at school drop-off and pick-up to keep the temperature in their cars comfortable for them and their kids. However, the team says idling for too long can use up gas and create additional air pollution. 

The study showed that there were spikes in air pollution levels during times that were consistent with school drop-off and pick-up times, and the researchers attribute this to cars idling for extended periods of time. It’s also important to note that the areas by school playgrounds didn’t experience these upticks in pollution; this was localized strictly to the areas designated for drop-off and pick-up. 

While parents certainly make up a large portion of these pollution levels, the researchers also cite another key player in the pollution near schools: school buses. 

“It is not only parents but also school buses that have been culprits of localized pollution hotspots around schools,” said Mendoza. “However, parents are a completely different story.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from Georgetown University Medical Center explored how climate change may be linked with the next pandemic.

The researchers explained that rising temperatures may force animals into closer proximity to humans; this is likely to increase the number of viruses spread from animals to humans, which could incite the next pandemic. 

“The closest analogy is actually the risks we see in the wildlife trade,” said researcher Colin Carlson, Ph.D. “We worry about markets because bringing unhealthy animals together in unnatural combinations creates opportunities for this stepwise process of emergency – like how SARS jumped from bats to civets, then civets to people. But markets aren’t special anymore; in a changing climate, that kind of process will be the reality in nature just about everywhere.” 

Long-term risks to human health

For the study, the researchers analyzed projected geographic range shifts for over 3,100 mammal species based on climate change predictions by the year 2070. The team was most interested in understanding how changes to the global temperature will affect where animals live and how that will affect the spread of viruses. 

The study showed that as the global temperature continues to rise, animals are going to be forced to move into areas that are heavily populated by humans. The researchers predict that Asia and Africa are likely to be the hotspots for this trend. The team also anticipates that the number of animal-borne infections is likely to increase by 4,000 times.

“At every step, our simulations have taken us by surprise,” Dr. Carlson said. “We’ve spent years double-checking those results, with different data and different assumptions, but the models always lead us to these conclusions. It’s a really stunning example of how well we can, actually, predict the future if we try.” 

The team's work found that bats may be the biggest culprits of this disease spread. Because bats can travel long distances, they are the most likely to contribute to the rapid spread of infections. 

The researchers explained that the biggest risks are to human health and environmental conservation. This is likely to increase the likelihood that viruses like Ebola and COVID-19 are more prevalent around the world. Moving forward, the team hopes to be able to conduct more research on both the impact of climate change on animal relocation and the monitoring of animal-borne infections. 

“When a Brazilian free-tailed bat makes it all the way to Appalachia, we should be invested in knowing what viruses are tagging along,” said Dr. Carlson. “Trying to spot these host jumps in real-time is the only way we’ll be able to prevent this process from leading to more spillovers and more pandemics. 

“We’re closer to predicting and preventing the next pandemic than ever. This is a big step towards prediction – now we have to start working on the harder half of the problem.”

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Southampton explored some of the weather-related risks associated with climate change. According to the findings, intense tropical cyclones are expected to occur twice as often by the year 2050. 

“Of particular concern is that the results of our study highlight that some regions that don’t currently experience tropical cyclones are likely to in the near future with climate change,” said researcher Dr. Ivan Haigh. “The new tropical cyclone dataset we have produced will greatly aid the mapping of changing flood risk in tropical cyclone regions.” 

Long-term weather risks

To better understand how climate change can impact long-term weather patterns, the researchers analyzed global climate models and historical data on tropical cyclones. They then used a statistical model to estimate what tropical cyclones will look like over the next few decades as climate change continues to intensify. 

Their work showed that category three tropical cyclones, which are the most intense, are likely to become twice as frequent in many parts of the world as a result of climate change. The Bay of Bengal and the Gulf of Mexico proved to be the exception to these findings; these areas aren’t expected to experience intense cyclones as frequently. 

The researchers explained that there are currently only about 100 tropical cyclones that occur each year; however, most of them never touch down on land. These findings predict that these weather events are likely to become much more serious within the next 30 years. 

The study also showed that low-income countries are likely to experience the brunt of this extreme weather in the coming decades. Those that have the highest risk include Mozambique, Cambodia, the Solomon Islands, Laos, and Tonga. Similarly, the number of consumers in Asia who will be newly exposed to these extreme weather events is likely to increase by millions. 

With these findings, the goal now is to help local areas take necessary steps to protect the land and consumers from harm in the event of intense weather patterns. 

“Our results can help identify the locations prone to the largest increase in tropical cyclone risk,” said researcher Dr. Nadia Bloemendaal. “Local governments can then take measures to reduce risk in their region, so that damage and fatalities can be reduced. With our publicly available data, we can now analyze tropical cyclone risk more accurately for every individual coastal city or region.” 

As climate change continues to pose a threat worldwide, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published the Sea Level Rise Technical Report for 2022. 

Among several important points related to sustainability, the report highlighted that coastlines across the U.S. are likely to see sea levels rise by 10 to 12 inches by the year 2050. 

“This new data on sea rise is the latest reconfirmation that our climate crisis – as the President has said – is blinking ‘code red,’” said National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy. “We must redouble our efforts to cut the greenhouse gases that cause climate change while, at the same time, help our coastal communities become more resilient in the face of rising seas.” 

Rising sea levels can increase flooding

For the report, experts from the NOAA combined data from satellite observations, tide gauges, and findings from the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their work spanned all 50 states, and the group made projections for what coastlines will look like over the next century and beyond. 

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from the report is the prediction for rising sea levels within the next 30 years. Experts anticipate that sea levels will rise by 10 to 12 inches by 2050, but this figure could vary by region. 

“This report supports previous studies and confirms what we have long known: sea levels are continuing to rise at an alarming rate, endangering communities around the world,” said researcher Bill Nelson. “Science is indisputable and urgent action is required to mitigate a climate crisis that is well underway.” 

In addition to rising sea levels across the country, the report predicts that flooding will also become more prevalent nationwide. The authors anticipate coastal areas will experience the brunt of these floods, with these events occurring more than 10 times as often as they do today, regardless of heavy rains. 

“These numbers mean a change from a single event every 2-5 years to multiple events each year, in some places,” said researcher Nicole LeBoeuf. 

Experts hope this report is helpful to consumers, particularly those who run businesses or live near the coast. The team says having access to this information is critical so that everyone can make the best decisions that positively impact the environment moving forward. 

“This is a global wake-up call and gives Americans the information needed to act now to best position ourselves for the future,” said researcher Rick Spinrad. “As we build a Climate Ready Nation, these updated data can inform coastal communities and others about current and future vulnerabilities in the face of climate change and help them make smart decision to keep people and property safe over the long run.” 

President Biden has announced a new initiative intended to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The administration's efforts will be focused on emissions from cement, aluminum, and steel. If the initiative lives up to the White House's expectations, about a third of the nation’s greenhouse gasses will be eliminated.

The effort has a direct connection to Biden’s other “clean energy” efforts, such as low-carbon production of the steel and aluminum we need for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels, and the clean concrete needed to upgrade our transportation infrastructure. 

As a bonus, Biden says the initiative will also produce more jobs and give the economy a shot in the arm and is a perfect partner for its “America COMPETES Act.”

“These actions will create more good-paying jobs and follow on a historic comeback for American factories, with 367,000 manufacturing jobs added during President Biden’s first year in office, the most in nearly 30 years,” the White House said in a statement. 

“Further strengthening our industrial base will revitalize local economies, lower prices for consumers, provide more pathways to the middle class through union jobs, and boost American competitiveness in global markets.”

High hopes

Clean energy has been a major focus of the Biden administration. Not only have officials promised billions of dollars in tax incentives for companies to build out solar and wind energy offerings, but the administration has also been campaigning for consumers to move toward electric vehicles.

Unfortunately for Biden, those efforts are stuck in Congress at the moment, and conditions aren't improving as they wait there. Reports indicate that greenhouse emissions rose in 2021, further setting clean energy initiatives back.

In comments made to New York Times, Michael Greenstone, an economist at the University of Chicago, called the new policy moves targeting industrial emissions “bite-sized,” but he said they were necessary in the absence of action from Congress.

“The country is now in a position where it must pursue climate change on a very thin reed,” Mr. Greenstone said.

Biden’s efforts are also getting pushback from his own government, where changes could make the most impact. As an example, the president ordered federal government agencies to switch gas-powered vehicles for electric-powered ones over the next 12 years, but the Postal Service – which has the biggest fleet of vehicles and could make the most impact – said it couldn’t meet the president’s request and bought more than 150,000 gas-powered trucks instead.

Researchers at the University of California Riverside did a deep dive into roadside littering habits and the potential long-term effects it has on the environment.

Their work revealed several important findings, including that the majority of this garbage comes from toxic plastics. They say unless consumers are disposing of it, this litter will likely remain in the environment forever. 

“There has been a lot of emphasis on individual human behavior as the way to decrease rates of littering,” said researcher Andrew Gray. “In reality, it’s just as easy or even more accurate to say that if we didn’t produce the stuff in the first place, it wouldn’t get into the environment.” 

Understanding trends in littering

For the study, the researchers analyzed nearly 3,300 feet of roadside several times per week for a month in five cities across southern California: Riverside, San Dimas, Moreno Valley, Palm Desert, and Loma Linda. Their analysis was primarily concerned with the accumulation rate of the litter, the origin of the litter, and the composition of the roadside litter. 

Ultimately, 60% of all roadside trash they collected was plastic, and most of it was either food or tobacco products. The study also showed that much of this trash doesn’t travel very far; consumers are depositing it along the road just short distances from wherever they purchased it. 

“A lot of people say, ‘it’s not my trash,’” said researcher Win Cowger. “I want to dispel that notion with the evidence that we have, at least here in the Inland Empire.” 

The researchers explained that while roadside litter may not seem like a significant issue, when left unattended, it remains in the environment forever. This means that these plastic and paper products eventually end up as pollution in the air or the water, or it breaks down into microplastics that are later ingested by consumers. 

Finding solutions for littering

With a better understanding of how roadside littering happens and what the primary culprits are, the researchers are now looking to find tangible ways to fix this issue. Their work showed that simply cleaning up roadside litter isn’t enough; in the team’s daily roadside inspections, they cleaned up the sites only to find there was more litter the next day.  

“There’s a broken window theory some people subscribe to, that trash begets trash,” said Coger. “However, we find even if you keep a place clean the accumulation is really consistent so other actions to prevent litter in the first place are needed.” 

The researchers now plan to conduct similar trials across the country, and they’re calling on public officials to step in and ramp up efforts like street cleaning for the overall benefit of the environment. 

“There’s a more systematic approach we need to take as humans to decide what gets produced, because eventually, it all gets into the environment,” said Gray. 

A new study conducted by researchers from NASA explored the most recent trends in warm weather patterns. Their work showed that 2021 came in as tied for the sixth warmest year on record since 1880. The report also showed that the last eight years have all been record-high years in terms of temperature. 

“Science leaves no room for doubt: climate change is the existential threat of our time,” said researcher Bill Nelson. “Eight of the top 10 warmest years on our planet occurred in the last decade, an indisputable fact that underscores the need for bold action to safeguard the future of our country – and all of humanity. NASA’s scientific research about how the Earth is changing and getting warmer will guide communities throughout the world, helping humanity confront climate and mitigate its devastating effects.” 

Understanding weather patterns

NASA has several different methods for recording the global temperature throughout the year, including ships and weather stations. NASA then confirms those readings with data from the organization’s Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS), and they compare the final readings with temperatures from 1950-1980, which serve as the baseline. 

This work showed that 2021 was tied with 2018 for the sixth warmest year since 1880. The planet was nearly two degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was during the 1800s, as well as 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average. Overall, the data shows that our planet is continuing to get warmer. 

A separate analysis from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) produced identical results. The NOAA uses 1901-2000 as their baseline period for determining temperature averages, and their work confirmed that 2021 was the sixth warmest year on record.  

“The complexity of the various analyses doesn’t matter because the signals are so strong,” said researcher Gavin Schmidt. “The trends are all the same because the trends are so large.” 

What contributes to rising temperatures? 

Though the yearly global temperature is affected by several factors, the researchers say the climate patterns in the Pacific – which include La Nina and El Nino patterns – play a role in the weather we experience. This year, they credit the La Nina pattern for making things not as warm as they might have been. They explained that this weather cycle may have lowered the global temperature by 0.06 degrees Fahrenheit. 

However, it’s also important to consider the factors that contribute to the rising global temperatures. Increases in greenhouse gas emissions and carbon dioxide levels are primarily the culprits for these increases that are felt worldwide. 

As the global temperature continues to increase, and these yearly reports reflect similar trends, the researchers hope their findings emphasize the impact that climate change is having on the world. 

As more information related to the COVID-19 pandemic rolls in, regulators say the U.S. is falling behind its environmental goals. 

After dropping 10% year-over-year in 2020, a recent report from the Rhodium Group shows that greenhouse gas emissions spiked last year by 6.2%. The researchers say two of the primary drivers of the spike were a resurgence in freight truck transportation and the use of coal-powered energy. 

“If anything, last year’s rebound in emissions was lower than it could have been because the pandemic is still causing disruptions and the economy isn’t back to normal,” Kate Larsen, a partner at the Rhodium Group, told the New York Times. “Emissions are still well below 2019 levels.”

The turnaround won’t kill President Biden’s pledge to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, but it definitely complicates the administration’s plans. Officials hope that wind power, solar energy, and electric vehicle initiatives in the Build Back Better agenda will steer the U.S. in the right direction, but getting all of Congress on board may be difficult.

Getting Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) to buy in is likely the tipping point. As he has on other Democrat-led efforts like a minimum wage increase, Manchin has been reluctant to give the White House what it wants – possibly stemming from his desire to protect West Virginia’s investment in coal production.

Emissions rise as pandemic rages on

While passenger travel was up a bit last year, it was mostly freight trucks that were responsible for the largest increase in emissions in 2021. As consumers bought more products that had to be shipped from point A to point B, the U.S. counted on trucks to get those products to stores and on doorsteps. 

On a year-over-year basis, aggregate diesel demand rose 9% from 2020 levels, putting it at 0.4% above 2019 levels. Rhodium’s research showed that despite air travel’s dramatic 26% surge in 2021, it remained in check, down 24% from 2019 levels.

After transportation, the electric power sector accounted for the next biggest spike in U.S. emissions. At 28%, electricity proved to be the second-largest increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 2020 levels, increasing by 6%.

Coal had an even bigger impact on emissions, rising by 17% in 2021. The trickle-down effect will no doubt mean rising energy costs for consumers. In its latest Annual Energy Outlook, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that U.S. coal prices will generally increase each year through 2050, based largely on assumptions for the coal and electricity markets and industrial sector demand.

As many consumers struggle to deal with the stress of climate change, a new study conducted by researchers from the University of South Australia explored how our diets may impact the environment. The team’s work showed that limiting consumption of unhealthy options like sweets, red meats, and processed foods may have positive environmental benefits. 

“It is time we better acknowledge the environmental impacts of the type and amount of food we eat, considering the planet as well as our health,” said researcher Sara Forbes. “By 2050, the world’s population is projected to reach 10 billion people. There is no way we can feed that amount of people unless we change the way we eat and produce food.” 

How diet impacts the environment

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 20 different studies that included information on consumers’ diets and food-related greenhouse gas emissions. 

The team explained that different types of foods emit different levels of greenhouse gasses. Typically, “core foods,” such as eggs, fruits and vegetables, dairy products, lean meats, and grains, are responsible for higher emissions than “discretionary foods,” such as alcohol, sweets, processed foods, and sugar-sweetened drinks. However, consumers’ eating patterns in different parts of the world can impact the environment in different ways. 

For example, an analysis showed that people in Australia and New Zealand are eating larger quantities of discretionary foods than core foods, which can be detrimental to the environment in several ways. 

“Discretionary foods have higher cropland, water scarcity, and Ecological Footprint,” said researcher Forbes. “Meat also emits greenhouse gases, although its water scarcity footprint is lower compared to dairy products, cereals, grains, fruits and vegetables.” 

Ultimately, the researchers hope these findings encourage consumers to make more sustainable choices when it comes to their diets. Not only can it benefit their long-term health, but it can also positively impact the environment. 

Tesla is proving that there’s money in solar, not just in cars. After doubling its solar roof deployments over the last year, the company has good news for eco-conscious consumers. It says it’s looking to lower costs and improve its solar tiles by making them more efficient and powerful.

Getting to this point hasn’t been easy for Tesla. While it’s received hurrahs for the design of its solar tiles, it’s been hard to convert that support to something marketable on a large scale. Despite that, the company has continued to invest in solar and says installations are trending up.

More power per solar tile

When pitching solar to a consumer, Tesla claims that its new, more powerful solar tiles produce a 22% increase in max power output without increasing the size of the tile. Because of that, the company says it can supply sufficient solar power with fewer tiles. 

If you’re asking whether that means there’ll be fewer tiles installed, the answer is no. To make sure the roof looks consistent, Tesla will now install some tiles with solar power and some without. The company said it tries to optimize each roof by installing the tiles with solar cells where they would be more efficient.

As an added benefit, the new tiles can be installed over existing roofs, eliminating the need to pull all the old ones off. The tiles also come with a 25-year warranty and 24/7 outage protection. At least one consumer appears to be convinced that Tesla’s solar performance meets its promise.

“Tesla crew was professional and installed the Solar Roof and batteries without issues. The inspection and PTO happened quickly after completion. Many people come to look and ask about my new roof, always giving compliments,” wrote Lenford of San Diego, Calif., in a ConsumerAffairs review.

A new study conducted by researchers from the Earth Institute at Columbia University found that extreme heat and humidity levels in cities around the globe have increased significantly since the 1980s. 

Their work revealed that these heat conditions have tripled in recent decades due to substantial population growth in urban areas and rising global temperatures.

“This has broad effects,” said researcher Cascade Tuholske. “It increases morbidity and mortality. It impacts people’s ability to work, and results in lower economic output. It exacerbates pre-existing health conditions.”  

Identifying trends in heat patterns

To get an idea of the temperature trends over the last four decades, the researchers analyzed ground thermometer readings and infrared satellite imagery from 1983 to 2016. They then looked at population data from Columbia’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network. 

In 1983, there were 40 billion person-days of extreme heat and humidity. By 2016, that number jumped to just under 120 billion. In this study, extreme heat was categorized as 106 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. 

While population growth and rising global temperatures were the two primary reasons this increase occurred, the researchers found that the former was more significant than the latter; population growth was responsible for two-thirds of the uptick in extreme heat exposure. 

Which areas have been affected the most?

In the U.S., the researchers identified 40 cities that have experienced the brunt of these heat waves. The findings suggested that some cases were caused by population growth -- like in Las Vegas and Charleston, South Carolina -- while others were due to intense heat -- like in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Gulfport, Mississippi. 

The study also showed that the combination of the two factors contributed to more days of extreme heat in some places around the U.S. This was the case in many cities across Texas, including Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas-Fort Worth, as well as in Pensacola and other cities in Florida. 

Moving forward, the researchers hope that these findings can help community leaders better serve consumers in large cities who are consistently impacted by extreme heat. 

This research “could serve as a starting point for identifying ways to address local heat issues,” said researcher Kristina Dahl. “This study shows that it will take considerable, conscientious investments to ensure that cities remain livable in the face of a warming climate.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Central Florida looked at some of the best ways to communicate the urgency of climate change to consumers. 

They learned that putting a deadline on things is likely to inspire people to act. When the severity of the situation is heightened, more people are willing to take action. 

“Communication scholars often propose portraying climate change in more proximate terms could play an important role in engaging audiences by making climate change more personally relevant,” said the study's lead author, Patrice Kohl. “We did not find any evidence of deadline-ism resulting in disengagement or other counterproductive responses. Our results more closely align with arguments in favor of presenting climate change in more proximate terms.” 

Feeling the pressure

For the study, the researchers divided 1,000 participants into two experimental groups and a control group. The first experimental group read an article that put a timeline on taking action against climate change, and the other read an article that discussed the importance of taking action, but didn’t put a deadline on doing so. The control group didn’t read any articles. The researchers asked all of the participants about their likelihood to take action, their thoughts on the severity of climate change, and their willingness to support political action against climate change. 

Ultimately, the researchers learned that having a deadline in relation to climate change action was the best way for the participants to understand the urgency of the situation. 

Participants who read the article that included a deadline were more likely than any other group to believe their actions could positively impact the ongoing climate change crisis. They were also more likely to support legislation that backed climate change efforts and expressed greater concern over the severity of climate change than participants from other groups. 

The researchers hope that these findings are put into practice moving forward.  

“We’re going to have to learn how to talk about tough climate change realities in ways that engage rather than disengage audiences,” said Kohl. “I understand why critics worry that the idea of a deadline for meaningful action in avoiding catastrophic climate change might cause people to throw up their hands in defeat. But our research suggests that assumption might not be quite right.” 

The Biden administration would like America to go greener, and it says solar energy is just the ticket. The Department of Energy’s new Solar Futures Study shows that solar energy could potentially power 40% of all electricity use in the U.S. by 2035.

The plan is ambitious, but Biden’s team is all in on the president’s goal to decarbonize the economy. The administration is campaigning heavily to convince everyone that solar energy is the best way to get to a clean energy future.

More jobs and lower costs

In announcing the study, Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm added that moving towards solar would likely create an additional 1.5 million jobs. Overall, a full clean energy transition could generate around 3 million jobs across.

“Achieving this bright future requires a massive and equitable deployment of renewable energy and strong decarbonization policies –  exactly what is laid out in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda,” Granholm said.

Convincing consumers to buy into solar might take some doing, but the study suggests that a renewable-based grid will create significant health and cost savings. Reduced carbon emissions and improved air quality could potentially result in savings of $1.1 trillion to $1.7 trillion, which Granholm’s department says far outweighs the additional costs incurred from transitioning to clean energy. 

In his initial pitch for solar, Biden reminded consumers that solar photovoltaic (PV) is already the least expensive electricity option in dozens of states. “It is important to bring this low-cost, zero-carbon electricity to more parts of the country to save American families money,” he said.

The Energy Department says another benefit of the plan is that consumers won’t pay an extra dime for electricity until at least 2035 because the costs are fully offset by savings from technological improvements.

“Consumers burn fossil fuels because it's cost-efficient and convenient — for now,” writes Kathryn Parkman in ConsumerAffairs study of solar energy vs. fossil fuel. "Experts do not consider fossil fuels renewable energy because their global supply is finite. Solar energy, however, is a truly renewable source of natural energy. The sun won't stop providing sunlight any time soon, and it's available all over the world.”

As the climate crisis continues to intensify around the world, experts from more than 200 health journals have joined forces to push global leaders to take action. 

The publications have published an editorial designed to put pressure on policymakers ahead of the U.N.’s General Assembly and the COP26 climate conference later this year. 

“As health professionals, we must do all we can to aid the transition to a sustainable, fairer, resilient, and healthier world,” the experts wrote. “We, as editors of health journals, call for governments and other leaders to act, marking 2021 as the year that the world finally changes course.” 

The push for significant changes

The experts explained that not making any progress towards addressing the climate crisis will have significant impacts on consumers’ health and safety, weather patterns, wildlife, and ecosystems. While all countries must make changes, the researchers say higher-income countries need to do most of the heavy lifting right off the bat to ensure that poorer countries don’t suffer. 

“Health professionals have been on the frontlines of the COVID-19 crisis and they are united in warning that going above 1.5C and allowing the continued destruction of nature will bring the next, far deadlier crisis,” said Dr. Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-Chief of The BMJ. “Wealthier nations must act faster and do more to support those countries already suffering under higher temperatures. 2021 has to be the year the world changes course -- our health depends on it.” 

While a lot of work is necessary, the benefits will significantly outweigh the risks. Low-income areas are hit the hardest by the climate crisis, but all consumers would benefit. The researchers anticipate that reworking health care systems, food and production distribution, and financial markets would lead to significant improvements in air and diet quality, improvements to the job markets, and better physical activity. 

Without these efforts, they say disastrous weather events will become more frequent, the global temperature will continue to rise, and natural ecosystems won’t function as they normally do. All of this will contribute to overall poorer health and wellness for consumers. 

“What we must do to tackle pandemics, health inequities, and climate change is the same -- global solidarity and action that recognize that, within and across nations our destinies are inextricably linked to the health of the planet,” said Seye Abimbola, Editor-in-Chief of BMJ Global Health. 

A new report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) explored trends across the country related to climate change. The group’s work showed that climate change is intensifying globally. 

As a result, the researchers say consumers can expect to see several changes. They include rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, changes to rainfall patterns, flooding, and ocean warming. 

“Climate change is already affecting every region on earth, in multiple ways,” said researcher Panmao Zhai. “The changes we experience will increase with additional warming.” 

Study leads to reality check

The IPCC team wrote up a climate change report called Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis. The group analyzed climate change from a global perspective by using regional climate simulations, climate science, and various studies to determine what’s in store for different regions around the world. They found that climate change is intensifying around the world, but different regions will experience different changes. 

Globally, temperatures are expected to continue to rise at a rapid rate. From a weather perspective, colder seasons are likely to get shorter and warmer seasons will get longer. 

The researchers explained that consumers’ behaviors are responsible for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions. The current trajectory predicts that the current goal of lowering the global temperature by 1 degree Celsius may be unrealistic. 

“This report is a reality check,” said researcher Valérie Masson-Delmotte. “We now have a much clearer picture of the past, present, and future climate, which is essential for understanding where we are headed, what can be done, and how we can prepare.” 

Changing temperatures and more serious weather events

As a result of rising global temperatures, there are likely to be other environmental shifts around the world. Sea levels are expected to rise, which can increase the risk of serious floods. Glaciers and ice sheets will likely continue to melt as the earth gets warmer. 

The researchers also found that ocean temperatures will get warmer as the global temperature increases, which can impact food sources in some areas. Changes to temperature are also likely to intensify yearly rainfall and significantly increase the frequency of serious weather events. 

As we look to the future, the researchers explained that the goal is for consumers to do their part to make the most sustainable choices that can benefit the planet and the environment. 

“Stabilizing the climate will require strong, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and reaching net zero CO2 emissions,” Zhai said. “Limiting other greenhouse gases and air pollutants, especially methane, could have benefits for both health and the climate.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal) explored the benefits of drinking tap water over bottled water. Their findings, which specifically examined outcomes in Barcelona, suggest that drinking tap water may be the healthier and more sustainable choice.

“Tap water quality has increased substantially in Barcelona since the incorporation of advanced treatments over the last years,” said researcher Cristina Villanueva. “However, this considerable improvement has not been mirrored by an increase in tap water consumption, which suggests that water consumption could be motivated by subjective factors other than quality.” 

The benefits of tap water

For the study, the researchers combined two methodologies -- one used for assessing environmental risks and benefits and the other for measuring health outcomes. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) gauges the environmental impact of bottled water, while the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) looks at the health-related outcomes. Using data from the Barcelona Public Health Agency, the team explored how bottled water and tap water impact the environment and consumers’ health. 

Ultimately, tap water proved to be more beneficial to both the environment and consumers’ health than bottled water. The researchers estimated that if the entirety of Barcelona switched exclusively to bottled water, the cost of materials would be 3500 times higher and the burden on the environment would be 1400 times higher than if the city only used tap water. They said bottled water production on this scale would also impact the safety of ecosystems and contribute to the loss of some species of plants and animals. 

Making a city-wide shift to tap water would also yield health benefits. The researchers found that tap water could add years onto residents’ life expectancies, especially if it was supplemented with filtration devices. 

The researchers explained that the public perception of tap water and the perceived damages to consumers’ health are what drive most people to choose bottled water over tap water. However, they hope these findings help to shift that notion. 

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of New South Wales explored how different kinds of green spaces can be beneficial for consumers’ health and the environment. 

While larger spaces like parks and gardens have been linked with health benefits, their findings suggest that smaller spaces like the greenery on the side of roadways also come with health and environmental benefits. 

“Parks are not the homogenised ecological deserts that we think they are -- they are living ecosystems that do amazing things,” said researcher David Eldrige. “Urban greenspaces harbor important microbes, so if you want to sustain a bunch of ecosystem services, you need to have plenty of parks and green spaces.” 

The importance of all green spaces

For the study, the researchers collected soil samples from different types of urban green spaces from nearly 60 cities around the world. They looked at how these spaces impacted the surrounding ecosystems and how consumers’ mental and physical health changed based on the greenery. 

Though green spaces are hard to come by in some urban areas, the researchers found that any greenery in these regions is important for both the environment and consumers. Urban green spaces have some of the most diverse microbes, and they remain important components of the natural ecosystem because they provide bacteria that aren’t found in some natural green spaces. 

The researchers explained that this is also true for some of the smallest green spaces -- like patches of greenery on the side of major roadways. Though most consumers wouldn’t consider these to be beneficial in any way, this study showed that these areas play an important environmental role. 

“We think of roadsides as being barren, but we found a great variety of different microbes in some roadside verges; they are not barren wastelands at all,” Eldridge said. “Some European cities such as Bern in Switzerland have a policy to protect the natural vegetation along footpaths and roadsides. These pathways then become mini green spaces, linking larger green spaces. We need lots of different microbes, and to get this, we need a variety of landscapes such as median strips, parks, and nature reserves.” 

From a consumer health perspective, the researchers explained that green spaces can help limit consumers’ allergy symptoms and improve overall immune system function. The team plans to do more work in this area to better understand how green spaces can benefit consumers’ health and the environment. 

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it will open up parts of the Pacific coast to commercial-scale offshore renewable energy development. 

This will be the first time a major wind project is launched on the West Coast. Two areas are being honed in on: one at Morro Bay and another near Humboldt County. These areas could generate up to 4.6GW of energy, which the White House says is enough power for 1.6 million homes over the next decade. 

“I believe that a clean energy future is within our grasp in the United States, but it will take all of us and the best-available science to make it happen,” Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland said in a statement today.

Floating offshore wind technology

Since waters off the West Coast get deeper faster, the Biden administration plans to deploy floating wind farms. The Department of Energy says it’s invested more than $100 million into researching, developing, and demonstrating floating offshore wind technology. 

Biden’s goal is to get America to 100% clean electricity by 2035 and the entire U.S. economy to clean energy by 2050. California is also taking aggressive steps to combat the climate crisis. Governor Gavin Newsom has set a clean energy deadline for the economy of 2045. In a statement, he described Biden’s wind project as “game changing” for California.  

“Developing offshore wind to produce clean, renewable energy could be a game changer to achieving California’s clean energy goals and addressing climate change – all while bolstering the economy and creating new jobs,” he said. “This historic announcement, which could provide clean power for up to 1.6 million homes over the next decade, represents the innovative approach we need for a clean energy economy that protects the coasts, fisheries, marine life and Tribal and cultural resources we value so much as Californians.”

More wind projects are currently awaiting federal approval. All of them are located off of the East Coast. The first commercial-scale offshore wind farm received approval earlier this month. 

Is the future of energy blowin’ in the wind? The Biden administration sure thinks so and has staked a sizable claim on wind as a viable source of power. On Tuesday, the White House decided to lead the charge by giving the go-ahead for the first major offshore wind project in U.S. waters.

The project will be built 12 nautical miles southeast of Martha’s Vineyard off the coast of Massachusetts. Officials say it will operate at a level of 800-megawatts -- enough to provide power for 400,000 homes and businesses. Biden’s hope is to generate a total of 30 gigawatts of energy from offshore wind by 2030. If 800-megawatts is the standard, then there will be 36 more of these wind farms coming sometime in the future.

“A clean energy future is within our grasp in the United States. The approval of this project is an important step toward advancing the Administration's goals to create good-paying union jobs while combating climate change and powering our nation,” said Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland. “Today is one of many actions we are determined to take to open the doors of economic opportunity to more Americans.”

A quick consumer primer on wind energy

Wind energy has never been a big part of most Americans’ lives. But the game has changed under Biden’s new initiative, and consumers will likely now have questions about wind power. Some of the advantages include:

Cost-effectiveness. The Energy Department claims that wind is one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today, costing 1–2 cents per kilowatt-hour (after the production tax credit). 

How does that stack up against electricity? The latest per kilowatt-hour rates can run 10 times or higher than that. In April, the cost of electricity was 21.62¢ / kWh in Connecticut, 11.37¢ / kWh in Florida, 16.07¢ / kWh in Michigan, and 19.90¢ / kWh in California.

Wind creates jobs. The new Biden project is set to create an additional 3,000 jobs on top of the 100,000+ workers that are already employed in the wind energy sector. According to the Wind Vision Report, this type of energy has the potential to support more than 600,000 jobs in manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and supporting services by 2050.

It’s clean and sustainable. One major positive differentiator for wind energy is that it doesn't pollute the air like power plants, which rely on the combustion of fossil fuels like coal or natural gas. Taking that out of the equation could lead to a reduction in human health problems and economic damages. As to sustainability, as long as there’s a sun and the Earth continues to rotate, there will be plenty of wind power. 

Concerns about the impact of wind farms

The project had been a heated subject locally, raising questions about the human health impact of infrasound coming from large wind turbines. The fishing industry has expressed its disapproval of the move, saying the project lacks mitigation measures to offset impacts to critical ocean ecosystems and commercial fisheries.

The fishing industry’s concerns about wildlife have actually been merited by the U.S. Department of Energy. In discussing the pros and cons of wind power, the agency noted that wind plants can impact local wildlife. 

The agency said that while birds have been killed by flying into spinning turbine blades, that problem has been greatly reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind plants. Bats have also been killed by turbine blades, and there is ongoing research to also reduce the impact of wind turbines on that species.

“Like all energy sources, wind projects can alter the habitat on which they are built, which may alter the suitability of that habitat for certain species,” the agency wrote.

Mattel has announced the launch of a new takeback program called “Mattel PlayBack.” The initiative urges consumers to donate their old Mattel toys for recycling purposes. 

The company is kicking off the program by calling for toy donations from three brands: Barbie, Matchbox, and MEGA toys. Mattel says it will be accepting other brands in the future. 

“Mattel toys are made to last and be passed on from generation to generation,” said Richard Dickson, Mattel’s President and COO, in a statement. “A key part of our product design process is a relentless focus on innovation, and finding sustainable solutions is one significant way we are innovating.” 

Focusing on sustainability 

Mattel says the program will enable it to divert valuable materials from landfills and turn those materials into new products. In the longer-term, the company said it’s committed to advancing a “circular economy.” 

“Programs like Mattel PlayBack are an integral part of Mattel’s broader sustainability strategy and efforts to teach children about the importance of protecting the planet,” the company said. 

Mattel previously committed to using 100% recycled, recyclable, or bio-based plastic materials across all of its products and packaging by 2030. Consumers can participate in Mattel’s new toy takeback program by visiting the company’s website, printing a free shipping label, and packing and mailing back previously played with toys. 

Once Mattel receives the toys, they will be sorted and separated by material type and then processed and recycled. Materials that cannot be repurposed as recycled content in new toys will either be downcycled into other plastic products or converted from waste to energy, according to the company. 

Recent studies have highlighted how climate change can affect everything from mental and physical health to fertility and even the economy. Now, a new study conducted by researchers from the University of Arizona shows that climate change may also impact consumers’ decision to have kids. 

According to the team’s findings, the repercussions of rising global temperatures, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution have led many consumers to second guess what the future of the planet will look like; this uncertainty has been added to a growing list of considerations when consumers contemplate having children. 

“For many people, the question of whether to have children or not is one of the biggest they will face in their lives,” said researcher Sabrina Helm. “If you are worried about what the future will look like because of climate change, obviously it will impact how you view this very important decision in your life.” 

What factors into decision-making? 

To better understand how the state of the environment factored into consumers’ decisions about having kids, the researchers conducted a two-part study. In the first part, the team went right to the source: they analyzed comments from an online article that discussed the ways that climate change has emerged as a major consideration in having children. In the second part of the study, the researchers interviewed participants between the ages of 18 and 35 to gain insight into their beliefs and decision-making processes. 

Ultimately, the researchers identified three major factors that factored into the participants’ thoughts on having kids: uncertainty about the future, overconsumption, and overpopulation. 

Many of the participants expressed fear about what the world will look like if climate change isn’t addressed soon, and they feel a sense of responsibility to not burden future generations with these issues. Participants also shared that they didn’t want their future kids to be part of the problem; because of how rapidly the environment is changing, more consumption of resources could put essentials like water at a greater deficit. Lastly, the group shared concerns about having kids because of the current rapid population growth; however, they did find a sustainable loophole. 

“Adoption was seen as the low-carbon alternative,” explained Helm. 

The researchers explained that many of the participants expressed feelings of anxiety and general worry about the future of the environment, and those worries factored into their decisions about potentially having children. To complicate things even further, many participants said they struggle to share these feelings with those closest to them. 

“It’s still a bit taboo to even talk about this -- about how worried they are -- in an environment where there are still people who deny climate change,” said Helm. “I think what’s been lacking is the opportunity to talk about it and hear other people’s voices. Maybe this research will help.” 

Is there hope for the future?

Not all of the participants’ responses about the future and the possibility of having kids were rooted in uncertainty or fear. The researchers found that some people in the group were hopeful that a future generation could tackle the issues of climate change that we’re currently struggling with.

“Many people are now severely affected in terms of mental health with regard to climate change concerns,” Helm said. “Then you add this very important decision about having kids, which very few take lightly, and this is an important topic from a public health perspective. It all ties into this bigger topic of how climate change affects people beyond the immediate effect of weather phenomena.” 

At the beginning of a virtual climate summit, President Biden announced that he’s committing the United States to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50%-52% below its 2005 emissions levels by 2030. 

The White House climate summit is taking place on Thursday and Friday, and it’s being attended by 40 other world leaders. Climate scientists have said that slashing emissions by half is key to achieving the goals set under the Paris climate agreement, which president Biden rejoined upon taking office. 

Biden kicked off the climate summit with an address focused on his plans for creating a more sustainable economy. He said it’s crucial for all sectors to take climate change seriously and that doing so will help create more jobs. 

"When people talk about climate, I think jobs," Biden said. "Within our climate response lies an extraordinary engine of job creation and economic opportunity ready to be fired up.

"That's where we're headed as a nation, and that's what we can do if we take action to build an economy that's not only more prosperous but healthier, fairer and cleaner for the entire planet.”

Spurring action

Biden encouraged other world leaders to take their own preventative steps, saying “countries that take decisive action now to create the industries of the future will be the ones that reap the economic benefits of the clean energy boom that's coming."

"We're looking for people to make announcements, to raise their ambition, to indicate next steps that they intend to be taking to help solve the climate problem," an administration official said earlier this week.

At the summit, the president also reiterated his goal of achieving 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 under his $2 trillion green infrastructure proposal. The proposal pushes for the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs and places addressing the climate crisis at the forefront. Biden has said he’s focused on reducing emissions and building a "modern, resilient and fully clean grid."

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Maryland explored how using salt in the environment can be detrimental to the global freshwater supply. 

Their findings showed that when salt is used for things like melting snow on roads, softening water, or even construction, it ultimately impacts clean drinking water, the environment, and consumers’ health. 

“We used to think about adding salts as not much of a problem,” said researcher Sujay Kaushal. “We thought we put it on the roads in winter and it gets washed away, but we realized that it stuck around and accumulated. Now we’re looking into both the acute exposure risks and the long-term health, environmental, and infrastructure risks of all these chemical cocktails that result from adding salts to the environment, and we’re saying, ‘This is becoming one of the most serious threats to our freshwater supply.’ And it’s happening in many places we look in the United States and around the world.” 

The risks of salt in the environment

After conducting a thorough review of past studies, the team learned that salt use is increasing worldwide. They found that fertilizers, decaying old buildings, and even rising sea levels contribute to the consistent increase in salt concentration. The researchers dubbed this phenomenon “Freshwater Salinization Syndrome” because using salt in the environment ultimately leads to a build-up of toxic chemicals. 

Salt can affect the integrity of roadways, and it can also change the ecosystem of natural water sources by making these habitats more hospitable for different types of species and less desirable for the original inhabitants. Perhaps most importantly, it can compromise clean drinking water; the researchers explained this is already happening in several places in the northeast, with salt infiltrating the drinking water supply at a higher rate.

“I am greatly surprised by the increasing scope and intensity of these problems as highlighted from our studies,” said researcher Gene E. Likens. “Increased salinization of surface waters is becoming a major environmental problem in many places in the world.” 

How can we combat this?

To protect the water supply, the environment, and consumers’ health, the researchers recommend stricter regulations on water monitoring systems. This would allow experts to closely watch salinity levels in drinking water supplies and ultimately reduce the chemical impact of salt use. 

Because salt is used in several ways in the environment, and it has such wide-reaching impacts, the team also suggests that experts look at the sources of the biggest salt runoffs and work to address those first. 

“Ultimately, we need regulation at the higher levels, and we’re still lacking adequate protection of local jurisdictions and water supplies,” said Kaushal. “We have made dramatic improvements to acid rain and air quality, and we’re trying to address climate change this way. What we need here is a better understanding of the complicated effects of added salts and regulations based on that. This can allow us to avert a really difficult future for freshwater supplies.” 

Face masks have become one of consumers’ best tools to protect themselves and others from COVID-19. This recent need for protective equipment has led many people to start choosing between reusable and disposable face masks. 

Now, a new study conducted by researchers from RMIT University is exploring how disposable masks can be recycled to benefit the environment. While many consumers might have reservations about single-use masks because of the environmental impact, researchers have found that they can actually be recycled and later used to make roadways. The team says this would help reduce landfill waste while utilizing the materials in new ways. 

“We know that even if these masks are disposed of properly, they will go to the landfill or they’ll be incinerated,” said researcher Jie Li. “The COVID-19 pandemic has not only created a global health and economic crisis, but has also had dramatic effects on the environment. If we can bring circular economy thinking to this massive waste problem, we can develop the smart and sustainable solutions we need.” 

Finding a second use for face masks

The researchers came to their conclusions after they shredded face masks and mixed them with recycled concrete aggregate (RCA), which is the sturdy base of roadways underneath asphalt. They learned that not only was this process feasible, but it was also beneficial to both the construction process and the environment. 

The shredded face masks provided added stability and strength to the concrete mixture and helped it hold up against all water, engineering, and strength tests. 

Currently, nearly seven billion disposable face masks are used and discarded each day. With this experiment, the researchers learned that reusing face masks in the road-building process would recycle nearly three million masks per kilometer of road. In terms of waste reduction, this process would eliminate more than 90 million tons of landfill waste with each kilometer of road. 

The researchers were excited by the success of this study, and they hope to continue doing more work in this area in the future. Recycling disposable face masks for construction projects opens up a ton of opportunities for other sustainability efforts. 

“This initial study looked at the feasibility of recycling single-use face masks into roads and were thrilled to find it not only works, but also delivers real engineering benefits,” said researcher Dr. Mohammad Saberian. “We hope this opens the door for further research, to work through ways of managing health and safety risks at scale, and investigating whether other types of PPE would also be suitable for recycling.” 

Opting to walk or bike can be incredibly beneficial for consumers’ health and wellness. Now, a new study conducted by researchers from Boston University School of Public Health is exploring how having more opportunities for physical activity can benefit consumers’ health even more while also helping the economy.

The researchers explained that their work is based on a program that has been developed by several northeastern states -- the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI). This program focuses on creating an infrastructure that is designed to promote walking and biking. The researchers say having more opportunities for physical activity would lead to better consumer health, a drop in health care costs, and a decrease in air pollution.

“Our study suggests that if all the states joined the TCI and collectively invested at least $100 million in active mobility infrastructure and public transit, the program could save hundreds of lives per year from increased physical activity,” said researcher Matthew Raifman. “These benefits are larger than the estimated air quality and climate benefits for the TCI scenarios, highlighting the importance of leveraging investments in sustainable active mobility to improve health.” 

Saving lives and money while reducing pollution

For this study, the researchers used data from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Economic Assessment Tool to predict how the TCI would benefit consumers, the environment, and the economy. The researchers used this predictive model to determine nine different outcomes, all of which were based on the amount of money the states invested. 

Currently, there are 12 states across the northeast and the District of Columbia involved in the TCI. The researchers found the benefits ramped up when more money is invested into creating walking and biking infrastructure. They say more lives could be saved, greenhouse gas emissions could be lower, and more money could be saved and reinvested into public transportation.

Though the TCI continues to evolve, four regions have already agreed to a plan that would save nearly $155 million a year. The WHO model predicts that the increased physical activity created from the plan as it stands would save 16 lives each year. However, with more money invested into the program, the researchers predict that monetary savings could surpass $7.5 billion, 770 lives could be saved, and greenhouse gas emissions could drop by 25 percent. 

“Given the legacy of inequitable investment in infrastructure in the United States, the opportunity exists to address racial disparities in access to sidewalks and cycling infrastructure through equity-focused project siting,” said Raifman. 

Creating a nationwide plan

These findings are especially important when you consider that only 12 states and the District of Columbia are currently connected to the plan. If these efforts were applied to the nation at-large, there would be even greater health, economic, and environmental benefits. 

“This study sheds light on potential health benefits from investments in biking and walking infrastructure,” said researcher Kathy Fallon Lambert. “Actual outcomes will depend on how much funding exists and how it is invested. We hope this information is useful to policymakers and advocates as they consider how to best target transportation investments to gain greater and more equitable health benefits.” 

A great deal of climate change-related news can be overwhelming or stress-inducing for consumers; however, a new study conducted by researchers from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory highlights some positives in the fight against climate change. 

According to the team, eliminating carbon emissions -- and even having negative emissions levels -- is both a possible and affordable reality for the United States to achieve over the next three decades. 

“The decarbonization of the U.S. energy system is fundamentally an infrastructure transformation,” said researcher Margaret Torn. “It means that by 2050 we need to build many gigawatts of wind and solar power plants, new transmission lines, a fleet of electric cars and light trucks, millions of heat pumps to replace conventional furnaces and water heaters, and more energy-efficient buildings -- while continuing to research and innovate new technologies.” 

Changes that will make a lasting difference

Because of how quickly and drastically climate change is affecting the planet, the researchers’ goal was to determine the best possible route to eliminating carbon emissions. By getting to net-zero carbon emissions over the next 30 years, the researchers explained that experts could get a better handle on the rising global temperature. 

For this study, the team analyzed the industrial and energy-based systems currently in place in the U.S. and sought to determine what can be done to improve these efforts. They determined that ramping up efforts that are already in place that focus on renewable energy sources and electric cars will lead to lasting environmental changes across the country. The goal, they say, is to eliminate carbon- and oil-based heating and energy sources by changing the energy infrastructure to rely mainly on solar, wind, and bioenergy. 

However, this plan wouldn’t require consumers or corporations to switch everything right away. Simply replacing items at the end of their lifespans with eco-friendly options could make a huge difference. The study findings suggest that these efforts wouldn’t require a huge financial commitment either; while a great deal of land and labor would be necessary to build solar and wind farms, the researchers say the pros ultimately outweigh the cons. 

One thing working in this plan’s favor is that the costs of both renewable energy sources and electric car batteries have dropped significantly in recent years. The researchers say another benefit is that building new energy systems would also create many jobs across the country.

“All that infrastructure build equates to jobs, and potentially jobs in the U.S., as opposed to sending money overseas to buy oil from other countries,” said Torn. “There’s no question that there will need to be a well-thought-out economic transition strategy for fossil fuel-based industries and communities, but there’s also no question that there are a lot of jobs in building a low-carbon economy.” 

What are the next steps?

While this is certainly an enormous, ongoing project, the researchers explained that efforts to reduce carbon emissions need to be happening now. Regardless of what happens in the future, this next decade is crucial in taking those first steps towards using more renewable energy sources and getting more electric vehicles on the road. 

“This is a very important finding,” said researcher Jim Williams. “We don’t need to have this big battle now over questions like the near-term construction of nuclear power plants, because new nuclear is not required in the next ten years to be on a net-zero emissions path. Instead, we should make policy to drive the steps that we know are required now while accelerating R&D and further developing our options for the choices we must make starting in the 2030s.” 

Recent studies have explored the consequences of rising global temperatures. Now, new data from NASA is looking at just how warm it was over the last year. 

According to findings from a new study, experts found that 2020 tied with 2016 for the warmest year on record. The researchers say they’re concerned about what consistently rising temperatures mean for consumers and the environment moving forward. 

“The last seven years have been the warmest seven years on record, typifying the ongoing and dramatic warming trend,” said researcher Gavin Schmidt. “Whether one year is a record or not is not really that important -- the important things are long-term trends. With these trends, and as the human impact on the climate increases, we have to expect that records will continue to be broken.” 

What contributes to global temperatures?

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) tracks the global temperature each year using data from weather stations, ocean temperature readings, and satellites that track changes in the atmosphere. Each year, they compare the global temperature to the baseline temperature calculated between 1951 and 1980. 

They learned that 2020 was almost two degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the baseline temperature, and it tied with 2016 as the warmest year ever on record. The researchers at NASA explained that there are several factors that contribute to rising global temperatures, and 2020 had a wide array of influences that came into play. 

The researchers credit the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) for having the biggest impact on rising global temperatures. They explained that fluctuations in ocean temperatures affect the speed, direction, and temperature of the winds, all of which can then impact the overall temperature on Earth. Wind patterns are calmer when ocean temperatures rise, but this also releases more heat into the atmosphere and can increase temperatures around the world.

“The previous record warm year, 2016, received a significant boost from a strong El Nino,” said Schmidt. “The lack of a similar assist from El Nino this year is evidence that the background climate continues to warm due to greenhouse gases.” 

Wildfires also play a role

On a different note, the Australian wildfires that affected the continent for nearly half of 2020 had both positive and negative impacts on the environment. While the fires led to the devastation of millions of acres of land and contributed to more debris and pollution in the air, the lack of sunlight for months on end likely benefited the overall global temperature. 

The study also showed that efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic played a role in the yearly temperature reading. Global shutdowns that led to improvements in air pollution and lower CO2 emissions were believed to be a positive to come out of the pandemic; however, this actually contributed to the rising global temperature. 

The researchers explained that carbon dioxide (CO) emissions were at record lows, but overall CO2 emissions remain consistently high, and that’s what affects the global temperature. While improvements to air pollution may seem like a positive, the researchers say it actually leads to more heat by creating more opportunities for sunlight to reach the earth. 

The researchers hope that these findings shed light on the state of climate change, and how many of our actions can contribute to rising global temperatures. Ultimately, these factors will have long-term effects on the planet, and it’s important that consumers understand the implications of consistently high global temperatures. 

Many consumers have made the switch from in-person work to working from home since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. While this change has cut down on commuting times, it also has meant that consumers are spending a lot more time on the internet while at home.

A new study conducted by researchers from Purdue University explored how consumers can use all of this extra screen time to benefit the environment. According to the researchers, one of the best ways consumers can cut down on their carbon footprint is to keep their cameras turned off during virtual meetings. 

“Banking systems tell you the positive environmental impact of going paperless, but no one tells you the benefit of turning off your camera or reducing your streaming quality,” said researcher Kaveh Madani. “So without your consent, these platforms are increasing your environmental footprint.” 

Small changes make a big impact

The researchers gathered internet processing data from several countries around the world to better understand how consumers’ internet habits can influence various environmental outcomes. They looked at social platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Zoom and explored how usage affected carbon, water, and land footprints. 

“If you just look at one type of footprint, you miss out on others that can provide a more holistic look at environmental impact,” said researcher Roshanak Nateghi. 

The researchers learned that streaming services and online video conferences are two of the biggest culprits in terms of negative impacts on the environment. However, by making simple switches, consumers help reduce the effect of such environmental damage. 

They explained that keeping your camera off during a virtual meeting can reduce the carbon, water, and land footprints by 96 percent, and swapping high definition streaming for standard definition can reduce these footprints by 86 percent. Opting against data downloads can also be incredibly beneficial for the environment. Currently, a one-hour video call uses up to 12 liters of water and produces 1,000 grams of carbon dioxide. 

While CO2 emissions have hit record lows since the start of the pandemic, the researchers worry about how continued excessive internet usage will continue to affect the environment. If consumers keep up at the current pace, carbon, water, and land footprints are anticipated to increase by the end of 2021.

“There are the best estimates given the available data,” said Nateghi. “In view of these reported surges, there is a hope now for higher transparency to guide policy.” 

Climate change is a source of stress for many consumers, and findings from a new study conducted by researchers from Stanford University may just add to that stress. 

Because climate change has led to more frequent weather events and more severe periods of precipitation, flooding has become a much more serious issue for many consumers. According to the researchers’ findings, flooding due to climate change has led to billions of dollars in damages in the last 30 years. 

“The fact that extreme precipitation has been increasing and will likely increase in the future is well known, but what effect that has had on financial damages has been uncertain,” said researcher Frances Davenport. “Our analysis allows us to isolate how much of those changes in precipitation translate to changes in the cost of flooding, both now and in the future.” 

Flood damage on the rise

The researchers’ goal was to determine whether rising flood damages were related to climate change or if there were other overriding socioeconomic factors that have come into play in recent years. They used existing economic models to compare climate change data, flood damages, and weather patterns between 1988 and 2017. 

“By bringing all those pieces together, this framework provides a novel quantification not only of how much historical changes in precipitation have contributed to the costs of flooding, but also how greenhouse gases influence the kind of precipitation events that cause the most damaging flood events,” said researcher Noah Diffenbaugh. 

The researchers found that over the last 30 years, flooding has yielded nearly $200 billion in related damages across the United States. They learned that climate change was directly linked to more than 35 percent of those costs, or roughly $75 billion in damages. The team explained that the severity of extreme weather events is mostly to blame in these cases, as flooding has only worsened as the weather has changed. 

“What we find is that, even in states where the long-term mean precipitation hasn’t changed, in most cases, the wettest events have intensified, increasing the financial damages relative to what would have occurred without the changes in precipitation,” said Davenport. 

This study points to just one area of significant cost that stems from climate change. Moving forward, the researchers hope that legislators can utilize these findings as the basis for serious climate-related policy change. Without changes, they believe flood damages will only surge higher as time goes on. 

“Accurately and comprehensively tallying the past and future costs of climate change is key to making good policy decisions,” said researcher Marshall Burke. “This work shows that past climate change has already cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars, just due to flood damages alone.” 

While the COVID-19 pandemic has brought some positive news in terms of the environment, research shows that pollution is still a very real problem.

Though a lot of work still needs to be done, a new study conducted by researchers from the University of Exeter is detailing why hope still remains in the fight against climate change. According to the researchers, efforts put into place in two key areas -- lighter road transportation and power -- will likely benefit the environment for years to come. 

“We have left it too late to tackle climate change incrementally,” said researcher Tim Lenton. “Limiting global warming to well below two degrees Celsius now requires transformational change and a dramatic acceleration process.”

Tipping towards environmental advancements 

Lenton and his team are optimistic about the future of climate change because of what they refer to as “tipping points.” They explained that this happens when several small changes build on top of one another to create one lasting change. When it comes to climate change, the researchers anticipate tipping points to occur in the areas of power and lighter road transportation. In both cases, policy-led interventions have already been put into place to help set the scales in motion that will eventually create long-term change. 

In looking at power, the researchers explained that countries around the world are working to make coal plants a thing of the past. On a global scale, renewable energy sources are proving to be a more cost-effective method of generating power, which is minimizing the benefits associated with coal and fossil fuels. 

As these efforts continue, and renewable energy is utilized more and more, the researchers predict that there will no longer be any financial benefits of using coal or in maintaining coal plants. In time, the widespread use of solar or wind-powered energy will tip the scales and make coal-fueled power obsolete.

The researchers anticipate a similar tipping point to occur when electric cars are more widely used by consumers. Currently, the manufacturing costs of electric cars are making it difficult for them to be more accessible to car buyers. However, offsetting these costs is possible; the researchers explained that legislators in parts of the world that generate the highest car sales -- California, China, and the European Union -- can work together to mass-produce electric cars and lower costs. 

“If either of these efforts -- in power or road transport -- succeed, the most important effect could be to tip perceptions of the potential for international cooperation to tackle climate change,” Lenton said. 

The new year is officially underway, and Uber is recommitting to some of the green initiatives that it promised to undertake towards the end of 2020.

On Tuesday, the company announced that it will be expanding its Uber Green ride option to over 1,400 more North American cities and towns. The offering allows riders to choose either an electric vehicle or a hybrid vehicle as their mode of transport. Drivers who have an eligible vehicle can earn a small bonus from each completed trip, and some of the money also goes towards greater adoption of electric vehicles. 

Uber is also adopting Uber Green into its Uber Pass membership service. Consumers who are enrolled in that program can receive 10 percent off on Green trips and on standard rides.

More sustainability efforts

Also included in Uber’s announcement was information on two new initiatives it has joined to help fight climate change. The first is its enrollment in the Zero Emissions Transportation Association (ZETA), which is advocating for policies that will allow 100 percent electric vehicle sales in the U.S. by 2030. 

“For the first time in a generation, transportation is the leading emitter of U.S. carbon emissions. By embracing EVs, federal policymakers can help drive innovation, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and improve air quality and public health,” Joe Britton, ZETA’s executive director, said in November.

The second initiative Uber has joined is Amazon’s and Global Optimism’s Climate Pledge, which seeks to meet the climate goals outlined in The Paris Agreement on a shorter timeline.

“Uber’s work to have 100% of rides taking place in zero-emission vehicles, on public transit, or with micromobility by 2040,” aligns with this pledge, the company said.

New York state’s pension fund found itself with a new world record on Thursday when it decided to become the largest pension fund to divest from all of its fossil fuel investments.

The fund -- which is the third largest pension fund in the U.S. with a value of $194.3 billion and more than one million members, retirees, and beneficiaries -- decided that selling off its “riskiest” oil and gas stocks is the right action to take due to growing climate concerns. The state’s final goal is to completely eliminate all carbon polluters from its investment portfolio by 2040. 

With a stroke of New York state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s pen, a clear message was sent that the smart money is on getting out of the fossil fuel game now rather than later.

“We continue to assess energy sector companies in our portfolio for their future ability to provide investment returns in light of the global consensus on climate change,” state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said in a statement Wednesday morning. 

“Those that fail to meet our minimum standards may be removed from our portfolio. Divestment is a last resort, but it is an investment tool we can apply to companies that consistently put our investment’s long-term value at risk.”

The shape of things to come?

The Paris Climate Agreement is coming up on its fifth anniversary, but its last couple of years have been a tug of war. Once President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the accord, tech executives from Google, Microsoft, Apple, and others came together to voice their concerns. Meanwhile, the world’s five largest publicly traded oil and gas companies fought against governmental measures to curb emissions.

While the consumption side of fossil fuels hasn’t changed dramatically in the last 20 years, renewable energy -- hydroelectric power, geothermal, solar, and wind -- is getting closer in the energy sector’s rear view mirror. At last count, the renewable option was generating 17.6 percent of all electric power.

New York may be the first to come down this hard on fossil fuel, but other states have been working on similar moves. As of late April, 15 U.S. states and territories had taken either executive or legislative action toward a 100 percent clean energy future -- one that includes clean electricity policies and economy-wide greenhouse gas pollution-reduction programs.

What’s the energy future for consumers?

Even more important is the consumer side of the energy consumption equation. While the decrease in gas prices has American consumers moving toward buying more SUVs and trucks, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) keeps pushing for exponentially less polluting and more efficient vehicles. 

At home, clean energy, such as solar power, is also getting the reputation as a more environmentally friendly option. 

“Solar energy is most efficient in terms of environmental impact, whereas coal and natural gas are more efficient by reliable applications,” writes ConsumerAffairs’ Kathryn Parkman in her review of how certain energy resources impact consumers in terms of efficiency, cost, and long-term availability.

And, as for cost? “Given the consumption rate of fossil fuels, the world is reaching a point where there will be little choice in the matter. Nonrenewable fossil fuels are extracted at a much faster rate than they're being replenished. Because of this, some fossil fuels, like coal, are on track to be more expensive than solar within the next decade,” Parkman said.

Recent studies have shown how environmental factors can play a large role in future pandemics, but a new study conducted by researchers from NASA and the Goddard Space Flight Center is looking at how the environment has changed since the start of the current COVID-19 pandemic.

According to their findings, the pandemic could be responsible for a great deal of positive environmental change that has occurred this year. In comparing data between 2019 and 2020, the researchers noted improvements in air pollution, deforestation, and water quality in several parts of the world. 

“But we will need more research to clearly attribute environmental change to COVID,” said researcher Timothy Newman.

Improved environmental outcomes

The researchers used remote sensing data to look at specific environmental outcomes across different parts of the world to understand how things have changed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, they learned that things are environmentally very different from where they were before the pandemic.  

The study revealed that air pollution levels have improved greatly in India in recent months. Results showed that levels of the pollutant particulate matter (PM) 10 decreased significantly since the start of this year; that could be a result of fewer construction projects happening across the country because of pandemic-related lockdowns. 

Cleaner air in India also had an effect on snow in the Indus River Basin. The researchers learned that snow in this area has been less susceptible to pollutants since they are at reduced levels; that has led to an increase in the amount of time it takes the snow to melt. They explained that the snow was melting slower than it has in the last two decades, which is incredibly beneficial for the environment and the planet’s temperature. It also affects how quickly consumers in the River Basin have access to fresh water.

The researchers also looked at how water quality has changed since the start of the pandemic. They learned that New York City experienced significant improvements in this area. By eliminating millions of daily commuters, the water was less polluted overall, and it was found to be 40 percent clearer than it was at the start of the pandemic. 

In looking at deforestation efforts, the researchers learned that different areas have had different outcomes during the pandemic. While deforestation slowed in parts of Peru and Colombia, large parts of the Brazilian rainforest weren’t as lucky. 

Can the benefits last?

While many of these pandemic-related changes are beneficial to the environment, there’s a good chance that they won’t be long-lasting. 

Though consumers have been forced to change their behaviors in recent months, the researchers predict that once things revert back to how they were pre-pandemic, these environmental advancements won’t hold up.

A new study conducted by researchers from Anglia Ruskin University found that glitter could be polluting rivers and creating ecological damage. In looking at both biodegradable and nonbiodegradable options, the researchers learned that the presence of glitter in rivers can have lasting effects on existing ecosystems. 

“Many of the microplastics found in our rivers and oceans have taken years to form, as larger pieces of plastic are broken down over time,” said researcher Dr. Dannielle Green. “However, glitter is a ready-made microplastic that is commonly found in our homes and, particularly through cosmetics, is washed off in our sinks and into the water system. 

“Our study is the first to look at the effects of glitter in a freshwater environment and we found that both conventional and alternative glitters can have a serious ecological impact on aquatic ecosystems within a short period of time.”

The damages of microplastics

For the study, the researchers observed the effects of different types of glitter on an aquatic ecosystem for five weeks. They analyzed both traditional, nonbiodegradable glitter, and two eco-friendly options: mica glitter, which is typically used in make-up products, and another type that is made of modified regenerated cellulose (MRC). 

The researchers learned that all three glitters negatively affected the aquatic ecosystem. They looked specifically at chlorophyll and root levels, which are responsible for the health and longevity of plant species, and each glitter sample yielded nearly identical results. Chlorophyll levels were roughly three times lower due to the presence of glitter and duckweed roots were half as long. 

The study also revealed that the eco-friendly glitter options attracted an invasive species of New Zealand mud snails. These creatures monopolize food and other resources, and they are more likely to populate an area that has a polluted water source. 

“All types, including so-called biodegradable glitter, have a negative effect on important primary producers which are the base of the food web, while glitter with a biodegradable cellulose core has an additional impact of encouraging the growth of invasive species,” Dr. Green said. 

While the researchers plan to do more work to better understand why glitter has this significant impact on aquatic ecosystems, they hope these findings highlight the dangers associated with microplastics. 

“We believe these effects could be caused by leachate from the glitters, possibly from their plastic coating or other materials involved in their production, and our future research will investigate this in greater detail,” Dr. Green said. 

Eco-conscious consumers who shop online with Amazon will soon have a better way to pick products that adhere to their high environmental standards. The company announced this week that it is rolling out “Climate Pledge Friendly,” a new initiative that will place a label on products that meet at least one of 19 sustainability certifications. 

To start, Amazon says the initiative will add labels to over 25,000 eligible products. The initiative will cover products from multiple categories, including grocery, household, fashion, beauty, and personal electronics.

“Climate Pledge Friendly is a simple way for customers to discover more sustainable products that help preserve the natural world,” said Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. “With 18 external certification programs and our own Compact by Design certification, we’re incentivizing selling partners to create sustainable products that help protect the planet for future generations.”

Building on sustainable promises

The move builds upon the company’s previous commitment to meet standards set under the Paris Climate Agreement, which would bring the company to net-zero carbon emissions by the year 2040. 

In a press release, Amazon said it has already gone above and beyond those standards by committing to 100 percent renewable energy by 2025, using fully-electric delivery vehicles, and donating billions to programs that support reforestation and a transition to a low carbon economy.

“Amazon’s initiative will drive scale and impact for more sustainable consumption by helping customers easily discover products that are Climate Pledge Friendly and encourage the manufacturers to make their products more sustainable,” said Fabian Garcia, President of Unilever North America.

To learn more about the Climate Pledge Friendly, consumers can visit Amazon’s website here.

Uber has committed to becoming a zero-emission mobility platform by 2040. On Tuesday, the ride-hailing giant outlined several new initiatives that will help it meet that goal and mitigate its environmental impact.

“The path there will be electric. It will be shared. It will be with buses and trains and bicycles and scooters. These monumental changes won’t come easy. Or fast. But we have a plan to get there, and we need you to come along for the ride,” the company said in a statement.

The pandemic has given people “a glimpse of what life could be like with less traffic and cleaner air,” Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said in a virtual press event. However, the executive warned that emissions levels will soon return to normal.

COVID-19 “didn’t change the fact that climate change remains an existential threat and crisis that needs every person, every business in every nation to act,” he added. 

Switching to electric

Uber said on Tuesday that it is committing to getting its drivers in Europe, the U.S., and Canada to switch to using electric vehicles by 2025. To reach that goal, the company has set aside $800 million. Drivers can receive discounts on cars purchased or leased through Uber's auto partners, which include GM, Renault, Nissan, and Mitsubishi. 

Uber also wants to get its corporate operations down to net-zero emissions by 2030. 

The company also announced that it will launch “Uber Green” in 15 U.S. and Canadian cities. In exchange for paying a dollar more, riders can be picked up in an EV or hybrid electric vehicle. Uber said it expects the program to be launched in over 65 cities globally by the end of 2020.

“You can now tap a button and request a ride in an electric or hybrid vehicle in select cities around the world,” the company said. “Each Uber Green trip in a hybrid or electric vehicle emits at least 25% less carbon emissions compared to the average Uber ride.”

Uber has also released its first Climate Assessment and Performance Report to give people insight into how it’s doing in terms of lowering its emissions. The company found that vehicles on its platform were more efficient than cars with a single occupant, but its carbon intensity was higher than personal cars occupied by an “average” number of occupants. 

The ride-hailing firm said in the report that it hosted 4 billion rides across the U.S. and Canada from 2017 to 2019. However, officials said the current state of its operations is "unsustainable.” 

“It’s our responsibility as the largest mobility platform in the world to more aggressively tackle the challenge of climate change,” Uber said. “We want to do our part to build back better and drive a green recovery in our cities.”

Antibiotic resistance is a widespread issue, as some superbugs have adapted to withstand the antibacterial powers of hand sanitizer. 

Now, researchers from the University of Georgia are looking at how environmental factors could play a role in antibiotic resistance. According to their findings, pollution could increase the incidence of antibiotic resistance nationwide. 

“The overuse of antibiotics in the environment adds additional selection pressure on microorganisms that accelerates their ability to resist multiple classes of antibiotics,” said researcher Jesse C. Thomas IV. “But antibiotics aren’t the only source of selection pressure. Many bacteria possess genes that simultaneously work on multiple compounds that would be toxic to the cell, and this includes metals.” 

Environmental pressures

To understand how pollution can affect antibiotic resistance, the researchers analyzed soil samples from four spots in South Carolina. They evaluated the genetic make-up of the soil in order to determine any present bacteria that could be resistant to antibiotics. 

The researchers also paid particularly close attention to the effect of metals in the samples, as heavy metals aren’t biodegradable. This means that the effects of such contamination can last indefinitely. Ultimately, the team learned that the soil samples that were most contaminated by heavy metals were the most likely to contain antibiotic resistant bacteria. 

The study also revealed that there was a great deal of overlap between antibiotic-resistant genes and metal-resistant genes within the samples. This is important because heavy metals are often associated with antibiotic resistance, so this likely amplifies the resistance to traditional treatment methods. 

Specifically, the researchers found that these soil samples resisted the powers of three commonly used antibiotics that are used to treat infections: polymyxin, vancomycin, and bacitracin. 

Though the researchers plan to do more research on the relationship between metal resistance and antibiotic resistance, these findings are important because they can help identify how actions associated with pollution can contribute to antibiotic resistance. 

“We need a better understanding of how bacteria are evolving over time,” said Thomas. “This can impact our drinking water and our food and eventually our health.” 

Plastics, like straws and contact lenses, have been found to build up in the ocean, and it could take hundreds of years before they ever disintegrate. 

Now, a new study suggests that plastic pollution will likely get much worse over the next two decades if left unchecked. Researchers are predicting that if the current rate of pollution keeps up without intervention, pollution could increase threefold by 2040. 

“There’s no single solution to ocean plastic pollution, but through rapid and concerted action we can break the plastic wave,” said researcher Tom Dillon. “As this report shows, we can invest in a future of reduced waste, better health outcomes, greater job creation, and a cleaner and more resilient environment for both people and nature.” 

Preventing a growing problem

To measure and predict the plastic pollution in the oceans, the researchers created a model that helped them track current pollution progress. After adjusting the model for several potential interventions, they predicted what the oceans could look like in the next 20 years. 

Though the study showed that plastic pollution will multiply if nothing changes, the researchers explained that there are several tangible ways to work to reduce pollution -- and they come with several benefits. 

Improving recycling habits, opting for compostable items when possible, and increasing waste collection are just a handful of ways that real change can be made. And while all these efforts would work in reducing how much plastic lands in the ocean, there are more benefits than many consumers may realize. 

For starters, adopting these habits would create hundreds of thousands of jobs while also providing a huge environmental boost by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, being more proactive about plastic pollution in these ways could ultimately reduce ocean pollution by 80 percent. 

The researchers hope that consumers realize minor actions can add up and that plastic pollution in the oceans isn’t a doomed issue. With consistent efforts, significant strides can be made. 

“Our results indicate that the plastic crisis is solvable,” said researcher Martin Stuchtey. “It took a generation to create this challenge; this report shows we can solve it in one generation. We have today all the solutions required to stem plastic flows by more than 80 percent. What we now need is the industry and government resolve to do so.” 

Studies continue to emphasize the health risks associated with rising levels of air pollution, including the threat these emissions pose to consumers’ longevity. 

Now, a new study conducted by researchers from the University of Minnesota found that the threats to consumers’ health only continue to mount. However, extreme levels of air pollution could be coming from sources many haven’t considered. 

“Essentially we’re asking, ‘what’s killing people and how do we stop it?’” said researcher Sumil Thakrar. “People usually think of power plants and cars, but nowadays, livestock and wood stoves are as big of a problem.” 

Where are the emissions coming from?

To understand what kinds of emissions are putting consumers’ health at the greatest risk, the researchers analyzed data from the Environmental Protection Agency. This allowed them to track emissions levels, types, sources, and overall health risk.

“Targeting particularly damaging air pollution sources is a more efficient, and likely more effective, way of regulating air quality,” said researcher Jason Hill. “Think of springing a leak in your boat while out fishing. Why fret too much about how much water is coming in when what you really should be doing is plugging the hole?” 

Fine particulate matter, which is commonly notated as PM2.5, was the biggest threat to consumers’ health that the researchers discovered in this study. However, this type of emission was identified in high levels from sources that many haven’t considered before. 

For example, the researchers learned that ammonia contains high volumes of PM2.5. The chemical is used widely in popular household cleaners, but it can also be used in fertilizer and other agricultural processes. Despite the known risks linked to ammonia, the chemical remains easily accessible and widely used nationwide. 

Consumers are exposed to these fumes in other ways too. Simple household tasks like cleaning can create emissions that can be harmful to breathe in, but a dusty construction site can lead to similar risks. Like Thakrar mentioned, while traffic and fossil fuels certainly contribute to these rising emissions levels, the source of some of the highest levels of air pollution come from ordinary places that aren’t usually considered by the general public.

Exposure to PM2.5 is particularly dangerous. It’s not only responsible for thousands of deaths each year, but it can increase the risk for any number of health conditions, including lung cancer and heart attacks, among several others. To see real change and protect consumers’ health, the researchers explained that regulation of these emissions is a crucial step that lawmakers need to get behind. 

“Our work provides key insights into the sources of damage caused by air pollution and suggests ways to reduce its impacts,” Thakrar said. “We hope policymakers and the public will use this to improve the lives of Americans.” 

Many countries are banning certain pesticides due to health risks associated with the products. Now, a new study is looking to reinforce those decisions by exploring how the use of such pesticides can be harmful to consumers’ health. 

According to researchers from the University of California - Berkeley, pesticides are not only an environmental burden but have also been linked to increase the spread of schistosomiasis -- a deadly condition commonly known as snail fever that can lead to severe kidney damage. 

“Environmental pollutants can increase our exposure and susceptibility to infectious diseases,” said researcher Justin Remais. “From dioxins decreasing resistance to influenza virus, to air pollutants increasing COVID-19 mortality, to arsenic impacting lower respiratory tract and enteric infections -- research has shown that reducing pollution is an important way to protect populations from infectious diseases.”  

The dangers of contaminated water

To understand the dangers that pesticides pose to consumers’ health, the researchers analyzed nearly 150 experiments that closely examined how consumers’ risk of contracting schistosomiasis is affected by the use of pesticides. 

It quickly became apparent to the researchers that even minimal exposure to these chemicals could increase the likelihood of infection. The researchers explained that the infection thrives in contaminated water; once consumers come into contact with these water supplies, the infection quickly spreads. 

“We know that dam construction and irrigation expansion increase schistosomiasis transmission in low-income settings by disrupting freshwater ecosystems,” said researcher Christopher Hoover. “We were shocked by the strength of evidence we found also linking agrochemical pollution to the amplification of schistosomiasis transmission.” 

Though widespread use of pesticides isn’t necessary for widespread infection, the researchers point out that these chemicals affect the natural ecosystem of the water. For example, the snails that carry the infection are typically eaten by other animals in the water; however, the chemicals can make such waters uninhabitable for other creatures, which creates the perfect ecosystem for the infectious snail population to thrive. 

In an effort to protect consumers from a potentially deadly infection, the researchers hope that these findings inspire lawmakers to do their part and restrict access to these pesticides, as the risks far outweigh the benefits. 

“We need to develop policies that protect public health by limiting the amplification of schistosomiasis transmission by agrochemical pollution,” said Hoover. “If we can devise ways to maintain the agricultural benefit of these chemicals, while limiting their overuse in schistosomiasis-endemic areas, we could prevent additional harm to public health within communities that already experience a high and unacceptable burden of disease.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Exeter found that environmental factors can play a large role in future pandemics. 

According to their research, healthy, functioning ecosystems can work to prevent consumers from animal-spread viruses. However, because many ecosystems are being destroyed, the number of pandemics is likely to increase and will continue to be hard to manage. 

“Ecosystems naturally restrain the transfer of diseases from animals to humans, but this service declines as ecosystems become degraded,” said researcher Dr. Mark Everard. “At the same time, ecosystem degradation undermines water security, limiting the availability of adequate water for good hand hygiene, sanitation, and disease treatment. Disease risk cannot be dissociated from ecosystem conservation and natural resource security.” 

Linking the environment and disease risk

To understand how ecosystems are closely linked with the spread of disease, the researchers utilized the Drivers-Pressure-State change-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model. This allowed them to look at three main factors: what role ecosystems play in the spread and treatment of disease and how to protect that role, the ability to treat those affected by the spread of infection, and getting the spread of infection between humans under control. 

The researchers learned that the incidence of pandemics is likely to increase because of the way humans interact with the natural world. Moreover, that same relationship with the environment can affect the resources that are available to treat such infections. 

The study revealed that the environment and the spread of disease are connected in several ways. Not only are humans interacting more with animals than ever before, but climate change, an overproduction of livestock, and deforestation all contribute to animals spreading infections to humans at a faster rate. 

The researchers also explained that less attention is paid to preserving ecosystems as the population grows. This alone is cause for concern, but these factors also place a burden on the clean water supply. With rising infection levels and a dwindling supply of clean water, treating and containing a rapidly spreading virus will only become more difficult in the future.  

Learning from past mistakes

According to the researchers, the current COVID-19 pandemic provides lawmakers with the perfect opportunity to enact policies that will protect the environment, which in turn can protect consumers. 

“The speed and scale with which radical actions have been taken in so many countries to limit the health and financial risks from COVID-19 demonstrate that radical system change would also be possible in order to deal with other global existential threats, such as the climate emergency and collapse of biodiversity, provided the political will is there to do so,” said researcher Dr. David Santillo. 

California has become the first state to require truck manufacturers to ramp up their zero-emission truck sales. Starting in 2024, the state’s auto manufacturers will be required to gradually increase the percentage of zero-emissions truck sales.

The “Advanced Clean Trucks” regulation, first introduced in 2016 under former Gov. Jerry Brown, received unanimous approval from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on Thursday.

Under the rule, the percentage of light- and medium-duty trucks sales will be increased to 55 percent. The percentage of heavier duty electric trucks sold will be increased to 75 percent by 2035. By 2045, every new truck sold in the state will be zero-emission.

The regulation will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve quality in a state with particularly poor air quality. However, the impact of the regulation is expected to extend beyond state lines. Experts have noted that zero-emissions trucks sold in California engage in commercial travel across the nation, so emissions in other states will likely drop as well. 

A racial justice issue

Toxic air pollution is tied to the nation’s current push to achieve racial justice, since pollution from heavy-duty vehicles has been shown to disproportionately impact communities of color. CARB noted that trucks are responsible for 70 percent of smog-causing pollution. 

In an interview with Gizmodo, Costa Samaras, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, called the regulation a “huge deal” with the potential to promote air quality equity in the state.

“The reduction and eventual elimination of diesel emissions near where people live is an equity issue. It’s an environmental justice issue,” Samaras said. “These pollutants, they cause real health damages. And lots of times, it has been communities of color who have borne the brunt of these types of emissions. Electrifying all segments of transportation and having a very clear electric grid are two issues that we can’t wait on any longer.”

CARB said its goal is to facilitate the creation of “a self-sustaining zero-emission truck market,” similar to the one it has for passenger vehicles. The estimated emissions reduction from the new rule will help the state reach its emissions goals of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. 

“For decades, while the automobile has grown cleaner and more efficient, the other half of our transportation system has barely moved the needle on clean air,” CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols said in a statement. “Diesel vehicles are the workhorses of the economy, and we need them to be part of the solution to persistent pockets of dirty air in some of our most disadvantaged communities. Now is the time – the technology is here and so is the need for investment.”

As experts continue to report on the countless ways air pollution negatively affects consumers’ health, a new study highlighted how the COVID-19 pandemic has led to improvements in air quality. 

Researchers found that mandated time at home has led carbon emissions to drop globally by over 25 percent. However, despite these positive findings, the researchers don’t believe these advancements will hold up over time. 

“...Most changes in 2020 are likely to be temporary as they do not reflect structural changes in the economic, transport, or energy systems,” the researchers wrote. “The social trauma of confinement and associated changes could alter the future trajectory in unpredictable ways, but social responses alone, as shown here, would not drive the deep and sustained reductions needed to reach net-zero emissions.” 

Cleaner air... for now

For this study, the researchers created a confinement index that allowed them to track how different regulations during the pandemic affected CO2 output. 

The study involved carbon emissions data taken from nearly 70 countries around the world. The researchers compared emissions levels from this time last year with this year’s levels through the end of April. They then broke down emissions levels into six different categories: public buildings and commerce, aviation, power, residential, industry, and public transportation. 

The researchers learned that mandated time inside led carbon emissions levels to drop globally by over 25 percent. However, they explained that because of the way the virus spread, reductions in individual countries were much higher, as each nation ramped up restrictions at different points. 

Ultimately, the sharpest drops in carbon emissions correlated with times when the strictest stay-at-home orders were given. Carbon emissions were down by nearly 20 percent on a daily level, which the researchers credit to the global reduction in public transportation. 

However, when it comes to the future, or even the rest of this year, the researchers are skeptical about how these improvements to air quality will hold up. 

“The change for the rest of the year will depend on the duration and extent of the confinement, the time it will take to resume normal activities, and the degree to which life will resume its preconfiment course,” the researchers wrote. 

While many studies have reported on the consistently rising global temperatures, it’s still uncertain how such levels of heat will affect consumers. 

Now, researchers from the Earth Institute at Columbia University found that parts of the world could begin to experience periods of heat and humidity that could make it dangerous for human survival. 

“Previous studies projected that this would happen several decades from now, but this shows it’s happening right now,” said researcher Colin Raymond. “The time these events last will increase, and the areas they affect will grow in direct correlation with global warming.” 

Bracing for the heat

The researchers evaluated weather patterns around the world from 1979 through 2017. They learned that extreme periods of heat and humidity became twice as likely over that time period. The primary concern is that the heat will affect nearly every facet of consumers’ lives, including their physical health and finances. 

While most consumers are used to seeing a heat index to measure the heat and humidity in their area, meteorologists use the “wet bulb” Centigrade scale. A reading of 32 C or higher is considered to be extreme heat, and the researchers explained that this threshold can make it nearly impossible for consumers to be outside. In terms of Fahrenheit, 32 C comes out to 132 degrees, making these temperatures dangerous for humans. 

The researchers noted that the number of readings of at least 32 C have doubled over time, and periods of such intense heat and humidity are only expected to increase. “It’s hard to exaggerate the effects of anything that gets into the 30s,” said Raymond. 

Eliminating jobs

In addition to the risks to consumers’ health, which are amplified in the humidity, the researchers explained that these frequent high temperatures will have an effect on the economy, as many jobs will become impossible. 

While air conditioning can certainly relieve some of the burden, many regions around the world with the highest temperatures aren’t equipped with air conditioning units, and the effects of staying indoors for long periods of time will be felt around the world. 

“These measurements imply that some areas of Earth are much closer than expected to attaining sustained intolerable heat,” said researcher Steven Sherwood. “It was previously believed we had a much larger margin of safety.” 

The coronavirus pandemic has taken a toll on renewable energy projects and threatens to hamper efforts to curtail climate change. Thousands of clean-energy workers have filed for unemployment and, as a result, the installation of solar energy systems and other renewable energy projects has been put on hold. 

“There are many smaller companies going out of business as we speak,” Abigail Ross Hopper, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association told the Associated Press. “Up to half our jobs are at risk.”

Scientists have expressed concern that the coronavirus-related delay in clean energy projects could hinder efforts to combat climate change. 

Workers benched and projects delayed

Social distancing orders have had the biggest impact on solar panel installation on rooftops and the addition of energy-efficiency measures inside homes, according to the Washington Post. 

“Shelter in place puts limitations on how people can work,” Abigail Ross Hopper, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, told the Post. “Literally, people don’t want other people inside their houses to fix electrical boxes. And there are no door-to-door sales.”

Wind energy companies also expect progress to be slowed this year as the nation deals with the coronavirus pandemic. The American Wind Energy Association said it was “on a roll” right up until the last month or two. Now, projects that would add 25 gigawatts of wind power to the U.S. grid are at risk of being scaled back or even canceled over the next two years due to the health crisis. 

“Pre-pandemic, there were great dreams and aspirations for a record-setting year,” said Paul Gaynor, CEO of Longroad Energy, a utility-scale wind and solar developer. “I’m sure we’re not going to have that.”

Expediting the transition to responsible energy use should be made a priority as the economy reopens, Andrew Pershing, chief scientific officer with Gulf of Maine Research Institute in Portland, Maine, which studies climate change and oceans, told the AP.

“My hope is that we would use this as an opportunity to build toward an economy that doesn’t depend on burning coal and oil and that is more resilient to the climate impacts that are heading our way,” Pershing said.

Consumers interested in harnessing the power of solar energy can visit our guide here to connect with an authorized professional. 

Climate change has created a great deal of stress among consumers, as there is no shortage of health concerns related to rising temperatures and escalating air pollution levels. 

Now, a new study conducted by researchers from Lancaster University has found that consumers shouldn’t wait around for new technologies to help reduce the effects of climate change. Instead, the team says consumers and policymakers need to work together to make shifts in our daily lives in order to see real change. 

“For forty years, climate action has been delayed by technological promises,” said researchers Duncan McLaren and Nils Markusson. “Contemporary promises are equally dangerous. Our work exposes how such promises have raised expectations of more effective policy options becoming available in the future, and thereby enabled a continued politics of prevarication and inadequate action.” 

Creating cultural change

For their study, McLaren and Markusson evaluated technological promises dating back to the early 1990s. They explained that experts have been working to reduce the harmful effects of climate change in a five-step approach: 

• Stabilization 

• Percentage emissions reductions 

• Atmospheric concentrations

• Cumulative budgets

• Outcome temperatures 

In each phase, experts have tried utilizing various technological advances that were believed to be the answer to fighting climate change. The researchers note that some strategies that have been used over the years include nuclear power, bioenergy, emissions technologies, and improved energy efficiency, among several others. 

However, despite these efforts, not much progress has been made. According to McLaren and Markusson, the greatest change will come from cultural shifts as opposed to technological advances. 

“Each novel promise not only competes with existing ideas, but also downplays any sense of urgency, enabling the repeated deferral of political deadlines for climate action and undermining societal commitment to meaningful responses,” the researchers explained. 

Moving forward, the researchers want to put the onus on leaders to make real change happen on the climate change front. If there is a shift in societal behaviors and attitudes, then consumers can expect to put up a solid fight against climate change. 

“Putting our hopes in yet more new technologies is unwise,” McLaren and Markusson said. “Instead, cultural, social, and political transformation is essential to enable widespread deployment of both behavioural and technological responses to climate change.” 

Earth Day is coming up on April 22, and organizers will be trying to host a massive online event to make consumers more aware about the dangers of climate change. But a recent study shows that there may be one section of the population that is less likely to absorb this information and use it in their everyday lives.

Researchers from the University of Wyoming have found that parents are less likely to be as eco-friendly as non-parents. The team says the finding was surprising because of how important climate change can be to future generations.

"While having children makes people focus more on the future and, presumably, care more about the environment, our study suggests that parenthood does not cause people to become 'greener,'" said researchers Jason Shogren and Linda Thunstrom. 

"Becoming a parent can transform a person -- he or she thinks more about the future and worries about future risks imposed on their children and progeny. But, while having children might be transformational, our results suggest that parents' concerns about climate change do not cause them to be 'greener' than non-parent adults."

Convenience and time constraints

The researchers came to their conclusions after analyzing the spending habits of parents and non-parents in Sweden. They found that families with children utilized services and consumed goods that emitted higher levels of CO2. The research team explained that this might be the case because more importance is being placed on convenience because of the time constraints that parents face each day.

“The difference in CO2 emissions between parents and non-parents is substantial, and that's primarily because of increased transportation and food consumption changes," the researchers explained. "Parents may need to be in more places in one day...They also need to feed more people. Eating more pre-prepared, red meat carbon-intensive meals may add convenience and save time."

Shogren and Thunstrom note that these findings are particularly significant because they were conducted in Sweden, which is widely accepted to be more eco-conscious than other nations around the world. This means that the CO2 statistics for other Western countries could be even more pronounced.

The full study has been published in the journal PLOS ONE.

Consumers have had fewer opportunities to get out and enjoy nature lately due to COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean that the annual Earth Day celebration on Wednesday is being canceled. 

The Earth Day Foundation is encouraging consumers to tune in online for a full lineup of performances, messages, teach-ins, and calls to action on April 22 that are focused on fighting climate change. Viewers will be able to watch content from the group’s website here. 

This year’s event marks the 50th anniversary of the first Earth Day celebration that took place in 1970. Famous figures giving performances this year include celebrities like Zac Efron and climate advocates and political figures like John Kerry and Al Gore. 

“The world’s largest civic event is going digital for the first time in its history. We’ll demand that leaders take science seriously, listen to their people, and push for action at every level of society to stop the rising tide of climate change,” the organization said.

Climate and coronavirus

In addition to its climate-focused agenda, the foundation says consumers should also focus their efforts on combating the coronavirus. It says that making a change now to promote sustainability efforts will prevent future pandemics.

“If we don’t demand change to transform our planet and meet our climate crisis, our current state will become the new normal -- a world where pandemics and extreme weather events span the globe, leaving already marginalized and vulnerable communities even more at risk,” the group said.

“While the coronavirus may force us to keep our distance, it will not force us to keep our voices down. The only thing that will change the world is a bold and unified demand for a new way forward.”

With consumers gaining interest in electric cars, experts are now looking into the environmental benefits. 

Researchers from the University of Exeter have found that despite fears surrounding the environmental impact of electric cars, the climate in 95 percent of the world would benefit from the switch. 

“We started this work a few years ago, and policy-makers in the U.K. and abroad have shown a lot of interest in the results,” said Dr. Jean-Francois Mercure. “The answer is clear: to reduce carbon emissions, we should choose electric cars and household heat pumps over fossil-fuel alternatives.” 

Environmental impacts

The study focused on emissions from different kinds of cars and home heating options to better understand what kind of an impact these things have on the environment. 

The researchers utilized technology that allowed them to assess current emissions levels while modeling how they could change if electric vehicles became more widely used. They also divided the world into nearly 60 different regions in an effort to see where these changes would be the most effective. 

The researchers found that electric cars were already outperforming gas-powered vehicles from an environmental perspective in 95 percent of the world, and electric heating in homes had similar environmental benefits. 

They explained that the regions they analyzed -- which included the U.S., Europe, and China -- are hotspots for travel and heating needs. Emissions reductions in these areas would yield drastic environmental improvements. 

Electric energy myths

Because of this widespread reduction in emissions, the researchers are encouraging consumers to make the switch to electric vehicles and electric heating methods for their homes. They argue that any disparaging news surrounding electric cars should be ignored, as their work conclusively found otherwise. 

“In other words, the idea that electric vehicles or electric heat pumps could increase emissions is essentially a myth. We’ve seen a lot of discussion about this recently, with lots of disinformation going around. Here is a definitive study that can dispel those myths,” said Dr. Florian Knobloch.

“We have run the numbers for all around the world, looking at a whole range of cars and heating systems. Even in our worst-case scenario, there would be a reduction in emissions in almost all cases. This insight should be very useful for policymakers.”

It should come as no surprise to consumers that consistently rising temperatures will affect the way humans live, but it will also affect our health in many ways. 

In a recent study, researchers found that extreme heat around the globe could increase the number of cardiovascular-related deaths. 

“While cardiologists and other medical doctors have rightly focused on traditional risk factors, such as diet, blood pressure, and tobacco use, climate change may exacerbate the burden of cardiovascular mortality, especially in very hot regions of the world,” said researcher Barrak Alahmad. 

Heat and risk for heart disease

For the study, the researchers analyzed rising temperatures and cardiovascular-related deaths in Kuwait, a country that has a traditionally higher than average temperature. The researchers evaluated heart-related deaths from 2010 through 2016 and observed what effect the temperature had on mortality. 

While the average temperature in Kuwait is a little higher than 82 degrees, the researchers found that temperatures have risen as high as 129 degrees Fahrenheit, which can make it difficult for consumers already struggling with heart conditions. 

Ultimately, the researchers learned that higher temperatures were associated with a cardiovascular death rate three times higher than normal. Compared to days when the temperature was more manageable, extreme temperatures increased the risk of death by nearly four times for working-age people, which is a huge section of the population. 

Study findings suggest that the risk of death was higher overall during periods of extreme heat, and the mortality rate was higher for men than it was for women. 

These findings are concerning, especially for consumers in the hottest parts of the world. The researchers plan to do more work in this area to try to create some prevention strategies, but their findings emphasize how serious the effects of rising global temperatures can be. 

“The warming of our planet is not evenly distributed,” said Alahmad. “Regions that are inherently hot, like Kuwait and the Arabian Peninsula, are witnessing soaring temperatures unlike ever before. We are sounding the alarm that populations in this part of the world could be at a higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes due to heat.” 

While recent studies have explored the benefits of cultivating green spaces, particularly in urban areas, a new U.K.-based study revealed how creating community gardens in cities can promote healthy eating.  

The researchers found that planting fruits and vegetables in urban green spaces would be a tangible way to help residents make healthier choices. Though the study focuses on locales in the United Kingdom, the findings could certainly be applicable to similar spaces in the U.S. 

“At the moment, the U.K. is utterly dependent on complex international supply chains for the vast majority of our fruit and half of our veg -- but our research suggests there is more than enough space to grow what we need on our doorsteps,” said researcher Dr. Jill Edmondson. “Even farming a small percentage of available land could transform the health of urban populations, enhance a city’s environment, and help build a more resilient food system.” 

Sustainable green spaces

The researchers focused on the city of Sheffield for the study, exploring how more plant-based gardens in green spaces could help residents eat healthier. They used two primary measures to determine the green spaces throughout the city -- Google Earth and the Ordnance Survey, a mapping agency in the U.K. 

Their work revealed that 45 percent of Sheffield is comprised of green space, and there are countless opportunities to turn those spaces into community gardens that would benefit consumers. 

The researchers learned that planting fruits and vegetables in just 10 percent of that available space would give 15 percent of the population -- nearly 90,000 people -- their recommended five servings of fruits and vegetables per day. 

As Dr. Edmondson explained, this project would create a constant influx of fruits and vegetables into the city, minimizing the need for imported deliveries. It would also make healthier options more accessible for consumers. 

While the researchers admit that a lot of legislative work would be needed to pull this off, they believe that the benefits for consumers’ health are clear. 

“It will take a significant cultural and social change to achieve the enormous growing potential of our cities -- and it’s crucial that authorities work closely with communities to find the right balance between green space and horticulture,” said researcher Duncan Cameron. “But with careful management of green spaces and the use of technology to create distribution networks, we could see the rise of ‘smart food cities,’ where local growers can support their communities with fresh, sustainable food.”  

The Washington state legislature is considering a measure that analysts say would effectively shut down the bottled water industry in the state.

The measure, which is championed by environmentalists, would block bottled water companies from filling their bottles with water from natural springs. Activists say the use of natural springs by the bottled water industry is putting a strain on water tables and threatening aquatic life. They also charge that these products contribute to plastic pollution.

With Democrats controlling the state government, chances are good that the bill will become law. It has passed at the state senate level and is expected to get approval from the house.

Washington could become the first state where the industry is blocked throughout the state, though other municipalities have taken similar action. A Michigan court ruled in December in favor of a town’s ordinance that stopped Nestle Waters from getting a permit it said was necessary to help it move water more efficiently.

Targeting plastic

Aside from issues relating to natural sources of water, many environmentalists have targeted the industry to reduce the number of plastic bottles that are produced and end up as waste in landfills and the ocean. San Francisco is among a handful of cities that have limited bottled water within its boundaries in recent years.

The heightened awareness of plastic pollution has prompted at least one company to move away from plastic containers for its water. PepsiCo announced last year that it will start selling canned water as part of an effort to curb its plastic use. 

Aquafina water, which is owned by Pepsi, will be offered in aluminum cans at locations around the world. Pepsi also plans to use 100 percent recycled plastic for its LIFEWTR bottles and switch to using only cans for its Bubly brand sparkling water instead of plastic bottles. 

The company says the changes, which will be implemented this year, will eliminate more than 8,000 metric tons of virgin plastic and about 11,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. 

There are many factors that contribute to consumers’ food waste, but findings from a recent study suggest that how much money you earn and spend could play more of a key role than previously thought.

Researchers from Wageningen University in the Netherlands conducted an analysis that sought to link spending with food waste. They found that relatively low levels of spending were linked with higher levels of waste.

“According to our estimates, annual per capita consumer expenditure of about 2450 (International 2005 USD) or about $6.70/day/capita, is the level at which policy-makers should start paying particular attention to consumer [food waste] in a country and implement consumer awareness and education programs to counter it before it explodes,” the researchers said.

Focus on high-income and developing nations

The team came to their conclusions after analyzing data collected by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). While creating their model, the team found that current FAO estimates focused on food waste were drastically underestimated. 

"Novel research using energy requirement and consumer affluence data shows that consumers waste more than twice as much food as is commonly believed,” the study authors stated. 

To solve this problem, the team suggests that policymakers specifically focus on reducing food waste in high-income countries. Following that, they recommend focusing on countries where affluence is growing so that emerging economies and nations do not follow a similar path.

“If these growing economies follow the same growth paths as the developed regions, we will soon see similar [food waste] patterns evolving,” the researchers warn.

The full study has been published in the journal PLOS ONE.

Climate change is likely to become a hot button issue over the coming months as presidential candidates outline their plans to address the issue. Based on findings from a recent study, consumers will be anxiously waiting to hear these solutions.

Researchers working with the American Psychological Association (APA) conducted a survey and found that over half of U.S. adults (56 percent) think climate change is currently the most important issue facing society. However, only 40 percent have gone the extra step of changing their habits to address it.

That lack of action could have consequences for public health. The researchers say that uncertainty over climate change has led to increased levels of anxiety and stress.

"The health, economic, political and environmental implications of climate change affect all of us. The tolls on our mental health are far reaching," said Dr. Arthur C. Evans Jr., the APA's chief executive officer. 

Where to start?

The statistics from the survey paint an interesting picture of consumers who want to do something about climate change but aren’t sure what actions they can take to make a difference. Over half of respondents (51 percent) said they wouldn’t know where to start.

The researchers found that this uncertainty has led to “eco-anxiety” in 68 percent of U.S. adults. This was particularly prominent among younger adults between the ages of 18 and 34. 

Among the changes that respondents said they were willing to make, reducing waste and recycling led the way at 89 percent. Other potential solutions included upgrading insulation in the home (81 percent), limiting utility usage (79 percent), using renewable energy sources like solar panels (78 percent), reducing overall energy use (77 percent), and limiting air travel (75 percent). 

Other community-driven efforts that could be focused on include writing elected officials to ask for action related to climate change or working with an organization with the goal of enacting change.

"As climate change is created largely by human behavior, psychologists are continuing to study ways in which we can encourage people to make behavioral changes -- both large and small -- so that collectively we can help our planet,” said Evans Jr. 

The ways in which climate change affect consumers’ health -- particularly the youngest population -- have been documented at length. But new findings continue to shed more light on this area of study.

Now, researchers from the University of Texas Health Science Center have found that children are the most likely demographic to experience health complications that arise from climate change. In fact, many could be exposed to those effects before they’re born. 

“It is impossible to predict the scope and impact of climate change in future generations,” wrote researcher Dr. Susan E. Pacheco. “However, the convergence of multiple adverse health outcomes, coming from different pathways of exposure in the prenatal and postnatal life, will likely have a compounding effect that will accelerate or worsen the morbidity and mortality of many health conditions.” 

Children at risk

As temperatures continue to rise around the world and natural disasters become more frequent, Dr. Pacheco explained how the children are at the greatest risk of feeling the effects of living under such conditions. 

She points to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which maintains that a steady increase in global temperatures will lead to three major risk factors for consumers to contend with: 

• An increase of heat waves and fires, which will lead to greater numbers of disease and increased mortality rates as both food- and waterborne illnesses are likely to increase; 

• An increase in pollutants that halt food production, which will affect consumers’ overall nutrition; and

• An increase in diseases spread by ticks, mosquitoes, and fleas.

While Dr. Pacheco is concerned about how these conditions will affect children when they’re young, her research also revealed that it could actually affect them before they’re born. Maternal stress, either from outside factors or due to weather-related disasters, was linked with birth complications that included low birth weight and premature birth. 

Pacheco says it isn’t uncommon for children’s caretakers to struggle mentally and physically in their roles following natural disasters, which can leave young ones lacking basic care and amenities. 

Taking action

Children’s long-term health will continue to be at risk from a health standpoint, as they will not only grow up under these conditions but will experience them getting worse over time. 

“We will continue to see an increase in heat-associated conditions in children, such as asthma, Lyme disease, as well as an increase in congenital heart defects,” said Dr. Pacheco. 

Dr. Pacheco has a very simple call to action for consumers moving forward: avoid complacency. She explained that climate change won’t just disappear without serious intervention, and the youngest population is likely to suffer the most. 

“We cannot act as if we are immune to these threats,” she said. “We can jump to action or stand in complacent indifference.”

Many consumers are making conscious efforts to reduce their food waste, which oftentimes requires a careful reading and understanding of food labels. 

However, researchers from Penn State have found that despite these sustainability efforts, food waste is still running rampant across the United States, with consumers throwing away nearly one-third of all food in their homes. 

“Our findings are consistent with previous studies, which have shown that that 30 percent and 40 percent of the total food supply in the United States goes uneaten -- and that means that resources used to produce the uneaten food, including land, energy, water, and labor, are wasted as well,” said researcher Edward Jaenicke. 

“But this study is the first to identify and analyze the level of food waste for individual households, which has been nearly impossible to estimate because comprehensive, current data on uneaten food at the household level do not exist.” 

The food waste epidemic

The researchers analyzed 4,000 responses to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Household Food Acquisition Survey. 

Because respondents to the survey are required to provide information like height, weight, gender, and age, the researchers could use these factors to most accurately assess food waste. Participants reported on the food they were getting and throwing away, and the researchers were able to calculate the waste by determining how much food the participants’ bodies physically required. 

While food waste was occurring in nearly 32 percent of all participants’ homes, the researchers learned that some participants were more likely to waste than others. 

For example, proximity to the grocery store was a factor in food waste, as those who had a further commute back and forth to the store were less likely to waste food. Conversely, households following specific, oftentimes healthy, diets were throwing away more food, most likely because the shelf life of fruits and vegetables isn’t very long. 

“More than two-thirds of households in our study have food-waste estimates of between 20 percent and 50 percent,” Jaenicke said. “However, even the least wasteful households waste 8.7 percent of the food it acquires.” 

Plan before you shop

According to Jaenicke, planning before going to the grocery store is essential, as those who went grocery shopping with a list were also less likely to waste food. 

“This suggests that planning and food management are factors that influence the amount of wasted food,” said Jaenicke. 

The researchers hope that these findings can inspire further work in this area, as knowing what leads consumers to waste food can hopefully help put plans in place to reduce such waste. 

“While the precise measurement of food waste is important, it may be equally important to investigate further how household-specific factors influence how much food is wasted,” said Jaenicke. “We hope our methodology provides a new lens through which to analyze individual household food waste.” 

Some companies are taking the initiative to stay on the good side of younger consumers who are driving a trend towards more eco-friendly business practices. The latest example is Starbucks, which announced a new set of standards it hopes to meet by the year 2030.

In a public letter, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson said that his company is trying to “think bigger” when it comes to taking steps to protect the planet. With that in mind, he said that Starbucks will be taking the next decade to “become resource positive and give more than we take from the planet.”

“Sustainability has been at Starbucks core since the beginning and consistent with our belief that we can build a great business that scales for good,” he said. 

New sustainability goals

The new goals that Starbucks lays out focus primarily on reducing the company’s waste, carbon footprint, and water use. Three preliminary targets that Johnson lays out in his letter include:

• Reducing 50 percent of Starbucks’ carbon emissions through its direct operations and supply chain;

• Conserving or replenishing 50 percent of water withdrawal for direct operations and coffee production, with a focus on communities and basins with high water risk; and 

• Reducing waste sent to landfills from stores and manufacturing locations by 50 percent, with a broader shift toward a circular economy.

In addition to these goals, Johnson says Starbucks will be looking to implement five additional environmental strategies that it will reassess with the rest of its pledge in 2021 when Starbucks celebrates its 50th anniversary. 

The five strategies include:

• Expanding plant-based options to migrate towards a more environmentally friendly menu.

• Shifting from single-use to reusable packaging.

• Investing in innovative and regenerative agricultural practices, reforestation, forest conservation, and water replenishment in the company’s supply chain.

• Investing in better ways to manage waste -- both in stores and communities -- to ensure more reuse, recycling, and elimination of food waste. 

• Innovating to develop more eco-friendly stores, operations, manufacturing, and delivery.

“Today is a milestone for our business as we declare our concern for our planet’s future and commit to do more,” Johnson concluded.

America’s renewable energy sector hasn’t let the Trump administration's views on green energy and climate change get in the way for a second. According to research by BloombergNEF, the U.S. invested  $55.5 billion in green technologies last year, a sizable increase of 28 percent.

That $55 billion puts the U.S. second only to China and solidly ahead of Europe. Renewable energy investment in both of those continents slid -- China by 8 percent to $83.4 billion and Europe by 7 percent to $54.3 billion.

Conversely, Brazil’s investments skyrocketed, too -- 74 percent to $6.5 billion -- even though the country is saddled by its own climate-skeptic President, Jair Bolsonaro. 

Could the answer be blowing in the wind?

Bloomberg’s research says the U.S. surge comes out of wind and solar companies that were rushing to qualify for federal tax credits before they are taken off the table later this year.

“It’s notable that in the third year of the Trump presidency, which has not been particularly supportive of renewables, U.S. clean energy investment set a new record by a country mile,” said Ethan Zindler, head of Americas for BNEF.

All in

“Electricity utilities have begun to note the importance of providing renewable energy, and many have begun to invest in these technologies,” is what T. Wang sees from Statista’s perch. 

“Using large-scale renewable projects for rural areas or developing countries can also benefit these regions, as electricity in these areas is typically of poor quality, inefficiently used, and unreliably supplied. Using renewable energy can improve the quality of life and economic production, and benefit the environment.”

Getting all the way there will take some time. Nonetheless, some companies aren’t waiting. Apple, for one, is looking to be powered by renewable energy not just in the U.S., but worldwide.

Are you interested in determining if your house is a good candidate for renewable technologies? Are you curious about how you can refit your home with renewable-powered air conditioners, water heaters, and other equipment? If so, ConsumerAffairs has created a guide on the companies offering those services. It’s available here.

It can be invigorating for urban-dwelling consumers to get away from the cities they live in and spend some time in the great outdoors. Unfortunately, a recent study suggests that those who don’t get this chance may be more negatively affected than they think.

Researchers from the University of Exeter suggest that those who don’t take time to reconnect with nature are less likely to make decisions that benefit the environment. Conversely, they say that those who are able to experience nature more often are more likely to make eco-conscious choices.

“Over 80 percent of the English population now live in urban areas and are increasingly detached from the natural world,” said Dr. Ian Alcock, lead author of the study.

“The results are correlational so there is always the issue of untangling cause and effect, but our results based on a very large representative sample are consistent with experimental work which shows that people become more pro-environmental after time spent in natural vs. urban settings,” added co-researcher Dr. Mat White.

Creating green spaces

The research team came to their conclusions after looking at survey responses from over 24,000 respondents. Participants answered questions about their exposure to nature, the number of trips they take to green spaces like parks and beaches, and their overall feelings about the natural world. 

Responses showed that consumers who lived in greener neighborhoods or along the coast were more likely to make eco-friendly choices in their day-to-day lives. The finding held true against several factors, such as gender, age, and socioeconomic status. 

To bring urban consumers into a more eco-friendly mindset, the researchers hope that city officials take greater steps when it comes to creating green spaces in cities that consumers can visit. 

“Greening our cities is often proposed to help us adapt to climate change -- for example, city parks and trees can reduce urban heat spots. But our results suggest urban greening could help reduce the damaging behaviours which cause environmental problems in the first place by reconnecting people to the natural world,” said Alcock. 

The full study has been published in the journal Environment International.

Consumers have started taking more eco-friendly measures, including switching up their eating and shopping habits, in an effort to be kinder to the earth. However, a new study discovered how certain conservation efforts could come with some unexpected repercussions. 

Researchers from Michigan State University found that reforestation efforts, which work to transform farmland into forests as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, often come with rather large price tags that the poorest farmers are left to pay. 

“The ignorance of this hidden cost might leave local communities under-compensated under the program and exacerbate poverty,” said researcher Hongbo Yang. “Such problems may ultimately compromise the sustainability of conservation. As losses due to human-wildlife conflicts increase, farmers may increasingly resent conservation efforts.” 

Where do the costs come from?

To understand how farmers can become vulnerable to unexpected costs and other constraints on their general day-to-day tasks, the researchers evaluated the effects of a popular reforestation effort in China known as the Grain-to-Green Program (GTGP).  

In transforming part of their land from cropland to forests, the researchers learned that the farmers' livelihoods were seriously compromised, as they now had smaller plots of land to reap profits from. 

While this alone was troubling, the research also revealed that the transformation process, though beneficial to the environment, proved to be the perfect atmosphere for bugs and other pests. So, the farmers not only had less farmland to work with, but what they did have was compromised by an assortment of critters. 

The researchers worked to estimate how these efforts affected farmers’ bottom lines, and they determined that farmers lost nearly 30 percent of their earnings, while nearly 65 percent of their goods were destroyed by pestering wildlife. 

“Those sweeping conservation efforts in returning cropland to vegetated land might have done so with an until-now hidden consequence: it increased the wildlife damage to remaining cropland and thus caused unintended cost that whittled away at the program’s compensation for farmers,” said Yang. 

Finding better conservation policies

Moving forward, the researchers are concerned with how these conservation efforts could affect farmers, particularly those already struggling monetarily. They hope that new efforts can be initiated that are beneficial to all parties. 

“Conservation policies only can endure, and be declared successful, when both nature and humans thrive,” and researcher Jianguo Liu. “Many of these trade-offs and inequities are difficult to spot unless you take a very broad, deep look at the situation, yet these balances are crucial to success.” 

As climate change threats continue to loom, consumers have started taking their own measures to lessen their ecological footprints. 

Now, researchers from the University of Gothenburg have found that many consumers could be overly confident when it comes to the steps they’re taking to better the environment. According to a survey, many individuals believe that they’re practicing more sustainable habits than the average consumer. 

“The results point out our tendency to overestimate our own abilities, which is in line with previous studies where most people consider themselves to be more honest, more creative, and better drivers than others,” said researcher Magnus Bergquist. “This study shows that over-optimism, or the ‘better-than-average’ effect, also applies to environmentally friendly behaviours.” 

Understanding consumers’ mindsets

To get a sense of how consumers view their own environmentally friendly behaviors, the researchers conducted a survey of consumers from different parts of the world -- India, England, Sweden, and the United States. 

The survey required participants to report on how often they completed sustainable behaviors, including anything from opting for eco-friendly products or reducing how often they use single-use plastic. 

The researchers learned that the majority of participants rated themselves as above average citizens when it comes to caring for the environment. This was true when the participants ranked themselves against strangers and people they know in their day-to-day lives. 

This could become troubling, as the researchers worry that this overconfidence will lead consumers to scale back on the activities and actions that are benefiting the environment because they think that they’re already doing more than enough. 

Working harder

The researchers say this attitude among consumers is common for more than just environmental efforts. However, it’s important that consumers look honestly at the ways they’re being proactive about sustainability and work to be more encouraging in future efforts. 

“If you think about it logically, the majority cannot be more environmentally friendly than others,” said Bergquist. “One way to change this faulty opinion, is to inform people that others actually behave environmentally friendly, and thereby creating an environmentally friendly norm. Social norms affect us also in this area, we know this from previous studies.”  

In an open letter published Monday, U.S. business leaders pushed for the government to renew its commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement. The letter comes roughly a month after the Trump administration announced that it would begin formally withdrawing from the climate pact. 

Tech executives -- including Apple CEO Tim Cook, Tesla’s Elon Musk, Google’s Sundar Pichai, Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, and The Walt Disney Company’s Bob Iger, among others -- expressed strong support for the idea of staying in the Paris Agreement. 

"There has been progress, but not enough," reads the United For The Paris Agreement letter. "This moment calls for greater, more accelerated action than we've seen. It calls for the strong policy framework the Paris Agreement provides, one that allows the US the freedom to choose our own path to emissions reductions."

Need for government action 

Beyond signaling their support of the agreement, the company executives urged the United States to reconsider its plan to withdraw from the climate pact. On Twitter, Apple CEO Tim Cook said "humanity has never faced a greater or more urgent threat than climate change."

The agreement, they say, will help counter the effects of climate change as well as pave the way for a “just transition” of the U.S. workforce to “new decent, family supporting jobs and economic opportunity.” 

The joint statement was signed by the heads of 75 companies, along with the AFL-CIO, which represents 12.5 million workers. 

“We the undersigned are a group of CEOs who employ more than 2 million people in the United States and union leaders who represent 12.5 million workers,” the letter reads. “Together, we know that driving progress on addressing climate change is what’s best for the economic health, jobs, and competitiveness of our companies and our country.” 

At an event in Austin on Tuesday, Dell unveiled new sustainability targets intended to help advance its mission of shrinking its carbon footprint. 

"Our goals are centered around four areas: Advancing sustainability, cultivating inclusion, transforming lives, and upholding ethics and data privacy," Michael Dell, chairman and CEO of Dell Technologies said at the event. 

Under its “Progress Made Real” plan, the tech giant is aiming to reuse or recycle one “equivalent product” for every product a customer buys by 2030. Dell also pledged to make more than half of its devices from recycled or renewable material. 

“100% of our packaging will be made from recycled or renewable material,” Dell said. “More than half of our product content will be made from recycled or renewable material.”

Dell’s competitor Apple has also announced that its making an effort to curb its environmental impact, revealing that, as of last year, all of its facilities were powered by clean energy.

“We’re committed to leaving the world better than we found it. After years of hard work we’re proud to have reached this significant milestone,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said in a statement. 

“We’re going to keep pushing the boundaries of what is possible with the materials in our products, the way we recycle them, our facilities and our work with suppliers to establish new creative and forward-looking sources of renewable energy because we know the future depends on it.”

As new reports continue to reveal the potential environmental threats consumers could face if real change isn’t made, researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology have conducted a study that predicts what could happen if regulations designed to protect the environment are reversed. 

The researchers focused on the fight against ozone, which is incredibly harmful to consumers’ breathing and overall respiratory health. They found just how difficult it would be to reverse the effects of perpetuated environmental damages if current regulations were rolled back. 

“Ozone can occur hundreds of miles away, so if controls are loosened in one state to save industry money there, a state downstream may have to spend even more to try to meet ozone targets,” said researcher Ted Russell. “You transfer the problem and the costs. Most U.S. cities are already not in attainment, and this will likely make it harder for them to get there.” 

The wide-reaching effects of ozone

The researchers’ study is thorough in identifying the wide range of effects that increased ozone can have on the environment and consumers’ health more generally. The research team says prominent policy decisions are at the core of these negative consequences. 

For starters, they explain how the struggle between government officials to get on the same page about climate change, and implement policy that reflects those attitudes, has the potential to derail positive efforts. Specifically, they point to attempts by the Trump Administration to pass legislation that would make it easier to burn fossil fuels, while also continuing to fight regulations that would reduce the overall ozone production. 

Moreover, governmental incentives to go green -- like opting for solar panels or using more wind-powered energy sources -- are being cut, which can contribute to an increase in pollution while also making it harder for consumers to do their part for the environment. 

“Incentives are being retired like production and investment tax credits, which have been very influential in solar and wind,” said researcher Marilyn Brown. “The Investment Tax Credit gives a 30 percent tax reduction for investments in solar or wind farms or the purchase of solar rooftop panels by homeowners. The Production Tax Credit for utilities reduces tax liabilities by 23 cents for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by solar, wind, or other renewable energy sources.” 

The researchers used this information to create a model that predicts how different parts of the world would be affected by rising ozone levels. They project that rising temperatures worldwide and the continued production of fossil fuels will cause ozone levels to continue to rise. The cost of caring for such side effects may also increase, while the overall health of consumers is projected to worsen. 

“Additional ozone is tough to control technologically,” said Russell. “The costs would be very high -- tens of billions of dollars. In the meantime, more people than would die than otherwise would have.” 

Tesla is set to launch a third version of its solar roof tile this week. During the company’s third-quarter earnings call on Wednesday, CEO Elon Musk said that an official announcement about the product -- including how it’s different from the last two versions -- is coming at an event Thursday afternoon. 

"Tomorrow afternoon we will be releasing version three of the Tesla solar roof," Musk said. "I think this is a great product. Versions one and two we were still figuring things out — version three is finally ready for the big time."

Earlier this year, Musk promised that the third iteration of the product would last 30 years. 

“We are about to complete version 3 of the solar roof,” he said. “This is actually quite a hard technology problem to have an integrated solar cell with a roof tile, have it look good, and last for 30 years.”

Problems with previous solar panels 

The launch of the new solar tiles comes in the wake of legal issues stemming from the company’s solar panels. In August, Walmart filed a lawsuit against Tesla claiming that its solar panels caught fire on the roofs of seven Walmart stores between 2012 and 2018. 

Musk said that the issue was caused by failures in a “small number” of parts that help regulate the amount of energy flowing into a solar panel. In a joint statement, Walmart and Tesla said they “look forward to addressing all issues and re-energizing Tesla solar installations at Walmart stores, once all parties are certain that all concerns have been addressed.”

Musk said on the call that Solar Roof V3 will boast improved performance, which will help consumers save money and offset the cost of the purchase for the new roof. 

"There's no money down and you instantly save on your utility bill and there's no long-term contract," Musk said. "It's really a no-brainer. Do you want something that prints money? And if it doesn't print money, we'll fix it or take it back."

With the busy summer travel season now in the rearview mirror, researchers from the University of Texas at San Antonio have analyzed how increased travel is affecting the environment. 

The team found that excessive plane travel, particularly when consumers book flights that require a connection to their final destination, is increasing total carbon emissions. 

“This paper provides one of the first efforts to quantify the carbon emissions associated with tourist air travel in the continental United States,” said researcher Neil Debbage. 

Choosing non-stop flights

The researchers analyzed data from the International Civil Aviation Organization to get a better understanding of how consumers’ travel plans were impacting the environment. 

The study focused on plane routes (both connecting and non-stop flights) to 13 major tourist spots in the U.S. The list included Miami-Dade county and Los Angeles county, as well as 10 of the biggest cities in the northeast, like Boston and New York. 

Ultimately, the researchers discovered that air travel was a major contributor to an increase in carbon emissions, with connecting flights producing worse environmental outcomes than non-stop flights. 

The researchers explained that suggested emission limits have been put in place in an effort to keep pollution under control, with 575 carbon dioxide kg/person per year being the magic number. The study revealed that while many direct flights have been successful in staying under that figure, the same success hasn’t been possible with connecting flights. 

After analyzing all of the flights involved in this study, the researchers found that around half went above suggested limits. The findings emphasize just how widespread this issue is, as most consumers tend not to think past the price tag when booking flights -- especially when fares continue to increase over the summer months. 

While Debbage suggests that consumers “select nonstop routes whenever possible” as a way to cut down on carbon emissions, it’s crucial that lawmakers do their part to ensure that everything possible is being done to combat rising emissions levels. 

A new study conducted by researchers from Newcastle University found that the setting consumers use on their washing machines could affect the environment. 

According to the researchers, microfibers are pulled from clothes during each wash cycle, all of which ultimately end up in the ocean. The team says that wash cycles that use more water -- such as the delicate setting -- release more microfibers and are polluting the oceans at a faster rate. 

“Previous research has suggested the speed the drum spins at, the number of times it changes spinning direction during a cycle and the length of pauses in the cycle -- all known as the machine agitation -- is the most important factor in the amount of microfibre released,” said researcher Max Kelly. “But we have shown that even at reduced levels of agitation, microfibre release is still greatest with higher water-volume-to-fabric ratios.” 

Choosing the most eco-friendly cycle

The researchers tested different wash cycles to determine which was causing the most amount of microfibers to release. The tests were done on machines that mimicked typical household washing machines. 

The researchers learned that the amount of water the washing machine cycle utilized was the biggest contributor to microfiber pollution after looking at the amount of water released, the temperature of the water, how fast the machine spun, and how long the cycle ran. 

On traditional household washing machines, consumers should avoid the delicate wash and instead opt for a more standard setting; this was proven to reduce both water use and the amount of microfibers pulled from the clothes. The study revealed that delicate cycles were producing roughly 800,000 more microfibers than a more basic cycle. 

“Counterintuitively, we discovered that ‘delicate’ cycles release more plastic microfibres into the water, and the environment, than standard cycles,” Kelly said. 

Moving forward, the researchers hope that consumers can do their parts and adjust their laundry habits to be the most eco-friendly. They also hope that manufacturers and clothing companies step up to make these habits easier for consumers and safer for the environment. 

“By avoiding high water-volume-to-fabric washes such as the delicate cycles and ensuring full wash loads then we can all do our bit to help reduce the amount of these synthetic fibres being released into the environment,” Kelly said. 

While many consumers have started doing more in their daily lives to reduce their carbon footprints, a new study conducted by researchers from the University of East Anglia found that businesses should consider increasing their sustainability efforts. 

The study revealed that ignoring the issue of climate change will not only create more problems for consumers, but it will also cost companies more money in the long-run than it would have if they had taken more active steps.

“Acting on climate change has a good return on investment when one considers the damages avoided by acting,” said researcher Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. 

Positive return on fighting climate change

The researchers are concerned about the world at large, but they believe that climate change can be particularly harsh on poorer populations and regions. They want to enlist the help of world leaders to help make a change. 

The team addressed several facets of climate change that could have a devastating effect on people, places, and animals, including rising sea levels, massive animal extinctions, and rising global temperatures. 

“This is not an academic issue, it is a matter of life and death for people everywhere,” said researcher Michael Taylor. “That said, people from small island States and low-lying countries are in the immediate cross-hairs of climate change.” 

Much of the researchers’ findings look at the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which focused on reducing the rising global temperature. 

Though experts previously thought that limiting global warming to just two degrees Celsius would be sufficient, Hoegh-Guldberg and his team say that keeping that figure closer to 1.5 degrees Celsius would actually be the best scenario. However, they say it’s up to lawmakers to put the initiatives in motion that will help slow global warming. 

“If such a policy is not implemented, we will continue on the upward trajectory of burning fossil fuels and continuing deforestation, which will expand the already large-scale degradation of ecosystems,” said researcher Rachel Warren. “To be honest, the overall picture is very grim unless we act.” 

The researchers hope that world leaders and policymakers take these warnings seriously and do everything in their power to preserve the environment. 

“Current emission reduction commitments are inadequate risk throwing many nations into chaos and harm, with a particular vulnerability of poor peoples,” said Hoegh-Guldberg. “To avoid this, we must accelerate action and tighten emission reduction targets so that they fall in line with the Paris Agreement.” 

“Tackling climate change is a tall order,” he continued. “However, there is no alternative from the perspective of human well-being -- and too much at stake not to act urgently on this issue.” 

Amazon announced on Thursday that it has signed on to a commitment to meet the terms of the Paris climate agreement a full decade earlier than initially proposed. 

The “Climate Pledge,” which Amazon is the first corporation to sign, seeks to drive down companies’ carbon emissions to net zero by 2040 instead of 2050, as previously outlined in the Paris Accord.

“We’re done being in the middle of the herd on this issue—we’ve decided to use our size and scale to make a difference,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and CEO, in a press release.

Bezos says he hopes other big companies will sign the Climate Pledge in the near future “because the need for speed is very great.” 

Reducing climate impact

The company’s pledge to ramp up its carbon-reduction efforts comes a day before thousands of Amazon employees plan to walk out of the company’s Seattle headquarters to protest Amazon’s insufficient efforts to address the climate crisis. 

"As employees at one of the largest and most powerful companies in the world, our role in facing the climate crisis is to ensure our company is leading on climate, not following," Amazon Employees for Climate Justice wrote in a Medium post. "We have to take responsibility for the impact that our business has on the planet and on people."

At a press conference in Washington DC, Bezos told reporters that Amazon intends to “alter its “actual business activities to eliminate carbon” and acquire “credible” carbon offsets based on “nature-based solutions,” including solar energy. 

Dave Clark, senior vice president of Amazon Operations, said Amazon has already ordered 100,000 electric delivery vehicles from startup Rivian to support the company’s environmental goals. In a tweet, Clark noted that it’s “the largest order of electric delivery vehicles ever” and that consumers will start seeing them on the roads starting in 2021. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is repealing a 2015 Obama administration-era rule that expanded the government’s definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act. 

EPA, along with the U.S. Army, is recodifying the regulatory text that existed prior to the 2015 rule change, ending what it called a regulatory patchwork.

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the move corrects “the previous administration’s overreach” in implementing federal regulations.

“This is a new WOTUS definition that will provide greater regulatory certainty for farmers, landowners, home builders, and developers nationwide,” Wheeler said.

Quick reaction

Environmental groups were quick to criticize the move. The American Fisheries Society was among the first to warn of the impact when the rule was proposed, saying the action would significantly narrow the scope of protections for U.S. waters. 

“The proposal would replace the science-based 2015 rule which includes protections for headwaters, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and wetlands,” the group said at the tiime. “The new proposal (Replacement Rule) would substantially weaken the Clean Water Act, one of the nation’s most effective natural resource laws.”

Jon Devine, director of federal water policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), says the Trump administration’s action will likely be challenged in court.

“The Clean Water Rule represented solid science and smart public policy,” Devine said in a statement. “Where it has been enforced, it has protected important waterways and wetlands, providing certainty to all stakeholders.”

Complexity of the waterway system

When it implemented the rule in 2015, the Obama administration said it was acknowledging the complexity of the nation’s waterway system and its importance to environmental health. But farmers, ranchers, and developers complained that the expanded definition of what constitutes a waterway was significantly limiting what they could do on their land.

In announcing the final rule, Wheeler said the Obama-era rule had produced numerous complaints and lawsuits from as many as 31 states. The Trump administration announced a review of WOTUS soon after taking office.

The Trump administration on Wednesday finalized its rollback of requirements for more energy-efficient lightbulbs. Wednesday’s filing by the Department of Energy (DOE) would prevent a set of efficiency requirements from taking effect in January 2020. 

The requirements would have applied to about half of the 6 billion light bulbs used in the nation and “would have avoided millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere,” according to CNBC. 

Opponents of the rule change say undoing the Bush-era requirements -- which were approved by a bipartisan Congress in 2007 and aimed to phase out inefficient bulbs -- could speed up global warming by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. 

However, the DOE claims the change won’t have significant repercussions since it will only impact a small percentage of the lighting market. 

“A more strict standard would only affect a small slice of the market,” a DOE official told reporters. “This is not a rule that radically affects the lighting market overall.”

The bulbs that would be affected by the change include decorative globes in bathrooms, candle-shaped lights, three-way lightbulbs, and reflector bulbs. If the rule change goes into effect in January as planned, the efficiency requirements for those four categories of bulbs would be eliminated. 

Consumers could pay more

Consumer groups have estimated that less efficient bulbs will also lead to higher annual energy costs for U.S. consumers. 

“The Energy Department flat out got it wrong today,” said Jason Hartke, the president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a group representing industrial, technological, and clean energy companies. 

“Instead of moving us forward, this rule will keep more energy-wasting bulbs on store shelves and saddle the average American household with about $100 in unnecessary energy costs every year. At a time when we need to take aggressive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this is an unforced error,” Hartke said.

The changes are likely to face opposition in the coming months.  

“We will explore all options, including litigation, to stop this completely misguided and unlawful action,” Noah Horowitz, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency Standards at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.

“Today’s action sets the United States up to become the world’s dumping ground for the inefficient incandescent and halogen bulbs being phased out around the world. Given the worsening climate crisis, this is no time to significantly increase pollution and consumer energy bills just so a few lighting companies can make more money selling inefficient bulbs.”

In a move intended to cut down on plastic waste, Marriott International has announced that it will no longer be stocking its rooms with travel-sized toiletries. 

The hotel chain said on Wednesday that tiny bottles of shampoo, conditioner, and bath gel will be replaced with larger, pump-topped bottles or wall-mounted dispensers. 

Marriott said it tested the swap in some of its North American locations last year. Now, the company says most of its 7,000 locations across the globe will see the change implemented by December 2020. 

With wider implementation, the chain expects to reduce its plastic disposal by 30 percent. Almost two million pounds of plastic will be diverted from landfills as a result of the change, according to Marriott.

"Our guests are looking to us to make changes that will create a meaningful difference for the environment while not sacrificing the quality service and experience they expect from our hotels," Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson said in a statement.

Others in the industry have also announced efforts to minimize their impact on the environment. Last month, IHG (which owns Holiday Inn) said it planned to eliminate tiny tubes of toiletries and replace them with larger-sized bottles. The Walt Disney Co. has also said it’s in the process of eliminating individual toiletries from its hotel rooms.  

In an effort to discover why consumers are throwing away food, researchers from Ohio State University set out to uncover trends among food waste habits. 

According to their study, the biggest problem is misunderstanding food labels. The team found that many consumers get stuck on the wording printed on their food and throw things away to avoid eating something potentially expired. 

“People eat a lot less of their refrigerated food than they expect to, and they’re likely throwing out perfectly good food because they misunderstand labels,” said researcher Brian Roe. 

What do the labels mean?

The researchers came to their conclusions after analyzing responses from 300 participants in two separate surveys. The answers were meant to highlight what food consumers were buying and what they did with perishable products after a certain amount of time.

“We wanted to understand how people are using the refrigerator and if it is a destination where half-eaten food goes to die,” said Roe. “That’s especially important because much of the advice that consumers hear regarding food waste is to refrigerate (and eat) leftovers, and to ‘shop’ the refrigerator first before ordering out or heading to the store.” 

The study revealed that consumers were overly confident in how much of their groceries they’d eat every week. On average, participants predicted they’d eat over 70 percent of their fruit, but most of the time they only consumed 40 percent of it.

Similarly, survey respondents thought they’d eat nearly 100 percent of the meat they bought for the week, but they actually ate just about half of it. Nearly identical trends emerged with dairy products and vegetables, and experts believe it all stems from confusion over labels on food. 

“No one knows what ‘use by’ and ‘best by’ labels mean and people think they are a safety indicator when they are generally a quality indicator,” said Roe. 

The researchers also found other trends emerge, including older households wasting less than younger ones. Consumers who frequently cleaned out their refrigerators were also guilty of wasting more. 

The goal of this study was to highlight areas where consumers can be better about minimizing their food waste, but the researchers hope their work will inform legislators so they can step in and help consumers reduce their food waste. 

“Our results suggest that strategies to reduce food waste in the U.S. should include limiting and standardizing the number of phrases used on date labels, and education campaigns to help consumers better understand the physical signs of food safety and quality,” said researcher Megan Davenport. 

In a series of tweets over the weekend, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced that his company is relaunching its solar power program and giving consumers the ability to rent panels. 

Consumers in a half dozen states (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New Mexico) will be able to rent solar power systems on a monthly basis. 

Prices for a small array of panels will start at $50 a month, or $65 in California. Tesla won’t be implementing a long-term contract, so consumers can cancel anytime. However, the company’s website notes that there is a $1,500 charge to remove panels. 

Decline in solar business

Tesla fueled its solar power business plan through the $2.6 billion purchase of SolarCity in 2016, but installations have declined in recent quarters and the electric automaker stopped selling the systems in Home Depot stores. 

Rebooting the program and adding rental offerings could boost sales by appealing to homeowners who are wary of the idea of a long-term contract. 

Musk says solar panels can cut costs so much that it's "like having a money printer on your roof." The initial cost includes panel installation, hardware, and ongoing maintenance.

Last month, Musk said he’s aiming to manufacture about 1,000 solar rooftops a week by the end of 2019.

Google has become the latest company to promise that it will be improving its sustainability efforts in the coming years. 

In a blog post on Monday, the tech giant announced that it will be using all recycled materials to create its hardware products by 2022. The pledge extends to all “Made by Google” products, including Pixel smartphones, Google Nest, Google Home speakers, and other gadgets and accessories. 

“We’re always working to do more, faster. But today we’re laying the foundation for what we believe will be a way of doing business that commits to building better products better,” said Anna Meegan, Google’s head of sustainability and consumer hardware.

Focusing on sustainability

In addition to making its “Made by Google” products from only recycled materials, Google says that it will ensure that all of its shipments going to or from customers will be carbon neutral by 2020. 

Officials say that the move is inspired by the idea that all of the company’s products eventually be designed so that they can last as long as possible while simultaneously being easier to recycle at the end of their life cycle. In an interview with Fast Company, Google hardware design team head Ivy Ross explains how sustainability came to the forefront of the design process.

“Some people think design is about making things look pretty or look good,” she said. “And really design is about solving problems for humanity...I said to the team, wait a minute, [sustainability] is just another problem and is probably the most important problem of our lifetime. Won’t we feel great as designers if we are taking that on?”

This isn’t the first hint that Google has been leaning towards sustainable practices. Meegan points out that the company was able to reduce its carbon emissions by 40 percent from 2017 to 2018. It’s also currently looking to provide Nest thermostats to 1 million “consumers in need” in hopes of reducing energy costs.

In a new study, researchers deconstructed the struggles many nations are facing in trying to gain ground when it comes to meeting the tenants of the Paris Climate Agreement. 

The agreement involves individual countries creating pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs); however, it’s a lack of consistency in the formatting of those pledges that creates the biggest stumbling blocks for progress, experts say. 

“The Paris Climate Agreement was a step in the right direction for international climate policy,” said researcher Lewis King. “But in its current form, it is at best inadequate and at worst grossly ineffective. Our study highlights significant issues around transparency and consistency in the agreement’s pledges, which may be a contributory factor towards the lack of ambition in the pledges from parties.” 

Getting inside the pledges

The researchers analyzed the various pledges by breaking them down into four categories: emission intensity reductions, absolute emission reduction targets, “business as usual” (BAU) reduction, and pledges that didn’t include emissions targets. 

The biggest issue has been clarity. Because the individual countries have so many options when it comes to formatting the pledges, it’s difficult for experts to understand how effective the pledges are in completing what they set out to, which is why there have been so many discrepancies.  

Though the goal of all countries is to reduce emissions, the various formatting options leave many pledges with ambiguous language. Though experts work to put all pledges on the same playing field, some countries end up with emissions increases by 2030, as opposed to decreases. 

“Not only does this make associated pledges difficult to interpret and compare to other pledges without detailed analysis, but may produce a psychological effect of reducing ambition level due to framing the pledge as a percentage reduction even though emissions actually increase,” said researcher Jeroen van den Bergh. 

According to the researchers, absolute emission reduction targets are typically the most effective, as this requires countries to set goals for reducing emissions by a specific percentage, based on a baseline from years’ past -- typically between 1990 and 2014 -- with a target year in mind to reach the goal. Some countries are ambitious enough to shoot for 2025, though the majority are set on 2030. 

“We found that authentic absolute reduction pledges had the highest ambition in terms of tangible emission reduction,” said King. “By contrast, pledges in the other three categories tend to produce low ambitions with significant emissions increases of 29-53 percent at a global level.” 

The researchers hope that countries involved in the Paris Climate Agreement can work to create uniform pledges, so as to minimize confusion, streamline the process, and make it easier for nations to reach their goals and feel good about doing so. 

“Society has the right to be able to clearly understand and compare climate change commitments by countries, including whether they are fair, ambitious, and add up to international climate goals,” said King. “We also know that providing consistent and easily comparable information about national climate goals helps with public acceptance.” 

The fight against climate change

As pollution continues to get worse in the United States, and new studies consistently report on how dangerous it can be to consumers’ health, there are some forces working to fight climate change. 

Companies like Facebook and Lyft have become dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while a group of young Americans have taken up a lawsuit against the Trump administration because of an alleged lack of concern regarding climate change. 

The group, going by the name Youth, believes that the Trump administration has violated consumers’ constitutional rights in not doing more to fight against climate change. 

While countless efforts are being made by consumers to reduce their carbon footprints, a new study conducted by researchers from the University of New Hampshire suggests that shale natural gas development are taking away areas consumers commonly enjoy for outdoor recreation.

According to the researchers, outdoor activities like hiking and camping have become severely impacted due to shale natural gas development (SGD) efforts. 

“What most people don’t realize is that a lot of the shale natural gas energy development is happening within or adjacent to public parks and protected areas,” said researcher Michael Ferguson. “So those who love playing in the great outdoors are often encountering anything from heavy duty truck traffic congestion to actual construction and drilling operations while recreating on public lands.” 

What this looks like

The researchers were inspired to start this research project after learning how the Trump administration had given the green light for SGD efforts on land that was previously protected from such projects. 

Areas that have been commonly used by consumers to hike or camp are instead being used for exploration of oil and natural gas, and these digs are impeding the ways that consumers can engage in outdoor activities. The researchers focused their study on recreationists in Pennsylvania, as the state is home to natural gas deposits, as well as countless outdoor options for residents. 

Perhaps the most important finding from this study was that consumers no longer had the freedom of traversing the outdoors. The researchers say many consumers had to switch up their plans or activities because areas they frequented were no longer protected from SGD. 

More specifically, nearly 24 percent of Pennsylvanians surveyed for the study reported a direct impact due to SGD, whether it was encountering SGD workers, well sites, or pipelines along their route, or experiencing heavier than usual truck traffic while out. 

Ultimately, around 14 percent of those surveyed were affected in ways that directly impacted their activities, some so much so that it prevented future trips to Pennsylvania for such excursions; others were forced to avoid certain areas because of SGD activity. 

The researchers point out that outdoor activities provide a huge influx of income to the U.S. government, and interfering with such activities will start to interfere with those profits. Moreover, they explained that SGD efforts can do more than just push recreationists off once-protected land, as these efforts can also do permanent damage to the environment. 

“The outdoor recreation industry has quietly positioned itself as a massive economic sector in the United States,” said Ferguson. “As SGD grows in the United States, the number of affected recreationists could increase and current numbers of those impacted could rise. It is important for lawmakers, natural resource managers, and industry representatives to recognize that outdoor recreation is an increasingly critical component of the economy and should have a seat at the table when looking at responsible SGD.” 

Staying safe

As detrimental as SGD can be to outdoor activities, recent incidents have also proven how dangerous the natural gas can be. Late last year, a pipeline in Pennsylvania’s Beaver County exploded, damaging homes and cars up to 500 feet away, and creating a landslide near the site of the landslide. 

Earlier this year, still feeling the effects of the explosion, Pennsylvania suspended the pipeline company, Energy Transfer Partners, from getting new state permits, as the company was unable to properly stabilize the areas affected by the explosion. 

“There has been a failure by Energy Transfer and its subsidiaries to respect our laws and our communities,” Governor Tom Wolf said. “This is not how we strive to do business in Pennsylvania, and it will not be tolerated.”

PepsiCo has announced that it will start selling canned water as part of an effort to curb its plastic use. 

Aquafina water, which is owned by Pepsi, will be sold in aluminum cans at locations around the U.S. Pepsi also plans to use 100 percent recycled plastic for its LIFEWTR bottles and switch to using only cans for its Bubly brand sparkling water instead of plastic bottles. 

The changes, which will go into effect in 2020, will eliminate more than 8,000 metric tons of virgin plastic and about 11,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the company.

"Tackling plastic waste is one of my top priorities and I take this challenge personally," PepsiCo Chairman and CEO Ramon Laguarta said in a statement. "As one of the world's leading food and beverage companies, we recognize the significant role PepsiCo can play in helping to change the way society makes, uses, and disposes of plastics.” 

Pepsi said it’s aiming to make all of its packaging recyclable, compostable, or biodegradable and use 25 percent recycled plastic in all of its packaging by 2025. 

“We are doing our part to address the issue head on by reducing, recycling and reinventing our packaging to make it more sustainable, and we won't stop until we live in a world where plastics are renewed and reused,” Laguarta said. 

Eliminating plastic pollution

Pepsi joins a growing list of companies, restaurants, and retailers that have pledged to reduce their plastic use. Starbucks recently announced that it would begin offering new cold cup lids that do not require a straw. The coffee chain said it’s aiming to eliminate single-use plastic straws at all of its locations worldwide by next year. McDonald’s is also trying to phase out plastic straws. 

In May, Whole Foods announced that it will stop offering plastic straws at all of its locations in the U.S., as well as in Canada, and the United Kingdom. Pepsi’s rival Coca-Cola has announced that it’s aiming to recycle 75 percent of the bottles it sells by 2020. 

The initiatives come amid predictions that there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050 if current trends continue.

Amid mounting legal claims that the herbicide glyphosate causes cancer, Bayer has announced that it plans to invest $5.6 billion in developing new weedkillers over the next ten years. Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, says the move is intended to address public concerns about the risks of the ingredient.

While Bayer has maintained that glyphosate is safe, thousands of plaintiffs have claimed that long-term exposure to Monsanto's glyphosate-based Roundup was a factor in their cancer diagnoses.

Last August, a San Francisco jury awarded a former school groundskeeper $289 million after finding that his cancer was the result of years of using Roundup. More recently, a California jury awarded a couple $2 billion in damages after finding that sustained exposure to Roundup led to their cancer diagnoses.

Four years ago, the World Health Organization's cancer agency classified glyphosate as a “probable” carcinogen. The herbicide has been detected in beers and wines, pet food, oat-based cereals and even linked to shorter pregnancies.

To date, more than 13,000 lawsuits claim glyphosate is carcinogenic.

Developing alternative options

In a statement on Friday, Bayer said its multi-billion dollar investment won’t put an end to the use of glyphosate, but it will hopefully expand the number of comparable weed-killing options available to growers.

"While glyphosate will continue to play an important role in agriculture and in Bayer’s portfolio, the company is committed to offering more choices for growers," the company said.

Through its research and development investments, Bayer aims to create “tailored integrated weed management solutions” as well as “help develop customized solutions for farmers at a local level.” Additionally, Bayer says it’s aiming to "reduce the environmental impact” of its products by 30 percent by 2030.

As the risks of climate change become increasingly worrisome, many of the world’s largest companies are preparing for the financial impact of the climate crisis, according to a new analysis of corporate disclosures.

More than 200 big businesses say they’re preparing to see climate-related costs amounting to nearly $1 trillion within the next five to seven years unless they take steps to prepare, the New York Times reports.

The risk assessment, conducted by the nonprofit CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project), revealed that extreme weather is likely to bring about risks which include having to close down facilities in threatened locations, paying more for insurance, and the impact of consumers switching to more environmentally friendly corporations.

“Changing precipitation patterns, droughts, flooding, and tropical cyclones could potentially damage our manufacturing, research and development, and warehousing/distribution facilities and those of our key suppliers, especially in flood prone areas,” Eli Lilly & Co said. “In 2017, our operations in Mexico, US and Puerto Rico were hit by a string of devastating earthquakes and hurricanes.”

Assessing risks to operations

"The numbers that we're seeing are already huge, but it's clear that this is just the tip of the iceberg," Bruno Sarda, North America president for CDP, told the Times.

But when it comes to predicting the impact of the climate crisis, many companies still underestimate the dangers that are likely to occur as a result of earth’s climate system hitting a “catastrophic tipping point” without “rapid cuts in carbon emissions,” Reuters noted.

“Most companies still have a long way to go in terms of properly assessing climate risk,” said report author Nicolette Bartlett, CDP’s director of climate change.

By having executives report the foreseeable risks of the climate crisis, advocates of greater disclosure “hope to spur enough investment in cleaner industries to cut carbon emissions in time to meet global climate goals,” according to Reuters.

Amid growing concern about the harmful effects of plastic on the world’s oceans, Nestle’s Poland Spring has announced that it’s transitioning toward the use of 100 percent recycled plastic bottles.

The company said it plans to use recycled plastic bottles across 25 percent of its entire product portfolio by 2021. By 2025, it’s aiming to increase that percentage to 50 percent. The brand’s push to begin using more recycled materials starts this month with its one-liter bottles of non-carbonated water, which will now be made using 100 percent rPET (recycled plastic).

Earlier this year, Poland Spring launched Poland Spring Origin. The 900ml bottles are also made of 100 percent recycled plastic.

"As a company, we've already put our stake in the ground when it comes to taking the 'single' out of 'single-use' plastic bottles," says Fernando Mercé, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nestlé Waters North America. "As we begin to transform Poland Spring, our most iconic brand, to 100% recycled plastic packaging, we will begin to bring this commitment to life for our consumers in a tangible way. Bottles like these, which are made from 100% recycled plastic and are 100% recyclable, are proof that a fully circular economy is within our reach."

Keeping plastic out of oceans

Poland Spring, which has faced lawsuits from consumers accusing the company of selling groundwater, joins other brands who have pledged to use more recycled materials over the next few years.

Back in October, hundreds of organizations vowed to eliminate plastic waste from their operations by 2025 as part of a global campaign led by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Other companies have set to curb their impact on the environment by phasing out single-use straws and plastic bags.

Researchers have calculated that if current trends continue, there could be more plastic than fish in the world’s seas by 2050. But using recycled plastic helps keep plastic out of landfills and oceans, according to the Association of Plastic Recyclers.

Despite the efforts of the Trump administration to divorce itself from the issue of climate change, a group of 21 young Americans, representing themselves under the moniker of “Youth,” are far from giving up. The group has filed a new lawsuit against the administration claiming that climate concerns are being handled so carelessly that it’s a violation of their constitutional rights.

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court previously greenlighted the case, the feds are fighting back in a renewed effort to block the lawsuit from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

Calling the lawsuit "radical" and an "anathema," Jeffrey Bossert Clark, the Trump-nominated United States Assistant Attorney General (AG) for the Environment and Natural Resources Division -- and not exactly a favorite of environmentalists -- argued that the suit should be tossed out for the sole reason that it is a "direct attack on the separation of powers" among the three branches of the federal government” and “would have earth-shattering consequences.”

Youth filed its original constitutional climate lawsuit, titled Juliana v. U.S. (Juliana), against the U.S. government in U.S. District Court four years ago. Partnering with Youth as a co-plaintiff is Earth Guardians, an organization that “trains diverse youth to be effective leaders in the environmental, climate and social justice movements across the globe” through the use of art, music, and civic engagement.

The complaint alleges that because the affirmative actions the U.S. has put in place cause climate change, the U.S., therefore, has breached younger Americans’ constitutional rights to equal protection; their incalculable, inherent, and inalienable natural rights; and their rights as beneficiaries of the federal public trust.

A “moonshot,” but promising

When the lawsuit first appeared, University of Oregon law professor Mary Wood told CNN that the suit was “the biggest case on the planet,” likening it to a moonshot attempt much like Brown v. Board of Education was in an effort to desegregate public schools.

The Juliana case isn’t flying solo on the younger generation’s fight against climate change. It’s also got a peer lawsuit in the Netherlands. Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told CNN that Juliana is the "most promising" legal action on climate change in the world at the moment.”

The U.S., however, seems to have a radically different point-of-view. AG Clark railed against the growing trend of letting policy be decided by those in the scientific community and those he viewed as sympathizers.

“When did America risk coming to be ruled by foreign scientists and apparatchiks at the United Nations? The answer, it would seem, is ever since Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Obama, chose to issue a rule determining that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare,” Clark said.

As part of its effort to reduce food waste, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is encouraging companies to back an initiative to standardize the use of the term “best if used by” on food labels.

Frank Yiannas, a deputy commissioner at the FDA, wrote in a letter to the food industry on Thursday that consumer uncertainty over dates that appear on the labels of packaged foods contribute to a large amount of food waste.

"Consumer research has shown that this phrasing helps consumers understand that the date label is about quality, not safety, and that products do not have to be discarded after the date if they are stored properly," Yiannas said.

Less confusing terminology

The use of phrases such as “sell by,” “use before,” or “expires by” account for about 20 percent of food waste per household, Yiannas noted. Conversely, research has shown that using the term “best if used by” on shelf-stable, packaged foods conveys that the product in question doesn’t have to be tossed after the date if stored properly.

The FDA’s push to move away from confusing terminology on food labels comes at a time when U.S. consumers are throwing out about a third of their food, or approximately 133 billion pounds each year.

"Imagine going to the grocery store and buying three bags of groceries, and as you walk out, you throw one of those bags in the garbage can," Yiannas told NPR. "It sounds ridiculous, but in essence that's what's happening every day."

Reducing food waste

In addition to urging leaders in the food industry to standardize the use of new date labels, the FDA says it’s involved in other efforts to drive down food waste across the country.

The agency says it “supports ongoing consumer education efforts by industry, government, and non-government organizations to educate consumers on what quality-based date labels mean and how to use them to further reduce food waste in the home.”

To avoid wasting food, the FDA recommends:  

• Refrigerating peeled or cut vegetables for freshness, quality, and safety.

• Using the freezer. “It’s a great way to store many foods to retain their quality until you are ready to eat them,” the FDA says.

• Avoiding bulk and impulse purchases, especially of produce and dairy products that have a limited shelf life.

• Requesting small portions at restaurants. “If you’re not terribly hungry, request smaller portions. Bring your leftovers home, and refrigerate or freeze them within two hours.”

Whole Foods has announced that it will stop offering plastic straws at all of its locations in the U.S., as well as in Canada and the United Kingdom.

The Amazon-owned retailer joins a growing list of restaurants that have begun phasing out plastic straws, but Whole Foods says it’s the first grocery chain to make the move.

Plastic straws will be removed from the company’s juice and coffee bars and cafes. In their place, consumers will be offered paper straws starting in July. Whole Foods says it will still provide plastic straws to customers with disabilities who request one.

Reducing plastic use

In addition to eliminating plastic straws, the grocery chain has reduced the size of its plastic produce bags and will begin placing rotisserie chicken in bags instead of plastic containers. The bags that will take the place of the containers contain 70 percent less plastic.

Whole Foods says it expects its new environmentally friendly initiatives will save an estimated 800,000 pounds of plastic per year.

“For almost 40 years, caring for the environment has been central to our mission and how we operate,” Whole Foods president A.C. Gallo said in a statement. “We recognize that single-use plastics are a concern for many of our customers, team members and suppliers. ... We will continue to look for additional opportunities to further reduce plastic across our stores.”

Eliminating unnecessary plastic

The retailer joins other establishments who have set out to curb their impact on the environment by reducing plastic offerings. Starbucks recently announced that it would be rolling out new cold cup lids that do not require a straw. The coffee chain said it’s aiming to eliminate single-use plastic straws at all of its locations worldwide by next year.

Disney Parks announced last year that it plans to stop offering single-use plastic straws and stirrers on its grounds, and McDonald’s has said it plans to start phasing out straws at some of its restaurants.

Last October, hundreds of organizations pledged to eliminate plastic waste from their operations by 2025 under a global initiative led by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Researchers have calculated that if current trends continue, there could be more plastic than fish in the world’s seas by 2050.

As concerns about climate change continue to mount, researchers from North Carolina State University explored how children are doing their part to instill concern in their parents.

The study revealed that when kids learn about climate change, they’re more likely to pass the knowledge onto their parents. As a result, many parents also feel a sense of concern about the issue.

“There’s a robust body of work showing that kids can influence their parents’ behavior and positions on environmental and social issues, but this is the first experimental study demonstrating that climate education for children promotes parental concern about climate change,” said researcher Danielle Lawson.

It matters what kids are taught

The researchers were interested to see what effects manifested from educating children about climate change, so they worked closely with science teachers to ensure that middle schoolers were getting this crucial information.

Prior to the researchers implementing a curriculum that included topics on climate change, the participants -- which included nearly 240 students and nearly 300 parents -- completed a survey that was used to gauge attitudes about climate change.

The study involved an experimental group of over 160 students, all of whom were taught about climate change in school; over 70 students in a control group did not get the climate change education. At the end of the study, all of the students and parents completed the same survey so the researchers could see if -- and how -- their attitudes changed.

While the attitudes changed in both the control and experimental groups, the researchers found that the changes were the most prominent when the children were taught about climate change in school.

According to the researchers, there were three groups that experienced the greatest amount of change -- fathers, conservative parents, and parents of daughters. Prior to the study, all of the parents in these groups were characterized as “marginally not concerned,” but their level of concern became “moderate” by the end of the study.

The researchers were impressed with these findings, as they highlight the important role that children play in the overall family dynamic.

“This study tells us that we can educate children about climate change and they’re willing to learn, which is exciting because studies find that many adults are resistant to climate education, because it runs counter to their personal identities,” said Lawson. “It also highlights that children share that information with their parents, particularly if they’re given tools to facilitate communication -- and that parents are willing to listen.”

Keeping kids in the conversation

As this study has made clear, kids are imperative to this ongoing conversation about climate change. Recently, a group of researchers explored how rising temperatures could impact whether consumers have kids.  

The study revealed that location will play a large role in this important decision making, but climate change will soon affect everything from schooling to jobs, and everything in between.

“Our model suggests climate change may worsen inequalities by reducing fertility and increasing education in richer northern countries, while increasing fertility and reducing education in tropical countries,” said researcher Dr. Soheil Shayegh. “This is particularly poignant, because those richer countries have disproportionately benefited from the natural resource use that has driven climate change.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently awarded $9.3 million in grants to school districts in 43 states and territories to help replace older diesel school buses. The money will be put towards buying new buses that create fewer emissions to help reduce pollution.

The districts managing the school bus fleets will receive rebates through the EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) funding. Applicants who applied for the grant money will receive between $15,000 and $20,000 if they are replacing buses that have model year engines that are from 2006 or earlier.

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said that initiative will help protect the health of young children who use the buses to get to school. A total of 473 older diesel models will be replaced under the program.

“Children’s health is a top priority for EPA, and these grants will help provide cleaner air and a healthier ride to and from school for America’s children,” he said. “This DERA funding reflects broader children’s health agenda and commitment to ensure all children can live, learn, and play in healthy and clean environments.”

Reducing emissions

The EPA points out that it has been working to reduce pollutants from diesel vehicles by implementing stricter environmental standards on new vehicles. However, the agency says that many older vehicles with higher emissions rates are still operating on U.S. roads.

A recent study from George Washington University found that current levels of traffic-related pollution have contributed to millions of cases of childhood asthma across the globe. Dense urban areas are hot spots for these asthma cases, and the researchers caution that cleaner vehicles will be needed to reverse this worrying trend.

“Improving access to cleaner forms of transportation, like electrified public transport and active commuting by cycling and walking, would not only bring down [pollution] levels, but would also reduce asthma, enhance physical fitness, and cut greenhouse gas emissions,” said Dr. Susan C. Anenberg.

As climate change continues to be explored from every angle, researchers are now looking into how it could affect the rate at which consumers are having kids.

A new study has found that the changing climate could play a role in consumers’ future fertility decisions, as rising temperatures could impact nearly every facet of day-to-day life in the coming years.

“Our model suggests climate change may worsen inequalities by reducing fertility and increasing education in richer northern countries, while increasing fertility and reducing education in tropical countries,” said researcher Dr. Soheil Shayegh. “This is particularly poignant, because those richer countries have disproportionately benefited from the natural resource use that has driven climate change.”

What these changes could look like

To see how global climate change could play a role in fertility decisions, the researchers compared two economically different countries -- Switzerland and Colombia. The group was interested to see if a country’s economic power, coupled with rising global temperatures, would play a role in residents’ decision to have kids.

Using a model that combined current climate change predictions and demographic-economic theory, the researchers set up a scenario that followed participants’ decision-making at critical stages of life.

Starting in childhood as children who require attention and time from their parents, the researchers followed the participants through adulthood, where they were then parents who were forced to make big decisions -- having children, paying for their children’s education, and enriching their children’s lives so they can have successful, fulfilling adulthoods.

The researchers explain that investing quality time into children is crucial to their overall development and well-being, and it can play a role in their future endeavors and successes. The team notes that it’s important for parents to be able to devote this necessary time and attention to their children.

However, the study revealed that countries are affected differently depending on whether they rely on agricultural goods for their economies. Because agricultural development is affected by climate change, that changed some families’ fertility decisions.

According to Dr. Gregory Casey, climate change can lead to “a scarcity of agricultural goods, higher agricultural prices and wages, and ultimately, a labour reallocation,” in lower latitude countries.  

“Because agriculture makes less use of skilled labor, our model showed that climate change decreases the return on acquiring skills, leading parents to invest fewer resources in the education of each child, and to increase fertility,” Dr. Casey said.

The researchers explain that these changes look at climate change and fertility from one lens, and they think more work is needed in this area to get a fuller picture on how the birth rate can be affected by higher temperatures.

Affecting every area of life

With each new study released about climate change, consumers get a better understanding of just how far-reaching this issue is becoming.

Health is a huge concern for researchers, as recent studies have shown how allergies are worsening because of climate change. Public health has also been shown to be on the decline.

Moreover, climate change could expose one billion people to new diseases, as rising temperatures will make more areas more suitable to mosquitoes, therefore exposing more consumers to diseases like dengue, Zika, and chikunguyna than ever before.

“These diseases, which we think of as strictly tropical, have been showing up already in areas with suitable climates, such as Florida, because humans are very good at moving both bugs and their pathogens around the globe,” said researcher Sadie J. Ryan.

From an economic standpoint, experts warn that climate change could also lead to a financial crisis, as spending and saving habits will certainly be influenced by environmental changes.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti on Monday announced plans for a local Green New Deal initiative.

Under the  plan, Los Angeles residents will have to cut their driving by 50 percent over the next three decades and use transportation other than a personal car for at least half of their trips by 2035. The plan also calls for 10,000 chargers for electric vehicles to be installed across the city.

At the municipal level, the initiative will require renovations on all city-owned buildings to make them “all-electric.” The plan also calls for an end to styrofoam and for the planting of 90,000 trees by 2021. Plastic straws and single-use containers will be phased out by 2028. Overall, Garcetti says, the plan will help Los Angeles become carbon-neutral by 2050.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez popularized the idea of a Green New Deal following protests by the Sunrise Movement, a grassroots environmental non-profit.

In a blog post, Sunrise Movement organizers gave a grim assessment of Los Angeles’ local answer to the national proposal.

“That is not a Green New Deal,” the organization said.

Though they tend to be thought of as being bad for the environment due to the amount of packaging they are shipped in, new research finds that meal kits have a much smaller carbon footprint than equivalent meals purchased at a grocery store.

"Folks are really focused on the plastics and packaging in meal kits," said lead author Shelie Miller, an environmental scientist at the University of Michigan in a press release. "That's important, but it's not the full story."

For the study, the researchers looked at the whole life cycle of meal kits -- from farm to landfill. Looking at the whole picture, the study authors determined that packaging ends up being a fairly small contributor to the overall environmental impact of a meal.

“What really ends up mattering is the quantity of food wasted throughout the supply chain," said author Brent Heard, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Michigan.

Less wasteful

The researchers found that meals purchased at a grocery store and prepared at home produce 33 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than equivalent meals from services like Blue Apron or Hello Fresh.

"Meal kits are designed for minimal food waste," said Miller, noting that consumers often buy more food than they actually use when purchasing meal components from the grocery store.

“Even though it may seem like that pile of cardboard generated from a Blue Apron or Hello Fresh subscription is incredibly bad for the environment, that extra chicken breast bought from the grocery store that gets freezer-burned and finally gets thrown out is much worse,” Miller said.

Pre-portioned ingredients

Home-delivered meal kits certainly contain more packaging than meals purchased from a grocery store. However, the authors said the fact that meal kits come with pre-portioned ingredients ultimately makes them less wasteful than their store bought counterparts.

When food is purchased from the grocery store, consumers must often buy larger quantities of food than they can realistically use. That can lead to higher household food waste.

Meal kits were also found to produce fewer emissions in the area of last-mile transportation. Last-mile emissions accounted for 11 percent of the average grocery meal emissions compared to just 4 percent for meal kit dinners.

The researchers attributed the difference to the fact that each meal kit is just one of many packages delivered on a truck route, while grocery store meals typically require a personal vehicle trip to the store and back.

The full study has been published in the scientific journal Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

Research consistently shows that consumers shopping for homes are impressed when a home has energy efficient features. After all, that can save money for as long as you own the home.

But some energy efficient features are more attractive than others. A new Zillow analysis has found that homes equipped with solar panels sell for 4.1 percent more on average than homes without them.

The premium will vary by housing market. In New York, for example, solar panels will raise a home price by 5.4 percent, but that figure drops to 3.6 percent in Los Angeles.

"Energy conservation isn't only good for the environment, it can also translate into big savings on electricity bills as well as help to reduce the strain on the electrical grid," said Zillow senior economist Sarah Mikhitarian. "The Sun Number provides a starting point for potential energy savings, but speaking with a local expert can help homeowners decide whether it pencils out.

Sun Number

The Sun Number is a calculation Zillow has placed on listed homes to give prospective buyers an indication of the home’s solar potential, along with what an owner can expect to save in energy costs.

Mikhitarian says the higher the Sun Number, the greater the savings, and that usually translates into a higher selling price when the house goes on the market.

“Homes with solar energy systems often sell for more than comparable homes without solar power,” she said. “This premium is largely reflective of the future energy cost savings associated with the system."

The formula

Coming up with a Sun Number involves more than simply counting sunny days in a particular area. There’s an actual company called Sun Company that measures the roof of each home and calculates the pitch, orientation, and size of each roof plane.

That enables it to determine the amount of sunlight that hits the roof, accounting for negative elements like trees and other buildings that might provide shade. It tops off the process by considering the local cost of electricity and local weather conditions. A Sun Number is between 0 and 100, with higher numbers being more cost effective for solar.

Zillow said it analyzed more than 500 housing markets in the U.S. and, as you might expect, the top 10 Sun Numbers are found in the sunny Southwest. However, there are a few surprises, with San Jose recording a Sun Number of 90 and San Francisco ahead of San Diego. Nationally, the median Sun Number is 78.

President Trump is trying to make it even easier for the oil and gas industry to remain the dominant source of energy. He signed executive orders on Wednesday that the oil and gas industry hopes will strip states of their authority to reject pipeline projects and expand the transport of fossil fuels by rail.

“When states say ‘no’ to the development of natural gas pipelines, they force utilities to curb safe and affordable service and refuse access to new customers, including new businesses,” said the CEO of the  American Gas Association.

One of the executive orders that Trump signed Wednesday will give the president’s office full authority to approve or deny an international pipeline permit. Trump cited “obstruction” in New York when signing the order.

State leaders in New York recently voted to block a natural gas pipeline project that already received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 2014. Though any order stripping states of regulatory authority is likely to be fought in the courts, Trump says his move will prevent states like New York from “hurting the economy.”

“President Trump’s executive order is a gross overreach of federal authority that undermines New York’s ability to protect our water quality and our environment,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo responded in a statement.

For years, the  pipeline regulator known as FERC has taken what tribes, states, environmentalist activists, and others describe as a lax approach to pipeline approval, leaving it to states to decide whether to allow a project after a minimal federal safety review. Many states in the South, Midwest, and Northeast have also been welcoming to pipeline projects, though some are starting to change their tune.

In Pennsylvania, state regulators recently decided to stall construction on a massive Energy Transfer Partners project after a series of environmental violations.  

Risk of train explosions

The second executive order that Trump signed allows the industry to transport natural gas by rail car. Currently, only crude oil can be transported by rail domestically or outside U.S. borders.

The oil and gas industry and freight industry says that using trains to transport natural gas is safe and will help consumers in the Northeast get cheaper energy. But after a 4,000 percent increase in shipping crude oil by rail over the past fifteen years, experts have counted an unprecedented amount of explosive train accidents and deadly spills.

The most famous example of a so-called “bomb train” is the runaway train carrying crude oil that killed 40 people in a small town in Quebec in 2013.

“It’s a disaster waiting to happen,” Emily Jeffers, a staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, told Bloomberg News about the plan allowing natural gas on trains.  “You’re transporting an extraordinarily flammable and dangerous substance through highly populated areas with basically no environmental protection.”

Under new legislation passed in the New York state budget, single-use plastic bags will be banned statewide starting March 1, 2020.

The plan gives individual counties in New York the option of charging 5 cents per paper bag, with 2 cents going to local governments and 3 cents to the state's Environmental Protection Fund. The idea is to push consumers toward using reusable bags instead of simply switching from plastic to paper.

“Carve outs” woven into the deal state that consumers can still get plastic carry-out bags for food, have dry cleaned items placed in plastic bags, and put produce in plastic bags at the grocery store.

"I am proud to announce that together, we got it done," Gov. Andrew Cuomo and fellow Democrats said in a joint statement announcing the plastic bag ban and other budget agreements.

New York steps up sustainability efforts

The agreement makes New York the third state, after Hawaii and California, to enact a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags. The deal is intended to keep plastic bags from damaging waterways and ecosystems.

"With this smart, multi-pronged action New York will be leading the way to protect our natural resources now and for future generations of New Yorkers," Cuomo said in a statement Friday when the deal was announced by hadn’t yet been finalized.

“Every year, there are billions – billions with a ‘b’ – of bags that are thrown away after just one use. The average plastic bag use is about 12 minutes… we just have this disposable plastic craze and it is adding up,” added state Sen. Todd Kaminsky (D-Long Island), who sponsored the bill.

Mayor Bill de Blasio said he has “long advocated” for a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags and has vowed to work on a plan to help people get reusable bags.

“These bags litter our streets and threaten our planet,” de Blasio said in a statement. “It is our job to lead the fight against climate change and fossil fuels so that our kids aren't forced to deal with the irreparable consequences.”

Researchers have explored how air pollution is negatively affecting consumers’ health and the environment, but a recent study tackles the issue from a new angle: corn production.

According to researchers from the University of Minnesota, air pollution caused by corn production is responsible for an uptick in the mortality rate, causing over 4,000 premature deaths nationwide. The study also revealed that geography plays a role here.

“The deaths caused per bushel in western corn belt states such as Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska tend to be lower than in eastern corn belt states such as Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio,” said researcher Jason Hill.

Discovering the dangers

To see the effect that corn production had on the mortality rate, the researchers analyzed data from different counties across the country to determine how much corn was being produced and what the process of producing corn looked like.

The study revealed that nitrogen fertilizer, which is most commonly used for corn crops, releases ammonia into the air. Ammonia is dangerous in that it typically is the gateway for fine particulate matter -- PM2.5 -- to be released into the air, which is one of the most harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

The researchers found that these gases damage air quality and are harmful to consumers’ health. Overall, air pollution caused by corn production was found to be responsible for over 4,000 premature deaths and monetary damages worth around $39 billion.

“It’s important for farmers to have this information so that they can implement practices that reduce the environmental impact of the crops they grow,” said Hill. “Farmers can greatly improve the environmental profile of their corn by using precision agriculture tools and switching to fertilizers that have lower ammonia emissions.”

Hill hopes that these findings inspire farmers to take the initiative to practice greener farming habits, and offers suggestions like changing the planting location and planting crops with less fertilizer as possible solutions.

“Not only are ammonia emissions from fertilizer damaging to human health, they are also a waste of money for farmers because they are not getting the benefit of the nitrogen that they’re paying for,” said Hill. “The number of deaths related to corn production could be reduced through these key tactics.”

A senior policy adviser working with the Federal Reserve says that the negative impact of climate change won’t just stop at the environment; it could also lead us into our next financial crisis.

In an economic letter published on Monday, Glenn D. Rudebusch explained that environmental changes, as well as the way that society prepares for those changes, could have important consequences for the U.S. economy. He urges policymakers to plan accordingly to avoid the worst possible outcome.

“Some central banks...recognize that climate change is becoming increasingly relevant for monetary policy,” he said. “For example, climate-related financial risks could affect the economy through elevated credit spreads, greater precautionary saving, and, in the extreme, a financial crisis.”

The costs of natural disasters

In his report, Rudebusch says that natural disasters and changing conditions could cause great harm to certain industries. Hurricanes, extensive flooding, or droughts could lead to infrastructure damage, agricultural losses, and price spikes for certain commodities that will hurt consumers and businesses financially.

Of course, those risks aren’t just present in the U.S. Rudebusch says that disasters in different areas of the world affect everyone because of the connectedness of the global economy.

“Even weather disasters abroad can disrupt exports, imports, and supply chains close to home,” he said.

Greener technologies and policies

While many nations are exploring options when it comes to converting to a low-carbon, environmentally friendly economy, Rudebusch says that the Fed is not able to tailor all of its policies towards these initiatives. However, he does say that certain government actions, such as introducing a carbon tax, could spur industries to adapt to cleaner technologies.  

“A carbon tax that is set at the proper level can appropriately incentivize innovations in clean technology and the transition from a high- to a low-carbon economy,” he said.

“A comprehensive set of government policies may be required, including clean-energy and carbon-capture research and development incentives, energy efficiency standards, and low-carbon public investment.”

Rudebusch’s full report can be viewed here.

The world’s five biggest publicly traded oil and gas companies in recent years have fought against measures to curb emissions even as they claimed to support environmental measures like the Paris Agreement, according to new research by InfluenceMap, a UK-based nonprofit that tracks corporate spending.

InfluenceMap analyzed public disclosures that the corporations made in financial filings, as well as donations that the corporations made to outside lobbying and trade groups. The researchers found that ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total spent a combined $1 billion on “misleading climate-related branding and lobbying” since the historic Paris Agreement made headlines in 2016.

“These efforts are overwhelmingly in conflict with the goals of this landmark global climate accord and designed to maintain the social and legal license to operate and expand fossil fuel operations,” InfluenceMap writes.

The lobbying work and branding took various forms. ExxonMobil, for example, engaged in direct government lobbying, as it has for decades. But the oil giant also spent $2 million on targeted Facebook and Instagram ads promoting the benefits of fossil fuels.

In recent years, major oil corporations such as Exxon have stressed that climate change is a real problem that it plans to help solve. But behind closed doors, the oil industry appears to be betting on a future that is increasingly dependent on fossil fuels, as ConsumerAffairs has previously reported.

Meanwhile, the European Union appears to be attempting to crack down on corporate lobbying efforts. Following the release of the InflencueMap report, the EU parliament is reportedly now discussing whether Exxon should lose its lobbying privileges in the EU altogether. A vote on the matter is scheduled for April.

Keeping lights off when they’re not being used is a surefire way for consumers to lower their electric bills; however, it could also help increase their lifespans.

According to researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, turning off lights can be beneficial to consumers’ health by lowering levels of air pollution.

“By saving electricity, we can also save lives,” said researcher David Abel. “There is a range of health benefits. It’s a bonus. We find there are extra health reasons to turn off a light.”

Saving more than just energy

During the summer months when energy use is at its peak, the researchers calculated air quality, human mortality, and power plant emissions to see how energy use and energy efficiency affect consumers’ health.

The key here is for consumers to be smart about their power use by being energy efficient, as doing so can come with some life-saving rewards.

The researchers found that increasing energy efficiency by 12 percent during the summertime would have huge effects on consumer health, the environment, and electricity costs. Promoting energy efficiency creates cleaner air for consumers, which the researchers say would save roughly $4 billion and nearly 500 lives per year.

“We’re trying to clarify how changes in energy systems have benefits for public health,” said researcher Tracey Holloway. “For the most part, the energy community is not focused on the human health effects of air pollution.”

The health effects associated with air pollution are lengthy, as exposure to certain chemicals has negatively affected children and sent consumers to the emergency room with more frequency. Keeping energy efficiency at the forefront would help to alleviate some of these concerns and help save lives.

With tangible facts and figures in place, the researchers are now hoping that the findings from this study inspire lawmakers to put legislation in place that would benefit consumer health long-term, while also being kind to the environment.

“This seems like a missed opportunity,” Holloway said. “Energy efficiency is free, yet it is not being included in the basket of solutions.”

Potential health risks

The World Health Organization (WHO) reported last year that air pollution kills seven million people per year, and a recent report found that air pollution only got worse in 2018.

It seems there’s no escape from air pollution, as doing chores around the house can contribute to indoor air pollution. One study found that pregnant women exposed to certain air pollutants are at a considerable risk of having a premature birth or bearing a child with low birth weight.

Climate change continues to make headlines, primarily as a topic of heated debate among politicians. But researchers are changing the conversation to focus on how consumers and wildlife will be affected.

Jonathon Stillman teaches biology at San Francisco State University, and he recently conducted a study that explored how climate change will not only raise temperatures but also cause massive heat waves that will have detrimental side effects for all living things.

“Summertime is quickly becoming a deadly season for life on earth,” Stillman wrote.

What to expect

To write his paper, Stillman examined nearly 150 scientific studies on climate change’s effect on nature and human beings.

The planet’s rising temperatures should come as no surprise to many consumers, and Stillman notes that as greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase worldwide, temperatures will only continue to rise. He says consumers can expect record-breaking heat waves that last far longer than what many are used to.

These heat waves create major cause for concern -- particularly for wildlife. Stillman found that higher than normal temperatures can affect the physicality of some species’ bodies, as they try to adapt to the new climate.

“If populations of wildlife are experiencing more near-lethal temperatures, you won’t see mortality but you might see shifts in their physiology that show they’re getting close to mortality,” said Stillman.

Moreover, with rising temperatures, both humans and animals will begin looking for cooler places, which is another red flag that Stillman highlights in his paper. Not only will it be difficult for animals to find cover from the heat due to environmental woes, but not all humans will be able to escape the heat, either.

Changes in temperature are likely to lead to other environmental concerns, such as disease, a shortage of fresh water and food, flooding, drought, or political instability. According to Stillman, this will “change the ability of human populations to persist in some locations that historically and currently support large populations.”

Stillman’s findings serve as a warning for people everywhere to do what they can to slow the effects of climate change.

“We can’t say it’s going to happen next year,” Stillman said. “But if we continue on the current trajectory, by the end of this century we’re going to see heat waves that will dwarf those that have killed huge numbers of people and wildlife.”

Stillman’s full work can be accessed here.

Helping before it’s too late

Recent reports have found that consumers worldwide are already feeling the effects of climate change.

Researchers have found that public health is only getting worse because of climate change, while consumers can expect cases of Lyme disease to continue to increase with rising temperatures.

However, there are ways consumers can help. Recent studies have found that sustainable practices, such as working to eliminate food waste and following a more eco-friendly diet, can be steps in the right direction towards helping the planet.

Waste not, want not.

The fact that consumers are focusing on reducing food waste isn’t lost on the investment community. A new report by non-profit coalition ReFed says that companies fighting food waste have pulled in some $125 million in venture capital and private equity funding in 2018.

And, like most everything else these days, consumers have technology to thank for the forward movement on keeping food products fresher for longer.

As an example, ReFed points to Walmart. In its perishables supply chain, the big box retailer recently experimented with smart labeling technology where electronic devices are attached to produce shipping containers and crates in an effort to monitor spoilage. While the technology wasn’t part of its existing bailiwick, Walmart saw enough long-term potential in reducing inventory loss to make the investment.

“Investors are seeing that food waste is a big business opportunity,” Michelle Masek, head of marketing at Apeel Sciences, told Bloomberg News. Apeel recently formed a partnership with a major European supplier of avocados that will use a water-based solution that the company says extends the ripeness for another four days or so.

The environmental challenge

“Over the past 15 years, we’ve seen how climate change and resource utilization are closely linked, and food is one of the most important resources in that equation,” wrote ReFed in an analysis of the study.

“This puts food waste squarely at the center of many global challenges. Reducing food waste would have a game-changing impact on natural resources depletion and degradation, food insecurity, national security, and climate change. As one of the largest economies and agricultural producers in the world, we believe the United States has a major role to play in setting an example and contributing to significant food waste reduction.”

Any way you look at it, food waste is a crisis. Today, the United States spends over $218 billion growing, processing, transporting, and disposing of food that is never eaten.

Each and every year, more than 50 million tons of food ends up in landfills. On top of that, an additional 10.1 million tons remains unharvested at farms. An even sadder fact is that 49 million Americans have a hard time putting food on their table.

Clean up your own backyard

While having garbage pickup is a nice thing for the consumer to have, ReFed estimates that cities actually lose money on the deal. As an example, the coalition cites Baltimore.

“If it were possible to reduce the cost of collection for composting in the Baltimore area by 10 percent, an annual systemwide net cost of $700,000 to collect and process 140,000 tons of food waste could become a net benefit of $230,000. If it were possible to reduce the cost of collection in the Los Angeles area by 15 percent, an annual system-wide net cost of $5 million to collect and process 800,000 tons of food waste could become a net benefit of $1.2 million.”

While you might think that farms, manufacturers, and restaurants are to blame for most of that, think again. In the U.S., about 43 percent of all the waste happens at the end of the food chain -- in the kitchen at home, according to an earlier ReFed report. A study from the Natural Resources Defense Council found two-thirds of the food wasted at home is edible.

ReFed says that consumers are fully aware of their shortcomings. They feel guilty, but just not guilty enough to try to make a difference.

Let’s talk trade-offs…

Would you take a cut in pay to work for a company that’s environmentally responsible? If you said yes, you’re in good company (pun intended) -- and, more than likely, a millennial.

A new survey by Swytch -- a blockchain-based clean energy platform -- examined workforce sentiments as they relate to employers’ corporate sustainability pursuits.

In that study, almost 50 percent of all respondents and 75 percent of millennial workers said they would make that trade-off. As a matter of fact, 10+ percent would take a cut in pay between $5,000-$10,000, and slightly more than three percent said they’d be willing to go even further and take a pay cut of over $10,000 a year if they believed the employer had a “green” frame-of-mind.

Age matters when it comes to making that large of a trade-off, though. The survey found that fewer than 25 percent of Gen Xers (now between 40 and 53 years old) would make the change and that number drops to 17 percent for baby boomers.

Are we green enough for you?

Swytch’s study demonstrates that it’s not good enough just to say a company is green -- it needs to demonstrate that time after time, year after year.

Close to 70 percent of the respondents said that a strong sustainability plan would affect their decision to stay with a company long term.

And, they mean it. Nearly 30 percent said they’ve left a company because of its absence of a corporate sustainability plan. Eleven percent said they’ve pulled up and left over that factor more than once.

“As a growing number of employees are eager to see corporations take a stand on environmental responsibility, employers will have to respond accordingly in order to attract and retain top talent,” Evan Caron, co-founder and managing director of Swytch told Medium.

Red state, Blue state, Green state?

If you’re thinking that being environmentally proactive is more of a liberal than a conservative thing, you’d be wrong, albeit slightly.

A formidable number on both sides -- 95 percent of liberals and 89 percent of conservatives -- said that companies should be rewarded for producing and/or consuming renewable energy.

However, finding the right party to step up and make that forward motion happen is a big question. More than 30 percent of respondents feel that the national government should be in charge of tackling climate change, while only about 25 percent think that large corporations should be responsible.

With a new wave of consumers focused on going green and being more sustainable, a recent study conducted by researchers from Michigan State University found that reducing food waste is growing in popularity.

According to the Michigan State University (MSU) Food Literacy and Engagement Poll, Americans from all age groups are concerned about reducing food waste, but none more so than the oldest demographic.

“Older Americans pay the closest attention to limiting food waste compared to their peers,” said researcher Sheril Kirshenbaum. “Previous waves of the survey have revealed this group also performs best on general food literacy questions.”

Breaking down the results

The most recent iteration of the poll was conducted last month, and it included over 2,000 respondents, the overwhelming majority of whom (88 percent) took action to reduce food waste in their homes.

Survey respondents reported sharing food with others (34 percent), trying not to buy too much food (71 percent), and making sure food is eaten before it goes bad (71 percent) in an effort to make the most of the food they buy.

The oldest generation certainly takes the cake when it comes to reducing food waste. Nearly 95 percent of respondents aged 55 and older reported reducing food waste at home, while 81 percent of those aged 30 and under did the same.

However, 12 percent of consumers do not take the time to reduce their ecological footprint. Many say that they don’t waste food, while others claim they don’t have time to reduce their food waste. Twenty percent of respondents said they weren’t concerned about sustainability, while 23 percent were unsure what the term “food waste” meant.

While the researchers were pleased to gain insight into consumers’ attitudes about food production and waste, they hope this survey will open people’s eyes about following a more eco-friendly lifestyle.

“These findings continue to to expand our insights into the attitudes and behaviors of consumers,” said researcher Doug Buhler. “Given the challenges ahead in feeding more people while preserving our natural resources and protecting our climate, getting a handle on the causes and remedies of food waste is key to meeting global food demand. It takes months to produce food, but we can waste it in an instant.”

Reducing waste and your carbon footprint

For consumers who are looking to curb food waste, nutrition experts suggest storing food is the key.

Experts recommend storing food in the freezer that might have a fast-approaching expiration date, as well as using things in the fridge before buying anything new. This will not only help uneaten food from ending up in the garbage, but it can also lower consumers’ spending on their grocery bills.

Additionally, consumers that choose to go green with their diets also help the environment.

“People whose diets had a lower carbon footprint were eating less red meat and dairy -- which contribute to a larger share of greenhouse gas emissions and are high in saturated fat -- and consuming more healthful foods like poultry, whole grains, and plant-based proteins,” said lead researcher Diego Rose.

The Pennsylvania state government says that a major oil and gas pipeline company, currently building a network of pipelines in the state to transport fracked gas and chemical byproducts from the fracking, has failed to take responsibility for an explosion that destroyed a house and other property last year.

Energy Transfer Partners is the Texas-based pipeline magnate that built its crude oil pipeline through the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota. The Standing Rock Sioux and other tribes who descended on the reservation in late 2016 famously convinced the Corps of Engineers to halt a key construction permit, though the move was only temporary. The Dakota Access Pipeline went back online under Trump and has been in operation for two years.

Energy Transfer Partners has also kept busy building new pipelines in Louisiana, Texas, and Pennsylvania over the past few years. Lawmakers in Pennsylvania and elsewhere had been welcoming of the projects, granting permits even over the objections of local activists who cited environmental concerns similar to those that the Standing Rock Sioux raised.

But things went downhill in Pennsylvania on September 11 last year. The Revolution Pipeline, a project run by Energy Transfer Partners subsidiary Sunoco, had only been in operation for a week when a fire erupted in Beaver County, destroying a home 500 feet away from the blast.

“An initial site assessment reveals evidence of a landslide in the vicinity of the pipeline,” a Sunoco spokesman told a local newspaper.

Failure to meet state laws

Because oil and gas pipelines are known to cause landslides, state officials said that it was up to Sunoco to find a way to stabilize the areas that had been disturbed during construction. Sunoco needed to prevent further erosion, per state government instructions. The state even gave Sunoco an October 29 deadline to fix the erosion problems.

But Energy Transfer Partners failed to meet the deadline, the state says. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection announced last Friday that the company had failed to control erosion or stabilize the problematic areas.

As a result, Energy Transfer Partners is suspended from obtaining new permits in the state, though its projects that are already permitted remain unaffected for now.

“There has been a failure by Energy Transfer and its subsidiaries to respect our laws and our communities,” Governor Tom Wolf said in an uncharacteristically critical statement. “This is not how we strive to do business in Pennsylvania, and it will not be tolerated.”

Energy Transfer Partners spokesman Lisa Dillinger responded with a statement to the Daily Local newspaper that the company is “committed to bringing this project into full compliance with all environmental permits and applicable regulations.”

“This action does not affect the operation of any of our in-service pipelines or any areas of construction where permits have already been issued,” she added.

Researchers from the University of Leeds are calling for dangerous fluorochemicals to be phased out of consumers’ waterproof and protective clothing.

According to the researchers, more eco-friendly options are available, especially for waterproofing purposes. However, clothing worn by emergency personnel and paramedics needs to be protected by more than just water.

“Environmentally-friendly and biodegradable solutions are available, but are being resisted by some manufacturers and retailers,” said Dr. Richard Blackburn, head of the Sustainable Materials Research Group at the University of Leeds’ School of Design.

“Non-fluorinated alternatives are a viable option in all cases where stain repellency is not an essential function. These alternatives provide excellent rain protection, and there are long-term ecological benefits from phasing out the highly fluorinated chemicals.”

Finding what works

While the researchers’ work showed that the majority of consumers are only looking for their clothes to be waterproof -- and not stain resistant -- making it possible to switch to more eco-friendly choices, medical professionals and military personnel rely on the fluorochemical repellents to stay free of stains, infections, and chemicals.

In an effort to be more innovative with sustainable alternatives, researcher Philippa Hill created a new testing method that allowed her to test various waterproof finishes and their effectiveness in protecting wearers against various liquids and stains.

“Currently, only non-fluorinated chemicals can provide the high levels of protection needed from other types of liquids, such as oils, chemicals, and bodily fluids, so there is a major opportunity for future innovation in that area,” Hill said.

The researchers tested regular household items -- like orange juice, water, olive oil, and red wine -- and then moved on to more field-specific items, like cough medicine, synthetic gastric fluid, and blood.

The experiment showed that non-fluorinated repellents didn’t work for gastric fluids or any oil-based stains, but they showed some promise with the cough medicine and blood and were very successful with the red wine and orange juice.

The researchers want the clothing and textile industry to understand how harmful fluorochemicals are to the environment, as they are major contributors to pollution, and strive to utilize sustainable materials in the future.

“We want to help textile producers and retailers to develop better garments that also have minimal environmental impact,” said researcher Ian Cousins. “It is important to look into the necessary functionality and durability, otherwise people won’t buy the greener alternatives.”

Money could be at stake

While many corporations have decided to go green with various sustainable initiatives, a recent study found that not going green could affect some companies’ bottom lines down the road.

Researchers found that if companies -- particularly those that produce the highest levels of carbon emissions -- don’t try to reduce their carbon footprint, the stock market could start to dip in less than 10 years.

“It is of the best interest of the companies in the financial, insurance, and pension industries to price this carbon risk correctly in their asset allocations,” said researcher Tony Wirjanto. “Companies have to take climate change into consideration to build an optimal and sustainable portfolio in the long run under the climate change risk.”

New legislation proposed on Tuesday would make California the first state to require businesses to offer electronic receipts unless customers specifically request paper copies.

The push to begin phasing out printed receipts in the Golden State has already begun, according to Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco, who introduced the bill. However, the proposed measure (Assembly Bill 161) would ensure that consumers are fully aware of the health and environmental impact of paper receipts.

For example, most paper receipts aren’t recyclable, are coated with chemicals that aren’t allowed in baby bottles, and can contaminate other recycled paper because of the chemicals known as Bisphenol-A (BPA) and Bisphenol-S (BPS), Ting said.

Transitioning to e-receipts

Under the bill, businesses would be required to provide proof of purchase receipts electronically starting in 2022 unless a customer asks for a printed copy.

“There’s a negative impact on the environment with these receipts and the inability to recycle them,” Ting said. He also cited studies by the Environmental Working Group and the CDC showing that retail workers have higher concentrations of BPA or BPS than those who do not have regular contact with receipts.

If passed, the measure would be similar to another recently enacted piece of legislation in California -- one which requires restaurants to provide straws only at customers’ request. Similar to the straw bill, infractions would be subject to two written warnings followed by a fine of $25 a day for subsequent violations, with an annual $300 cap.

Privacy concerns

While phasing out paper receipts would undoubtedly have environmental benefits, some say the use of electronic receipts raises privacy concerns. Businesses would “have your email, then they'll be marketing to you or selling your information or it can get into privacy issues," noted Republican Assemblyman Brian Dahle.

But Ting countered by saying that consumers can still ask for paper receipts if they’re worried about giving out their email addresses. An additional benefit of the proposed bill would be its potential to save businesses money.

But at its core, the bill is intended to cut down on the environmental burden of paper receipts. The advocacy group Green America estimates that millions of trees and billions of gallons of water are used annually to make paper receipts in the United States.

As researchers warn that the world is running out of time to curb carbon emissions, the United States appears to be heading in the opposite direction. Greenhouse gas pollution jumped by 3.4 percent in 2018, according to a new analysis from the Rhodium Group, an economic research and marketing firm.

Previously, carbon emissions in the United States had peaked in 2005. They slowly dipped down and remained around 14 percent below the peak under the Obama administration.  Under Trump, officials have said that greenhouse gas emissions declined another 2.7 percent between 2016 and 2017.

But the new research appears to stick a fork in that relatively rosy news. The increase in 2018 marks the largest increase in emissions over a year-long period since 2010. The Rhodium Group blames the dismantling of Obama-era environmental regulations as one of the factors behind last year’s increase.

“The tailwinds of Obama administration policy are dissipating,” Trevor Houser, a partner at the Rhodium Group, told the Guardian newspaper.

The research also suggests that the free market won’t save people from climate change.

“This year makes it abundantly clear that energy market trends alone – the low cost of natural gas, the increasing competitiveness of renewables – are not enough to deliver sustained declines in US emissions,” Houser added.

Rising rates of pollution

Transportation is the biggest source of carbon pollution in the United States, and emissions from this sector jumped 1 percent last year.

Industrial manufacturing pollution jumped 5.7 percent, even though carbon plants are shutting down. The report says a booming natural gas sector is likely behind the jump.

Pollution from buildings also surged by 10 percent, an increase related to weather patterns. Winter in 2017 was relatively mild across the country compared to 2018, sparking more emissions as people depended on their heaters to stay comfortable.

The impact of industrial pollution and building pollution on climate change needs more attention, according to the Rhodium Group.

“The industrial sector is still almost entirely ignored” by policy makers, their report says.

Trump famously pulled out of the Paris Agreement, though numerous states have pledged to do their part to participate independently. But meeting the Paris goals will be impossible if the upward trend continues in 2019.

“The U.S. was already off track in meeting its Paris Agreement targets. The gap is even wider headed into 2019,” the report says.

Fungus, peas, and a plate of beans. It’s what's for dinner. It doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, but replacing beef with those plant-based alternatives could extend the average person’s lifespan by as much as 7 percent, according to a new study by European thinktank the World Economic Forum (WEF).  

The fungus Mycoprotein is the healthiest and most sustainable dietary beef alternative, according to the WEF study, though most people likely haven’t heard of it. Mycoprotein is found in soil and used by some fake-meat frozen food brands.

Luckily, there are plenty of other options that might sound a little less depressing to people who aren’t keen on imitation meat.

Replacing beef with nuts, pork, chiken, tofu, or jackfruit would also be superior to current trends, which show that beef consumption is growing at an unhealthy pace.

“It would be impossible for a global population of 10 billion people to eat the amount of meat typical of diets in North America and Europe” without breaking sustainability goals, the WEF report says. “It would require too much land and water, and lead to unacceptable greenhouse‑gas and other pollutant emissions.”

Demand for meat continues to grow

Despite climate concerns, a meat-intensive diet is where much of the world is heading. The Texas Cattle Feeders Association visited Mongolia last August and reported back that even threats of tariffs or a trade war weren’t tampering Chinese demands for American beef.

“The poorest countries, their primary protein sources are plant-based,” the group’s chairman Levi Barry told a local newspaper shortly after his visit. “As they increase their fortune, they typically move into some sort of meat in their diet. We see that in a lot of the developing markets.”

Demand for American beef “continues to climb in nearly every region of the world,” according to the US Meat Export Federation, which says that the value of exported American beef reached record levels in 2018.

But that good news for the cattle export industry may be coming at the expense of the planet. Researchers and environmentalists, not to mention vegan groups, are quick to point out that meat and dairy are especially intensive to produce, requiring huge amounts of land and water. The environmental and health concerns have led to growing interest in alternative sources of proteins.

Ranking the best alternatives

Teaming with researchers from Oxford University, the WEF set out to compare the planetary and human health benefits of different beef alternatives and analyze which alternative is best for human diets and the planet.

Though investors and start-ups are touting lab-grown meat made from tissues as a promising choice, the WEF says that old-fashioned plant-based food is better. Lab-grown meat may not be environmentally sustainable to produce, and “its health benefits compared with traditional beef are marginal,” the WEF says.

Overall, cultured beef ranked at the bottom of WEF’s suggested beef alternatives.

Microproteins, peas, and beans ranked at the top. They were followed respectively by wheat, jackfruit, insects, nuts, alga, chicken and pork.

The report is careful to say that people don’t need to cut beef out of their diet entirely, and it notes that millions of people around the world make their living raising cattle. Many people may not have access to meat alternatives, and following the WEF’s guidelines would require a massive change not just in consumer behavior, but in how food is subsidized and produced.  

“For many people living in the poorest countries, there are no alternatives to meat and restricting access would be detrimental to their health,” the report notes.

Americans buying new solar panels may now be paying millions more on their initial purchase thanks to new tariffs, but that’s no reason to shy away from energy-efficient home technology.

New homeowners and builders are avoiding energy efficient homes over the mistaken belief that they are prohibitively expensive, according to a new report by an environmental think tank.

The Rocky Mountain Institute analyzed the cost and savings linked to two types of energy efficient homes -- zero energy homes and zero energy-ready homes. The former produces more renewable energy than it uses, and it is only attainable for homes that capture enough sunlight, while the latter can be be built anywhere.

Zero energy-ready homes, according to the Department of Energy, are certified as such if they have airtight construction, non-toxic construction materials, good air quality, energy-efficient appliances, and higher levels of insulation and window performance.

These homes are also built in such a way to allow for solar panels to be installed at a future date, if the homeowner cannot afford to install the panels initially. When that happens, the homes would then have the potential to be zero energy.

Sales of homes that are under construction or have yet to be built represent a major market for developers, but only a small fraction of those homes are slated to be energy efficient.  

Most home builders believe that green homes will be a tough sell and that they will add more than 5 percent to total costs. Consumers have also avoided buying green homes over cost concerns.

“These perceptions are preventing or disincentivizing stakeholders from acting in their own long-term interests,” the Rocky Mountain Institute says.

Saving money over time

According to the non-profit’s research, building a zero energy-ready home actually only adds somewhere between .9 to 2.5 percent to total housing costs. A zero energy home costs more, an average of 6.7 to 8.1 percent higher than a regular home.  

But living green will eventually save homeowners thousands of dollars over a home’s lifecycle, the institute says, pointing to research that the typical consumer keeps their home for 12 years before selling it.

The benefits vary from region to region, but they are most obvious to homeowners in the midwest. In Detroit, for example, a zero energy-ready house without solar panels costs $1,574 more than a typical house, and the energy savings would be reaped in less than two years.

InsideClimate news recently toured energy efficient homes under construction in Michigan. The builder said that such homes are also more comfortable because they have better temperature control.

Houses currently account for 10 percent of carbon emissions in the United States.

At the heart of the U.S. government's two-year National Climate Assessment report, a group of researchers are now warning that climate change is already harming public health.

A total of 150 experts from 27 different universities and institutions, including the World Health Organization (WHO), published their findings in the journal The Lancet on Wednesday.

Heat strokes, dengue fever, and lack of access to clean drinking water, clean air, and food supplies are likely to become growing problems if no action is taken on climate change, the report says.

“These are not things happening in 2050 but are things we are already seeing today. We think of these as the canary in, ironically, the coalmine,” Nick Watt, the Executive Director of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change project, told the Guardian.

Raising awareness, but action still needed

The only silver lining comes in the form of awareness. The researchers say that reporting on the human health effects of climate change may make people more inclined to act.

“Individual engagement and action contributes to a growing wave of change,” an introductory paper to the report says. “This does not negate the need for engagement at international policy level and for governments to better use their powers, but this can be accelerated and complemented by harnessing the collective voice of individuals.”

But action at the policy level still appears to be a hard-fought battle. The United Nations says that governments must triple their current efforts at tackling climate change to prevent catastrophic warming in the near future.

The researchers at The Lancet note that hospitals may not be prepared to take on a growing amount of heat stroke patients. The team interviewed officials from 500 global cities and found that much of their public health infrastructure, such as hospitals, were vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

Some lawmakers in the United States are currently drafting a Green New Deal proposal that they hope will aggressively address the problem.

A new report compiled by government and private scientists declares that the earth's climate is changing at a faster rate, due largely to human activity.

Their report, the second of a two-part National Climate Assessment project, claims that rising temperatures have already affected major industries and that Americans are now being directly affected.

"The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future—but the severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur," the authors write.

The report catalogs the steps the U.S. is already taking in response. They include water conservation in the Colorado River Basin; Nebraska’s extension program that helps ranchers cope with drought; efforts in Hawaii to promote coral reef recovery; and investments in Louisiana flood control operations.

"In Alaska, a tribal health organization is developing adaptation strategies to address physical and mental health challenges driven by climate change and other environmental changes," the authors write. "As Midwestern farmers adopt new management strategies to reduce erosion and nutrient losses caused by heavier rains, forest managers in the Northwest are developing adaptation strategies in response to wildfire increases that affect human health, water resources, timber production, fish and wildlife, and recreation."

Rise of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit

The report says the annual average temperatures have increased by only 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 118 years, though it says much of the change is concentrated in the period between 1986 and 2016.

The report is being issued at the beginning of what is projected to be a particularly cold winter. A NASA scientist recently reported that there has been a lack of sunspot activity throughout 2018, and that could lead to what he called a "space age record" for cold temperatures this winter.

Ultra-violet radiation from sunspots is thought to agitate particles in the Earth's atmosphere, creating heat. Without the sunspot activity, that heat will be absent.

Other scientists cited in the Daily Mail say these changes take place in the atmosphere high above the earth and are not likely to affect the weather that much on the surface.

Nespresso is teaming up with mining and metals company Rio Tinto to work toward the goal of using 100 percent “responsibly sourced” aluminum in all of its coffee pods by 2020.

The companies announced on Monday that Rio Tinto will supply aluminum with renewable power and respect for biodiversity to Nespresso as part of a larger effort to reduce the negative environmental impact of the coffee giant’s coffee pods.

“This is an important step towards the use of responsibly sourced aluminium across manufacturing industries, which Rio Tinto is the first to supply,” said Alf Barrios, the company’s chief executive of aluminium, in a statement.

“It’s addressing a preference that consumers and society are clearly articulating … but it’s also good commercial sense,” Barrios added.

Sustainable aluminum

Under the partnership, Nespresso will work with its capsule manufacturers to ensure they use exclusively metal certified by the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative.

“Nespresso is proud to have been a driving force in creating and implementing the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative,” Nespresso chief executive Jean-Marc Duvoisin said. “Together, we have made responsibly sourced aluminium a reality, and the ASI traceability mechanism will enable us to meet our commitment to customers to reduce the impact of their consumption.”

The partnership will help Nespresso, which currently holds almost a third of the coffee pod market, compete with companies that market themselves as sustainable. Last week, rival Halo claimed to have created the world’s first fully compostable coffee capsule and packaging.

Nespresso critics have said the company's coffee pods are a waste of resources since they are not biodegradable. Millions of used coffee pods end up in landfills each year.

The company has tried alternatives to aluminum, but none of them have sufficiently protected the coffee from exposure to the air, nor have they been able to withstand the pressure of the Nespresso machines.

Nespresso says it’s working with its manufacturers to ensure that all capsules are ASI-certified, a process that will take some time The Nestle-owned company is also aiming to make recycling as easy as possible.

Reducing carbon emissions has countless benefits for our society. Not only would it improve the environment, but consumers would also see a noticeable difference in associated health risks.

Now, a new study conducted by researchers at the University of Waterloo shows how even the economy is affected by a failure to take climate change into consideration.

The researchers found that if companies -- particularly those that produce the most emissions -- don’t make a change and try to reduce their carbon footprint, consumers can expect to see a downward trend in the stock market in less than a decade.

“Over the long-term, companies from the carbon-intensive sectors that fail to take proper recognizable emission abatements may be expected to experience fundamental devaluations in their stocks when the climate change risk gets priced correctly by the market,” said lead author Mingyu Fang.

“More specifically for the traditional energy sector, such devaluation will start from their oil reserves being stranded by stricter environmental regulations as part of a sustainable, global effort to mitigate the effects caused by climate change.”

Far-reaching effects of climate change

The researchers analyzed stock returns from 36 publicly traded companies from both North America and Europe, many of which were some of the biggest carbon-emitting offenders. The study found several ways that carbon emissions are affecting these companies’ bottom lines.

The researchers found just 25 percent of the companies involved in the study were utilizing carbon pricing -- a method that charges for carbon dioxide emissions. The extra charge is favored by many environmentalists and economists, as it may encourage decision-makers to think twice about their carbon emissions.

Additionally, climate change often puts pressure on environmental agencies to enforce stricter regulations. This then leads to an increase in both carbon pricing and other emissions taxes, both of which were found to negatively affect many companies.

Because of this, the researchers are urging companies to take their carbon emissions and the evolving state of climate change into careful consideration moving forward, as the impact is more far-reaching than many initially thought.

“It is in the best interest of the companies in the financial, insurance, and pension industries to price this carbon risk correctly in their asset allocations,” said researcher Tony Wirjanto. “Companies have to take climate change into consideration to build an optimal and sustainable portfolio in the long run under the climate change risk.”

Companies going green

Many companies have already taken steps to become more eco-friendly, though it may not be for economical reasons. Earlier this year, both McDonald’s and Starbucks announced plans to make their stores greener.

By 2030, McDonald’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 36 percent. By using LED lighting, switching to sustainable packaging, and making the kitchen more energy efficient, the fast food chain is hoping to prevent 150 million metric tons of emissions.  

On the other hand, Starbucks is working to develop a cup that is fully compostable and recyclable. Starbucks is investing $10 million into the project in an effort to do better for the environment.

Dunkin Donuts made a similar move, announcing it will switch from styrofoam cups to paper cups to effectively remove one billion foam cups from landfills each year. The switch was set to begin this spring and will be in all stores by 2020.

Late last month, General Motors announced plans for a zero-emissions vehicle program. The program, which could have over seven million long-range electric cars on the road by 2030, could potentially save 375 million tons of carbon emissions.

The State of California is looking to eliminate all emissions statewide. By 2045, Governor Jerry Brown is looking to have a state free of all greenhouse gas emissions. Brown also signed a clean air bill that would also make California’s electricity emission-free in the same timeframe.

The Supreme Court has refused to stop a lawsuit filed by a group of young people who claim the climate is changing and the U.S. government isn't doing enough to stop it.

In a motion, the Trump administration asked the high court to block the litigation from moving forward, arguing that it is misguided and represents a “radical invasion” of the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court informed the administration that, in the court's opinion, it had not presented a convincing enough argument to stop the lawsuit. It said the case should proceed and the government could remake its argument before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at the appropriate time.

The lawsuit was filed in Oregon in 2015, naming 21 children as plaintiffs, claiming U.S. and state government agencies were knowingly doing nothing to stop global warming. The suit says that such inaction is in violation of the constitutional rights of younger generations, specifically “their right to 'life, liberty, and property' as enshrined in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment."

President Trump asked the court to block the suit, but he wasn't the first chief executive to do so. The Obama administration filed a motion in 2016 asking federal court to dismiss the case, but the judge refused, sending it on to the Supreme Court.

This week, 250 major organizations -- including Coca-Cola, Unilever, Colgate, SC Johnson, and H&M -- pledged to eliminate plastic waste from their operations by 2025 as part of a global campaign led by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

The pledge is part of a larger goal to curb plastic waste pollution, which has become a dangerous concern. Researchers calculate that if current trends continue, there could be more plastic than fish in the world’s seas by 2050.

The 250 companies, businesses, and governments that signed on to the "New Plastics Economy Global Commitment" pledged to eliminate plastic when it’s problematic or unnecessary, and in some cases, switch to reusable packaging.

Eradicating plastic pollution

All of the organizations plan to make 100 percent of their plastic packaging either reusable, recyclable, or compostable within seven years. Individual targets within the commitment were set, and the collective ambition among signatories will grow with time.

"We will continue to review the ambition level of the commitment and, over time, raise it, and we also call for many more businesses and governments around the world to join this effort so that we also continue to scale up in numbers of companies and governments involved," said Sander Defruyt, who leads the New Plastics Economy Initiative at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Plastic entering the oceans “is one of the most visible and disturbing examples of a plastic pollution crisis,” Erik Solheim, Head of UN Environment, said in a statement. “The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment is the most ambitious set of targets we have seen yet in the fight to beat plastics pollution.”

Ellen MacArthur, the record-breaking British sailor who is behind the campaign, said cleaning up plastics from oceans and beaches is vital, “but this does not stop the tide of plastic entering the oceans each year. We need to move upstream to the source of the flow.”

PepsiCo announced this week that it’s aiming to reduce its use of plastic packaging and increase its use of recycled plastic. The company said it’s heading toward the goal of using 25 percent recycled content in its plastic packaging by 2025.

PepsiCo has announced a new goal to reduce its use of plastic packaging and increase its use of recycled plastic.

The food and beverage manufacturer said it aims to use 25 percent recycled content in its plastic packaging by 2025. The pledge comes at a time when businesses are under increasing pressure to curb the use of plastic, which often ends up in the world's oceans.

The company said it will collaborate with suppliers and partners and try to increase consumer education about curbing plastic pollution. It also said improved recycling infrastructure and regulatory reform are needed to achieve its goal.

Specifically, PepsiCo has a goal of using 33 percent recycled PET (polyethylene terephthalate) content in beverage bottles by 2025.

'Where plastics never become waste'

"PepsiCo's sustainable plastics vision is to build a PepsiCo where plastics need never become waste," said Dr. Mehmood Khan, PepsiCo's vice chairman and chief scientific officer. "We intend to achieve that vision by reducing, recycling and reusing, and reinventing our plastic packaging."

But to help reduce plastic pollution, Khan said improvements in global waste collection and investments in recycling infrastructure are needed.

As we reported in May, the recycling industry is going through some tough times. China, which has been a major importer of U.S. recyclables, has significantly reduced its purchases because it says there's always too much trash mixed in with the products to be recycled. Ongoing trade tensions aren’t helping matters either.

With the collapse of the market for recyclable bottles and cans, jurisdictions have begun to charge consumers more to recycle. In some cases, The Wall Street Journal reports these recyclables end-up in a landfill anyway.

“Recycling as we know it isn’t working,” James Warner, chief executive of the Solid Waste Management Authority in Lancaster County, Pa., told The Journal back in May. “There’s always been ups and downs in the market, but this is the biggest disruption that I can recall.”

Banning plastic straws

The latest front in the corporate effort to curb plastic pollution is to not use it at all. Many restaurants have begun to phase out plastic straws in favor of paper ones, although straws make up a small part of plastic pollution. In a fast food restaurant that has banned plastic straws, consumers who order salads will still discard containers, utensils, and other packaging made of plastic.

PepsiCo, meanwhile, says it has already begun to rely more on recycled plastic. Earlier this month, it said it had signed a supply agreement with Loop Industries to incorporate Loop PET plastic, which is 100 percent recycled material, into its product packaging by mid-2020.

The electric grid will need to be changed in order to keep self-driving cars from having a negative impact on society’s sustainability goals, a new study suggests.

Researchers Peter Fox-Penner, Will Gorman, and Jennifer Hatch analyzed a large body of academic and industry research on autonomous vehicles and found that they will likely greatly increase overall transportation demand.

“With more options available, more people will take advantage of these autonomous vehicles and ride services,” the researchers noted. The authors say autonomous vehicles could exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions if appropriate policies aren’t put in place before this technology starts taking over.

Transportation shift

By 2050, the net increase in electricity demand from converting the light duty vehicle fleet (which currently accounts for 90 percent of motor vehicle travel in the U.S.) to electric, autonomous vehicles will be between 13 percent and 26 percent more than today's total electricity demand, according to the study’s estimates.

“In the best case, where 95 percent of the electric sector decarbonizes by that time, this scenario would result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of up to 80 percent from 2015 light duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions,” the researchers said.

In their paper, Penner-Fox and his colleagues assert that society “can only achieve dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by making the electric grid dramatically less polluting.”

Carbon-free grid

The researchers conceded that transitioning the grid to 95 percent to 100 percent clean energy won’t be easy.

“Currently only 37 percent is from wind, solar, hydropower and nuclear. Nor will ensuring that almost all of our light duty vehicles are electric. That’s partly because EVs are not yet cost-competitive with internal combustion engine vehicles,” the authors wrote. “Also, there are a number of infrastructure challenges to updating the grid for a major shift to electric transportation.”

However, the study suggests that “rapid and complete transport electrification and a carbon-free grid should remain the cornerstones of transport decarbonization policy” in the near-term, while a long-term policy should aim to ensure that autonomous vehicles are electric and “mitigate autonomous vehicles’ potential to increase driving mileage, urban and suburban sprawl, and traffic congestion.”

And policymakers should not delay. The rise of Uber and Lyft have already dramatically upended business models that have existed for decades, and autonomous vehicle technology, which still has a few years to go before replacing human drivers, is already impacting cities around the country. The question now is whether these trends will reduce or increase our country’s emissions.

For the second time in four months, the federal government is asking the Supreme Court to toss a lawsuit demanding it act on climate change for the sake of younger generations.

The youth climate change lawsuit, as it is known, was originally filed by a group of 21 children and teenagers in Oregon in 2015. The group alleged that the United States government and state agencies were knowingly doing nothing to stop global warming. The suit says that such inaction is in violation of the constitutional rights of younger generations, specifically “their right to 'life, liberty, and property' as enshrined in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment."

While former President Barack Obama has long said man-made climate change is a real phenomenon, numerous oil and gas projects requiring federal permits continued under his watch, and climate scientists and activists said he was not doing enough to curb emissions.

Sure enough, his administration filed a motion trying to toss the kids’ case in 2016, only for a U.S. District Justice in Oregon to side with the kids and send the case to the Supreme Court.

Despite President Donald Trump’s tendency to undo any action put in place by his predecessor, the youth climate change lawsuit appears to be the one of the few areas where the two administrations are in agreement.

After the Supreme Court decided on July 30 that the case "presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion” and refused to toss it, the Trump administration on Thursday once again filed a motion requesting a stay.

The decision is now up to Chief Justice John Roberts of the Ninth Circuit, and he can either rule on his own or send the case to the Supreme Court, potentially kicking Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court career off with one of the country’s most high-profile environmental lawsuits.

Kavanaugh has previously said that “humans are contributing” to the earth’s warming temperatures, but he has also argued that it should be up to Congress, not the Environmental Protection Agency, to do something about the problem.

The plaintiffs, now ranging in age from 11 to 22, could see the case go to trial on October 29 if the courts do not intervene before then.

The agrochemical industry is seeking permission for more widespread use of a pesticide that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously said was “very highly toxic” to bees.

The EPA already approved two products containing the chemical called sulfoxaflor several years ago, despite its own research linking it to bee deaths. But the agency was forced to rescind approval after environmentalists sued and won a victory from the  U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges cited concerns about bee deaths in their ruling.

Since then, the EPA has said that sulfoxaflor may only be used on crops that are not attractive to bees, or in specific cases in which a company applied for an “exemption” to the prohibition.

Dow Agrosciences is now asking the EPA for permission to spray an insecticide containing sulfoxaflor on rice, avocado, tree farm plantations, and greenhouses. Dow’s proposal, first reported by Environmental Health News, would dramatically expand the territory where sulfoxaflor could be sprayed. The application makes no mention of the previous legal fights and research citing concerns that the chemical may harm bees.

Pesticides linked to colony collapse

Scientists in recent years have sounded the alarm on the collapse of the world’s honeybee population. Without honeybees and other pollinators, coffee, chocolate, and apples would disappear from kitchens, to name just a few of the consumer staples that depend on them.

A growing amount of research has linked colony collapse disorder to the widespread spraying of a class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids or neonics. Beekeepers and others have repeatedly challenged the EPA for allowing neonics to be sprayed on soybean and corn fields.  

The chemical sulfoxaflor, meanwhile, is not used as heavily, though that may change if the Dow application is approved. In August, scientists published a report in the journal Nature examining sulfoxaflor. They linked it to a 54 percent population reduction in the bumblebee colony they studied.

"Sulfoxaflor exposure could lead to similar environmental impacts as neonicotinoids if used on crops that attract bees in the absence of evidence-based legislation,” the authors warned.

Dow’s media line has not yet returned an inquiry from ConsumerAffairs. Consumers have until November 13 to comment on the proposal.

The oil and gas lobby long ago abandoned its campaign of climate denial and is now promoting the idea that Americans are on their way to solving the global warming crisis thanks to its efforts.   

“The natural gas and oil industry is actively addressing the complex global challenge of climate change through robust investments in technology innovation, efficiency improvements, and cleaner fuels,” the American Petroleum Institute (API), the trade group that represents Exxon and dozens of other major oil and gas companies, tells ConsumerAffairs in an emailed statement.

The API issued the statement in response to a dire new warning from the United Nations. The organization says emissions must be cut drastically within twelve years to avoid ecological disaster, according to a report published on Monday.

While the world governments participating in the Paris climate agreement have set a goal of keeping the earth’s temperature at 2℃,  the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said Monday that 1.5℃ is the better choice. Lowering the limit to 1.5℃ would have “clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems,” the report says.

Instead, however, the world is going the opposite direction and is on track to reach between 3 and 5 degrees, according to the authors.

Using the year 2010 as a benchmark, the IPCC says that humanity must cut its emissions 45 percent by 2030 to meet the 1.5℃ goal.

“Any increase in global warming is projected to affect human health, with primarily negative consequences,” they write.

Industry points to natural gas as the answer

The report does not identify the specific industries or countries that have contributed disportionately to the disaster. But research last year by the Carbon Dislcosue Project, a UK-based think tank, identifies 25 corporations or government-backed energy entities as being responsible for 51 percent of the world’s emissions. A total of 100 companies were identified as contributing to 71 percent of the world’s emissions.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) represents several companies listed in that study, including Exxon (#5), Shell (#9), and Chevron (#12). Asked if the companies would make a stronger effort to reduce emissions in light of that and the UN’s more recent research, the API pointed to its investment in natural gas.

“While global CO2 emissions have risen 50 percent since 1990, U.S. CO2 emissions are at 25-year lows due in large part to clean and abundant U.S. natural gas powering homes and businesses as the number one source of U.S. electricity generation today,” the API’s statement to ConsumerAffairs continues in response.

The IPCC, meanwhile, says that just 8 percent of the electricity grid must come from gas by 2050 to meet the 1.5℃ goal. An additional 8 percent can come from coal; the remainder must come from renewables, the report says. Currently, gas and coal each hover around 30 percent of the electricity grid in the U.S..

U.S. is getting lower -- but compared to what?

The U.S. Energy Information Administration, the federal agency that tracks energy sources and emissions, has also said that U.S. C02 emissions are at a 25-year-low due to natural gas replacing coal on the grid. But a study published in June in the journal Science claims the EPA has underestimated methane leaks from natural gas operations by 60 percent.

The API declined to address that specific study in its statement or answer follow-up questions. Instead, spokesman Reid Porter forwarded over links to articles on the API website.

“There’s talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions – and then there’s taking steps to produce measurable results,” one such API article says. “The United States is in the second category, with the natural gas and oil industry playing the leading role.”

The U.S. may be reducing its emissions more than we otherwise would thanks to the industry efforts, but environmental scientists say that much more drastic action is needed.

China, the United States, and the European Union play an outsize role in contributing to climate change, according to World Bank data. And while the gas industry says that a domestic drilling boom is necessary to achieve energy independence, the oil industry’s own lobby also acknowledges that it is fast becoming one of the world’s leading exporters.

High-profile industry campaigns

Exxon several weeks ago agreed to join Shell, Occidental Petroleum, and others in the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative -- an oil industry group devoted specifically to investing in technology to combat climate change.

The industry coalition says it is focusing its efforts on reducing methane emissions, though it claims that the industry is not responsible for methane leaks in all parts of the production chain.

“Our target for our own upstream production facilities is important, but our aim is to work towards near zero methane emissions from the full gas value chain, including transport and distribution to final customers (downstream),”  the industry group says on its website, “which in most cases we do not own or control.”

Exxon, Shell, and BP have also thrown their support behind the Paris accord, despite the United States’ backtracking, and last year joined a dozen major corporations and Republican Senators in proposing $40 tax on each ton of C02 emissions. That industry group said the tax would allow for a “free-market, limited government” response to climate change. And in response to investor pressure, Shell has promised to cut the amount of oil that it will sell in half by 2050.

Numerous other companies and industry groups are similarly promoting voluntary, market-based measures to reduce emissions, an idea supported by some politicians on both sides of the aisle. But industry critics argue that the only full-proof solution is to make fossil fuels increasingly expensive -- and to effectively discourage companies from drilling, rather than encouraging them to drill more responsibly.  

Drilling ahead

Oil and natural gas production continues to break records in the United States, surpassing records set in 1970, and people raising questions about new oil and gas projects say that they have been confronted by an increasingly shadowy regulatory system, even before Trump took office.

“As long as oil and gas production and output continue to increase, it is very hard to argue that there will be any decline in emissions, because a barrel of oil and gas eventually will turn into an emission at some point,” investment analyst Dr. Henrik Jeppesen told ConsumerAffairs last month.

It’s for that reason that a leading climate researcher and former NASA scientist has accused world governments and both the Obama and Trump administrations of failing to take any meaningful action to cut emissions and address the crisis.

“All we’ve done is agree there’s a problem,” he recently told the Guardian.  “We agreed that in 1992 [at the Earth summit in Rio] and re-agreed it again in Paris [at the 2015 climate accord]. We haven’t acknowledged what is required to solve it. Promises like Paris don’t mean much, it’s wishful thinking. It’s a hoax that governments have played on us since the 1990s.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently trying to overhaul the way that chemicals are regulated and is reportedly relying on the expertise of a toxicologist who argues that small amounts of radiation are beneficial.

The Associated Press reports that Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts, is set to testify before Congress today as the EPA’s lead witness over proposed new rule changes that the federal government claims will bring more “transparency” to the regulation of toxic chemicals.  

Calabrese has argued for years that the current standard for evaluating radiation risks, referred to by scientists as the linear no-threshold model, is overly cautious.

As the site Phys.org reported last year, “Calabrese has for many years advocated for hormesis,” an alternative approach to evaluating the risk of radiation exposure. It’s a model that Calabrese says “provides evidence that low-dose exposure of some chemicals and ionizing radiation is benign or even helpful,” according to Phys.org.

Arguing for radiation

Currently, federal laws regarding radiation exposure operate on the principle that no amount of radiation is safe. While plenty of research has linked health risks to low doses of radiation, some researchers have tried to make the case that, when it comes to radiation, the dose makes the poison.

Calabrese is among the researchers in the latter group in promoting his alternative hormesis model. In a 2016 interview, he reportedly said that it “would have a positive effect on human health as well as save billions and billions and billions of dollars.”

In statements to the Associated Press, the EPA said it has no intention of changing the way that radiation exposure is currently regulated. Its “transparency” proposal does not name any substance or chemical specifically. However, the Associated Press notes that Calabrese is quoted heavily in an EPA news release announcing the proposed rule changes.

In a news release that the EPA issued in April, Calabrese is quoted as saying that the agency is making a “a major scientific step forward” in the field of "chemicals and radiation” with its proposed new methods for evaluating health risks of certain substances.

Strengthening transparency or protecting companies?

At issue is a proposed regulation that the EPA claims will “strengthen transparency in regulatory science.” The proposal, introduced when Scott Pruitt was still leading the agency, would require that all researchers investigating the health effects of substances make their data public if they want the research to be considered by federal regulators.  

Numerous researchers say that such a proposal is simply a backhanded way to protect industries that work with toxic substances from facing any regulations. Researchers say that when it comes to studies on humans, for instance, they never make the data completely public because doing so would violate the privacy of their subjects.

“If EPA excludes studies because the data cannot be made public, people may be exposed to real harm,” a coalition of 69 professional doctors’ associations and health organizations warned in a statement they released in July.

Industry groups, meanwhile, are throwing their support behind the EPA’s proposal. The American Chemistry Council, the industry trade group that has long defended the safety of synthetic chemicals commonly used in consumer products, says that the “EPA’s proposed rule is a major step toward enhancing the public’s understanding of the science used to support regulations issued by the agency and increasing public confidence in agency decisions.”

The EPA says they are currently reviewing nearly 600,000 comments that people have submitted in response to the proposal.

Atmos Energy workers found as many as 28 gas leaks in a single residential neighborhood in Dallas. The leaks potentially caused two small, separate house fires that residents reported, the company said in an email to Texas regulators.

Atmos assured Texas regulators it was sending workers to “monitor the surrounding area for potential leaks” and promised to “make repairs as needed.”

Twelve hours later, a house in the neighborhood exploded off its tracks, killing 12-year-old Linda “Michellita” Rogers. It took another three days for Atmos to evacuate the neighborhood’s 2,800 residents.

The deadly explosion back in February is part of a disturbing pattern in Texas. Following the girl's death, officials and residents who pressed Atmos Energy for answers were told that it will take years to replace aging pipes. The company also refused to disclose where aging pipes are located in the city. 

A new analysis by the Dallas Morning News shows that over two dozen homes along Atmos’ path of pipelines have exploded in north and central Texas since 2006, leading to 9 deaths and 22 injuries.

Atmos Energy is one of the largest natural gas providers in the United States and is headquartered in Dallas, where it has taken a particularly lax approach to pipeline safety.

High risk for explosion

The federal government, since the 1970s, has warned that natural gas pipelines made from steel and cast iron pose an unacceptably high risk for explosion. Twenty states subsequently passed laws forcing natural gas operators to replace cast iron pipes. 

But such laws don’t exist in Texas -- the only state where Atmos has yet to replace its cast iron pipes. As of last year, 500 miles of cast iron pipes remain. Atmos Energy also admitted last year that a third of its pipes in Texas were installed before 1940.

Atmos has repeatedly been cited in Texas for failing to protect its pipes from corrosion, failing to replace old parts, stalling on evacuations or taking other steps to keep residents out of harm’s way.  Yet the company has also refused to admit fault in any of the explosions along its network of pipelines, according to government records reviewed by the News.

Consumers who suspect a gas leak are normally advised to leave the area immediately and call 911. But following that protocol didn’t help affected people in Texas.

On December 31 last year, one man called 911 to report a suspected gas leak in his home in Irving, a suburb of Dallas. Crews began repairing the leak and investigating the rest of the neighborhood. They told neighbor Magdalene Tijerina that it wasn’t necessary to evacuate. Early the next morning, she awoke to see her ceiling on fire and fled with her family. They escaped the explosion unharmed. Atmos was fined $16,000 by the state.

The company defended its safety record in statements to the News. But as the paper notes, Atmos is also raising its rates next year. Documents obtained by the paper show that Atmos is trying to recover $600,000 that its insurer is charging annually due to the previous explosions.

During the country’s fourth-hottest summer on record, a group of activists headed to the Atchafalaya swamp in Louisiana. They chained themselves to excavators and constructed “sky pod” tents among the trees, part of an attempt to stall construction on yet another crude oil pipeline underway in the United States.

Energy sources of the future are “not going to be oil,” activist and organizer Cherri Foytlin said by phone in July, making time for an interview before she had to bail some protesters out of jail in New Orleans.

“Very clearly, we can see that one of the fastest growing industries in the world is renewable energy,” she added, sounding optimistic despite the legacy of influence stacked in the pipeline operator’s favor.

As weather grows more extreme, over half of Americans and even major oil companies that do business here now say they think that man-made climate change is a real problem that needs to be fixed.

"We believe climate change is real," Royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben van Beurden told National Public Radio last year. Shell, like other oil corporations, has made some high-profile investments in renewable energy and is vowing to “prevent a very significant rise in global temperatures.”

That oil companies want to solve the global warming crisis is a nice message, but it’s not one in line with reality. Across the United States, the fossil fuel industry appears to be betting on a future that is increasingly dependent on oil and gas, regardless of any climate concerns that could get in the way.

A banner year

For the fossil fuel industry, 2018 was a year worth celebrating when it came to business in the United States, or in their words, the “year of American Energy.”

Crude oil production last January reached 10 million barrels a day, shattering a record previously set in 1970. By next year, analysts predict that number will reach 11 million barrels.

“This would push the U.S. into first place among the world's oil producers,” industry engineer and investor Robert Rapier said in March.

Natural gas production is on a similar track, estimated to reach record production levels of 81.3 billion feet per day this year. The industry is now eyeing talent in Silicon Valley to help them digitize their land records.

Going high-tech will create “marginally more profitability at the corporate level,” Kate Richard, the president of Warwick Energy Group, a firm with investments in 5,000 wells across Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Wyoming, tells ConsumerAffairs. “We should be able to be more efficient and make money go further.”

Meanwhile, offshore drilling is poised for a recovery of its own, thanks to a Trump proposal to overturn the offshore drilling ban enacted in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. According to investor Matthew DiLallo, “recovery in the offshore drilling sector is right around the corner.”

The news is overwhelmingly positive, as long as industry firms ignore the depressing field of climate research.

“We are doing worse,” says Henrik Jeppesen, an analyst with Carbon Tracker, a financial think-tank that urges shareholders and investors to consider the threat of climate change. Jeppesen, who heads Carbon Tracker's efforts in North America, compares the fossil fuel industry to a drug dealer that is all-too-happy to feed society’s addiction to oil.

“As long as oil and gas production and output continue to increase, it is very hard to argue that there will be any decline in emissions, because a barrel of oil and gas eventually will turn into an emission at some point,” he tells ConsumerAffairs.

An unbalanced system

No single advocacy group or agency is calculating the entire country’s carbon footprint, but advocacy groups currently track different pieces of the puzzle.

When the federal government invited even more oil and gas companies to drill on public land in Wyoming in 2014, conservationists hoping to stop the rampant development in a state known for picturesque frontiers knew they needed to act quickly. So they sent a fax.

The federal government “is approving record numbers of large oil and gas development projects in Wyoming,” said the fax from the WildEarth Guardians, one of half a dozen conservation groups that protested the sale.

The Wilderness Society, another conservation group, had similar concerns, but a technical problem somewhere along the way delayed the message. Two months later, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sent them a letter saying that their protest fax had arrived 12 minutes late and could not be counted.

Oil and gas leases on federal land have rapidly picked up in recent years, according to conservation groups that track federal mineral leases. But protesters who want to fight the development must deal with the indignity of a fax machine or post office; the BLM refuses to accept protests via email.

"It's a really unbalanced system. When the industry wants to nominate parcels for lease they can do it online in a click of a button,” says Juli Slivka, a policy analyst with The Wilderness Society, which tracks oil and gas leases on federal land.

Since Trump took office, the BLM has since opened up millions more acres for drilling -- while cutting the time available to protesters down by a third. The agency still refuses to accept email from people filing complaints.

Other battles pitting environmental groups against the federal government tell a similar story of a bureaucracy that miraculously acts quickly when it is in service of the industry. In 2012, the Corps of Engineers introduced a fast-track permitting process for new oil and gas pipelines, allowing projects to be approved at a rate unlike any environmentalists said they had ever seen.

Emissions worsening

Companies like Shell have put natural gas at the front and center of their sustainability initiatives. They say that its “clean-burning” properties are a key tool in the fight against global warming. But years of research suggest that methane, a potent greenhouse gas and a component of natural gas, leaks throughout the drilling process, essentially undoing any climate benefits the domestic fracking boom responsible may have brought.

In June, a study led by the Environmental Defense Fund said that natural gas operators are leaking methane at rates 60 percent higher than current EPA estimates. The leaks occur across the process, from drilling to transmission, according to the research. 

The industry remains unconvinced.

On drilling sites, methane leaks are “not a concern that we hear people talk about very much,” says Kate Richard, the president of the investment firm Warwick Energy Group.

Indeed, the industry doesn’t have much reason for concern. The Trump administration this month announced a new proposal to roll back what methane emission regulations did exist and save the oil and gas industry $75 million in the process. Natural gas companies celebrated the move.

"By fixing the numerous technical problems with the original rule, EPA will enable industry to continue its four-decade success record of reducing methane emissions,” industry firm Western Energy Alliance's President Kathleen Sgamma told InsideClimate News.

Meanwhile, back in Louisiana, lawmakers recently enacted a new state law that makes trespassing on pipeline construction sites a felony, part of a nationwide trend intended to tamper environmental protests.

The law had only been in effect in the state since August 1. But by mid-September, the environmental activists organizing and camping out estimated that at least ten pipeline protesters had been arrested under the measure.

A separate group of opponents is battling pipeline operator Energy Transfer Partners in court. However, because the litigation isn’t stopping construction, the protesters are acting as human placeholders.

Whether they will face felony charges for doing so remains an open question. "I hope to God no more felonies," Foytlin said. "But if there is, then they will be righteous ones."

It didn’t take long for a project financed by oil and gas pipeline magnate Energy Transfer Partners and its subsidiary Sunoco to literally blow up.

The Revolution Pipeline, apparently named to honor its historic location in the state of Pennsylvania, exploded on September 11 a little after 5 a.m. A fire erupted shortly after, forcing dozens of homeowners in nearby Beaver County to evacuate.

No one was injured, but cars and garages were damaged. And one home 500 feet away from the blast was completely destroyed in the fire.

Construction on The Revolution was completed in February, and it had only been in operation since September 3. Investigators pointed to landslides in the region as a possible cause of the explosion. Company officials agree with that assessment.

“An initial site assessment reveals evidence of a landslide in the vicinity of the pipeline,” a Sunoco spokesman told a local newspaper.

During a time when millions of people in the East Coast face record-breaking precipitation and hundreds of resulting landslides, that message isn’t exactly comforting. State lawmakers in Pennsylvania are now calling for oil and gas pipeline construction to be halted completely.

But they face an uphill battle. Energy Transfer Partners is currently constructing another pipeline in the state called the Mariner East Pipeline. And Shell, a competitor, has major plans to build a new ethane cracker plant that would require more pipelines.

“Today’s pipeline explosion in Beaver County was a graphic illustration of my worst fears – and the fears of many local residents – related to the construction of the Mariner East pipeline,” State Rep. Chris Quinn told the Daily Local.

Plastics plant in the works

Royal Dutch Shell announced that it would build a plastics plant in Pennsylvania back in 2016. The project, set to be constructed in an abandoned manufacturing plant outside Pittsburgh, was initially hailed as a potential job-creator that could help people in northern Appalachia.

But producing those plastics requires a new network of pipelines delivering ethane, a flammable mixture of natural gas and petroleum. The Shell Pipeline Company is now trying to win approval to construct a 100-mile ethane pipeline through northern Appalachia for that very purpose.

The Falcon Ethane Pipeline, as Shell is calling the project, would be constructed through 25 different areas that are prone to landslides, Shell recently acknowledged in a permitting application.

Environmental Health News is reporting that Shell identified 14 “landslide risk” areas along the route in southwestern Pennsylvania and nine others along the route in Ohio and West Virginia. Several of those “landslide risks” areas are near residential neighborhoods.

Shell did not respond to the publication’s request for a comment, but researchers quoted said that the findings were troubling.

"According to our analysis, the blast radius for the Falcon pipeline [in one town] is about 900 feet, so if there were an accident, all those homes are in the impact radius near the landslide area," Kirk Jalbert, a researcher at Arizona State University, told Environmental Health News.

Local activists in the state have already been protesting and urging Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection to reject permits for the pipeline, pointing to concerns that pipeline leaks may also contaminate local reservoirs.

The state has told Shell that it needs to provide more environmental impact information in its application, but the project is still under review.

The oil and gas industry has long touted “clean-burning” natural gas as one of its most important weapons in the fight against climate change.

But a huge domestic fracking boom that yielded a record amount of natural gas in the last decade failed to curb emissions in the United States, and researchers and environmentalist say they know why: methane.

Though the industry is not keen to admit it, researchers have documented how leaks at fracking sites that emit methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, could effectively undo any efforts to stop global warming.

The Trump administration is now predictably going after an Obama-era proposal intended to force the industry to get tougher on methane leaks.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new rule this week that it says will save the oil and gas industry $75 million each year. The EPA also acknowledged that the changes will cause methane emissions to increase by a minimum of 380,000 tons by 2025.

During the Obama administration, the EPA said that new regulations targeting methane emissions would reduce pollution by as much as 510,000 tons by 2025. The regulations had only been in effect for a year when Trump took office and tried to undo them; a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council stopped the earlier effort.

The public has 60 days to comment on the more recent proposal.

On Monday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed an executive order announcing the goal of phasing out all emissions in his state within 27 years. He also signed a clean energy bill, SB 100, which established the goal of making the state's electricity 100-percent emissions-free by 2045.

Hawaii is the only other U.S. state to make such a pledge. Environmental activists are calling the move “significant,” since California is the world’s fifth-largest economy.

"It's impossible to overstate how significant it is for a state as large and influential as California to commit to 100 percent clean energy," the Sierra Club said in a statement.

Aiming for zero carbon emissions

Brown said the law sends a clear message that California supports the 2015 Paris agreement to combat climate change. Last year, the U.S. became the only country to exit from the accord after President Trump expressed concerns that it would hurt the U.S. economy.

“This bill and the executive order put California on a path to meet the goals of Paris and beyond. It will not be easy. It will not be immediate. But it must be done,” Brown said at a signing ceremony in Sacramento. “California is committed to doing whatever is necessary to meet the existential threat of climate change.”

Currently, California relies primarily on natural gas for most of its electricity. SB 100 requires utilities to source 60 percent (up from a prior goal of 50 percent) of their power from renewable energy by the end of 2030. All of the state's electricity must come from carbon-free sources by 2045.

"The achievement of carbon neutrality will require both significant reductions in carbon pollution and removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, including sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes," Brown's executive order states.

The state’s largest utilities do not support the measure. Utility Pacific Gas & Electric said the law could result in a price hike for customers. "If it's not affordable, it's not sustainable," utility spokeswoman Lynsey Paulo told Reuters.

California has followed Hawaii in pledging to stop using all forms of fossil fuel in the state by 2045. The California legislature has passed a bill to that effect and sent it to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk to be enacted into law.

The bill would require all electricity sold to consumers to be generated by solar, wind and other renewable energy sources within three decades. The measure passed over the protests of California utility companies, which told lawmakers the goal isn't practical.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) fossil fuels generated more than 62 percent of U.S. electricity in 2017 while nuclear energy contributed 20 percent. Renewable energy provided just over 17 percent of U.S. electricity.

The EIA reports California currently gets about a third of its energy needs from renewable sources. Natural gas provides nearly half the state's energy and it gets 9 percent from nuclear.

'100 percent clean energy'

“When it comes to fighting climate change and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, California won’t back down, ” said State Senator Kevin de León, who sponsored the measure. “We have taken another great stride toward a 100 percent clean energy future.”

California lawmakers approved the measure after statewide polls showed widespread support for phasing out fossil fuels. One poll showed 72 percent of state residents were in favor.

The measure passed the legislature on a 43 to 32 vote. Opponents warned supporters of the economic consequences.

"We pass all these goals for renewables, but at the same time our families back home will pay the cost with an increase in the electric bills every year as we try to achieve this,” said Assemblyman Devon Mathis, who cast one of the no votes.

Scientific debate

Scientists have long debated whether it is feasible to produce all of the nation's energy needs from renewable sources.

Writing in the journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, researcher Benjamin Heard and colleagues cast doubt on the ability to produce all needed energy from renewable sources, citing extreme weather events with low sun and low wind.

Scientists supporting the idea counter that it will be possible, arguing there are technical solutions to all of the drawbacks Heard and his colleagues raised.

On Tuesday, Facebook announced that it’s committing to slashing its greenhouse emissions by 75 percent and powering global operations with 100 percent renewable energy by the end of 2020.

The company had previously set a goal of having 25 percent of its power sourced from renewable energy in 2015 and then 50 percent by 2018. The latter target was hit in 2017, when Facebook reached 51 percent clean and renewable energy.

Facebook said in a statement that it is “on track to be one of the largest corporate purchasers of renewable energy.” The tech giant revealed that it has signed contracts for more than three gigawatts of solar and wind energy, all on the same grid as its data centers.

Combating climate change

Facebook’s new pledge is part of its ongoing effort to fight climate change. Last year, the company supported the Paris Agreement through the We Are Still In initiative.

The social networking platform joins other tech giants who have made commitments on renewable energy. Earlier this year, Apple announced that 100 percent of its global operations are powered by renewable energy. Google achieved the same milestone last year.

Facebook's new commitment was praised by environmental campaigners, including Greenpeace.

"CEO Mark Zuckerberg has reaffirmed Facebook's place among business leaders in the race to be coal-free and 100 percent renewable-powered," Gary Cook, senior corporate campaigner at Greenpeace, said in a statement.

"If we are to stay within the 1.5-degree threshold that scientists say is crucial to avoid catastrophic climate change, we need many more companies stepping up to adopt aggressive renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals," Cook added.

Kroger announced today that it will begin gradually phasing out plastic bags and transitioning to reusable bags at its nearly 2,800 locations. Doing so will eliminate 123 million pounds of garbage that’s sent to landfills every year and will quadruple the amount of plastic the company currently recycles.

“We’re the first major retailer in the U.S. to do this,” said Jessica Adelman, Kroger’s vice president of corporate affairs.

The company is the country’s largest grocer, as it owns a number of supermarket chains, including Ralphs, Harris Teeter, and Fred Meyer. QFC, a Seattle-based supermarket that Kroger owns, will be the first store to eliminate plastic bags, and they’ll be gone by 2019.

“As America’s largest grocer, we realize we have a responsibility to cut down on unnecessary plastic waste that contributes to litter, harms the environment, and in some cases, endangers wildlife,” Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen wrote in an editorial.

“Collectively, we use 100 billion plastic bags a year in the U.S. That’s a lot for something that’s almost always used once before being tossed into a landfill. You could take all those bags and fill three Houston Astrodomes from top to bottom, year after year, with nothing but plastic bags.”

Reusable bags

Kroger currently sells reusable bags in its stores for $1 each; under the new plan, Kroger will begin ramping up the availability of those bags. As it stands right now, shoppers will still have the option to ask for plastic bags.

“There are less wasteful ways to ensure shoppers can safely and conveniently transport items back to their homes, and Kroger is committed to presenting better options to our customs,” McMullen wrote. “Our ultimate goal is to shift completely over to reusable bags.”

McMullen also noted this change cannot happen overnight.

“More than nine million people walk through our doors every day, and what works for one person will not necessarily work for another,” he wrote. “That’s why we’re giving our customers plenty of time to adapt to a new way of shopping.”

Company-wide policies

Kroger’s long-term goal is to be a completely sustainable company.

To help it achieve that mission, the company plans to implement new training procedures for employees who are responsible for bagging in an effort to reduce the need for bags. Additionally, stores will continue to have recycling services for plastic bags and other plastic films, so customers can be active participants in the company’s recycling efforts.

“We want to be a trusted recycling partner for our customers, but we recognize merely offering such services is not enough,” McMullen wrote. “Kroger is committed to making a difference that cannot be measured.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a 289-page report yesterday detailing the impact of President Trump’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule.

The new rule effectively reverses President Obama’s efforts to cut power plant carbon pollution under the proposed Clean Power Plan. The Obama administration was working to instate federal regulations to cut carbon dioxide emissions and use less coal in favor of clean energy sources. The Clean Power Plan was blocked by court battles in 2016, as many Republican attorneys general thought the federal government was overstepping its power.

While the Trump administration touts ACE as a way to create new jobs and eliminate government regulations, the EPA has found that it could lead to 1,400 premature deaths every year by 2030, in addition to up to 15,000 new cases of upper respiratory problems, a rise in bronchitis, and tens of thousands of missed school days.

The agency also noted that the new regulations would “increase emissions of carbon dioxide” and “increase the level of emissions of certain pollutants in the atmosphere that adversely affect human health.”

By contrast, the EPA previously reported that the Clean Power Plan would have helped avoid up to 300,000 missed school and work days, 3,600 premature deaths, and 90,000 child asthma attacks by the year 2030.  

The Affordable Clean Energy rule

Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed ACE into effect earlier this week and reported that the rule allows each state to make its own regulations regarding their emission standards for coal-fired plants. One of the main goals is to have less involvement from the federal government. According to Wheeler, ACE would allow “the states and regulated community the certainty they need to continue environmental progress while fulfilling President Trump’s goal of energy dominance.”

Critics were quick to comment on the rule, as many see it as a step backwards in the fight to tame global warming.

“The Trump administration sees political value in this rollback, but our health and the economic promise of clean energy is at stake,” said former Vice President Al Gore.

In the report, the EPA did not address the numbers previously reported regarding the Clean Power Plan. Instead, it focused on comparisons to today’s levels -- which are in a downward trend.

“Compared to the world as it stands now, the ACE rule will result in dramatic reductions in emissions, including CO2, mercury, and fine particulate matter precursors, as well as any resulting mortality and morbidity effects (like asthma hospitalizations),” the statement said.

The plan

In the ACE proposal, the Trump administration has detailed several different ways states can go about regulating coal-fired power plants, as well as what the health-related consequences would look like in each scenario.

It is in the situation the agency considers most likely to occur where the premature death toll would increase, as would heart and lung disease and chronic problems like asthma and bronchitis. The Trump administration’s analysis found that 48,000 new cases of what it describes as “exacerbated asthma” would occur each year by 2030.

According to Mr. Wehrum, a former coal industry attorney, there would be “collateral effects” on pollutants compared to the Obama administration’s proposed plan.

“We have abundant legal authority to deal with those other pollutants directly, and we have aggressive programs in place that directly target emissions of those pollutants,” Wehrum said.

Consumers who dispose of their old contact lenses by throwing them down the drain could be contributing to the problem of microplastic pollution, scientists say.

Looking at the U.S market, a team of researchers found that roughly one in five users disposes of their old plastic contact lenses by throwing them into the bathroom sink or flushing them down the toilet.

"This is a pretty large number, considering roughly 45 million people in the U.S. alone wear contact lenses,” said study co-author Charlie Rolsky.

The researchers estimate that the tendency of U.S. consumers to dispose of contact lenses by putting them down the drain adds six to 10 metric tons of plastic to our wastewater each year.

Sink to the bottom

Contacts don’t biodegrade after being flushed down the drain; they sink, due to the fact that they’re denser than water.

"We have created an almost immortal material. It does not go away. It does not biodegrade," lead author Rolf Halden told CNN.

Halden says contacts that sink could pose a threat to aquatic life, especially bottom-feeding fish that might mistake microplastics for food and eat the indigestible material. Because these animals are part of a long food chain, some of these contact particles could eventually "find their way to the human food supply," the researchers said.

The team hopes this first-of-its-kind research will cause contact lens makers to “take note and at minimum, provide a label on the packaging describing how to properly dispose of contact lenses, which is by placing them with other solid waste."

Throw them in the trash or recycle them

The optimal way to get rid of disposable plastic contact lenses is to recycle them, as well as their cases, boxes, and solution, according to the American Optometric Association.

"The regular garbage is the second option. Down the sink drain or toilet is never recommended and is discouraged due to the impact on our environment," the organization told CBS News.

Holden and his colleagues presented the results of their study at the annual meeting of the American Chemistry Society, which was held on Sunday.

The International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium (IWGSC) published a study in the Journal of Science describing the genome of bread wheat.

Through a 13-year collaboration involving scientists from around the world, the group was able to achieve a task -- sequencing the wheat genome -- that many scientists considered to be impossible for years.

“Wheat is one of the major sources of food for much of the world. However, because bread wheat’s genome is a large hybrid mix of three separate subgenomes, it has been difficult to produce a high-quality reference sequence,” the scientists wrote.

“Using recent advances in sequencing, the International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium presents an annotated reference genome with a detailed analysis of gene content among subgenomes and the structural organization for all the chromosomes.”

What this means for consumers

An organism’s genome is a detailed roadmap containing all the information needed to build and maintain it. Scientists and farmers are now privy to the genes and factors responsible for traits including grain quality, wheat yield, tolerance to environmental stress, and resistance to fungal diseases. With this information, they will be able to create stronger wheat varieties.

This goal of sequencing the wheat genome was of particular importance because of food security. Wheat is the most widely-grown crop around the world, and with recent heat waves in northern Europe, Asia, and Canada, the wheat production for 2018 will be compromised. Additionally, pests, climate change, and salinity have been known to destroy crops.

“It was ambitious but it was important for me that wheat wasn’t seen as being the poor cousin in the area of genome sequencing,” said Professor Rudi Appels, Agriculture Victoria honorary research fellow and IWGSC contributor. “I was always hopeful it could be done.

“I thought wheat deserved to be as well-defined as the human genome and then the technology really developed enormously. Suddenly, what was once literally impossible looked achievable, and I wanted to be there and capture new technologies as they came through. Things that used to take years can now be done overnight.”

Appels also noted that this advancement could eventually be used to help treat and diagnose wheat-related allergies and diseases. It could also produce wheat crops that contain lower levels of the proteins known to make people sick.

“I am really thrilled, because after 13 years of efforts with the whole wheat community we have reached our major milestone,” said Dr. Catherine Feuillet, co-author of the article and chief scientist at Inari Agriculture. “The vision we had is now becoming concrete, we have a high-quality reference sequence that can be used to accelerate wheat research and breeding.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responding to criticisms that it has failed to reign in the overuse of antibiotics on factory farms. In a new statement, the agency is calling for “stewardship” and the creation of “some new programs.” What those programs may actually entail remains unclear.

Warnings that antibiotics will lose their potency if they are overused date back to the scientist who invented penicillin, though even he likely couldn’t have predicted that the meat industry would one day dose entire herds with the drugs on a routine basis.

Researchers say that thousands of people already die every year from antibiotic-resistant infections, which they link to overuse in both medical and agricultural settings.

The FDA now claims that combating the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, commonly referred to as superbugs, is “a top priority.” The agency acknowledges that “overuse or misuse of these drugs promotes the development of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria.”

“For all of these reasons, it’s critical that we implement good antimicrobial stewardship practices in human healthcare and veterinary settings,” the FDA’s Scott Gottlieb said. “We must continue to take new steps to slow the development of resistance and extend the usefulness of these lifesaving drugs.”

New plan coming soon

Specifically, Gottlieb says that the FDA will publish a blueprint “shortly” that will detail more specific plans that the agency will take over the next five years.

The language in Gottlieb's statement suggests that he will avoid pushing for more regulations, with a focus instead on existing programs and the “progress” he says his agency has made.

“We’ll expand on the FDA’s existing actions, and launch some new programs,” Gottlieb said “Our aim is to reduce overuse of antimicrobial drugs and combat the rising threat of resistance.”

“We are also developing and advancing new strategies for promoting antimicrobial stewardship in companion animals,” he added.

Whether companion animals are over-prescribed antibiotics has never been a focus for environmentalist and public health groups. Instead, they have pointed to the agriculture industry, where years of research has suggested that antibiotics are routinely used to fatten-up herds. (The meat industry has countered that they use the antibiotics for “disease-prevention” purposes).

In 2013, the Obama administration announced it was taking “the first significant step in dealing with this important public health concern in 20 years” by requiring farmers to obtain what is essentially a vet’s prescription before purchasing antibiotics from the animal feed store.

Despite the new law mandating veterinary oversight, little has changed since then, according to the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC). A report that the group recently published found that 27 percent of all medically-important antibiotics, or antibiotics that humans use, went straight to pigs last year.

"What constitutes veterinary oversight is a huge grey area,” NRDC researcher Dr. David Wallinga said.

Advocacy groups call for greater action

Another report recently published by the Environmental Working group describes an increase of antibiotic resistant-bacteria in samples of ground beef and pork chops they tested.

In a statement, the NRDC called on Gottlieb to take more concrete action.

“To keep these miracle drugs working when sick people and animals need them, FDA must end the widespread practice of using these drugs for so-called ‘disease prevention’ and set clear targets for antibiotics reduction in the industry,” the group said.

The FDA’s announcement comes shortly after the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) said that it would not follow the World Health Organization's (WHO) guidelines that similarly call for stringent  cutbacks of antibiotics on factory farms.

“The WHO guidelines are not in alignment with U.S. policy and are not supported by sound science,” the USDA’s acting chief scientist said.

Adidas reported on Monday that it will be committing to only using recycled plastics by 2024.

The company pledged to stop using “virgin” plastic in all of its stores, warehouses, offices, distribution centers, and retail outlets, saving an estimated 40 tons of plastic per year starting this year. Eliminating “virgin” plastic also includes polyester, a material popular in tons of Adidas products -- everything from sports bras to t-shirts -- because it absorbs sweat.

Adidas also reported that its spring and summer 2019 apparel lines will contain over 40 percent recycled polyester. Additionally, the company is expecting an uptick in its Parley shoes -- shoes made out of plastic waste that’s been saved from ending up in the ocean. Despite representing only a small portion of global sales (with only one million pairs sold in 2017), the company is expecting sales to jump to five million pairs this year.

Adidas continues the fight for sustainability

The decision to use strictly recycled plastics shouldn’t come as a huge surprise to consumers, as last month Adidas made strides in the sustainability arena with the launch of its Parley Z.N.E. hoodie.

“Parley is a global network where creators, thinkers, and leaders come together to raise awareness for the beauty and fragility of the oceans and collaborate on projects that can end their destruction,” the company wrote in a statement last month.

“Adidas and Parley joined forces in 2015 and among the many activities supporting the implementation of the Parley AIR strategy, the two work together to transform plastic intercepted from beaches and in coastal environments into high-performance sportswear. Collectively, they spin the problem of marine plastic pollution into a solution, the threat into thread.”

The fight against plastic

Adidas is the latest company joining the global fight to reduce plastic waste.

Earlier this month, Starbucks announced it would be eliminating plastic straws entirely by 2020. The coffee chain will begin phasing plastic straws out of all of its stores, with the transition expected to be complete by 2020. The initiative will eliminate more than one billion plastic straws per year.

Instead of straws, the company will be using strawless lids for many of its cold beverages. While some beverages --including  many blended drinks -- will have dome lids, customers will be able to use straws made out of paper or compostable plastic, but only upon request.

“Plastic straws that end up in our oceans have a devastating effect on species,” said Erin Simon, director of sustainability research & development and material science at World Wildlife Fund. “We hope others will follow in [Starbucks’] footsteps.”

Additionally, McDonald’s will be eliminating plastic straws from its U.K. and Ireland stores by next year. Earlier this year, the fast food chain announced it would be using paper straws at many of its U.K. and Ireland locations.

The company said it would begin moving straws behind the counter and only offering them to customers upon request. The fast food giant has also set a goal to source 100 percent of its food packaging from renewable or recycled sources in all of its locations by 2025.

California, the most populous state in the nation, has hit its 2020 target for cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions.

The California Air Resources Board released data this week that showed greenhouse gas emissions dropped to 424.9 million metric tons in 2016 -- below the target of 431 million metric tons for 2020. In 2015, the total was 441.4 million metric tons throughout the state. The greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 2.7 percent in 2016 and is on the right track to meet its goal of 40 percent reduction by 2030.

These numbers are less than the 431 million metric tons the state produced in 1990. When California’s greenhouse gas emissions levels peaked in 2004, regulators passed a law requiring  the state’s emissions to return to 1990 levels by 2020. Since the peak in 2004, emissions have dropped 13 percent.

“California set the toughest emissions targets in the nation, tracked progress, and delivered results,” said Governor Jerry Brown.

Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law in 2006 that committed California to setting such rigorous goals for 2020.

“Surpassing our 2020 emissions goal ahead of schedule while our economy grows by a nation-leading 4.9 percent and our unemployment rate is at a historic low should send a message to politicians all over the country: you don’t have to reinvent the wheel -- just copy us,” Schwarzenegger said.

How California did it

When looking at the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, the data has been broken up into seven different categories: transportation, industrial, agriculture, electric power, high GWP, commercial and residential, and recycling and waste.

Industrial and electrical power dropped the most since the state enacted its green initiative. The combination of an uptick in solar electricity and hydroelectric power led to a 15 percent decrease in using natural gas for electricity.

However, despite the positive steps, some categories continued to rise. Greenhouse gas emissions increased from passenger vehicles. Drivers in California are buying more gas-powered cars, despite the benefits and incentives of buying electric-powered vehicles, which is likely due to the higher prices of electric-powered vehicles.

Regulators say the report shows that states are capable of pursuing their own paths towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In order for California to reach its 2030 goal, greenhouse gas emissions must continue to drop as much as they did in both 2015 and 2016.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has pledged to fund the securing of clean water for any homes in Flint, Michigan that still have contaminated water.

“Please consider this a commitment that I will fund fixing the water in any house in Flint that has water contamination,” the Tesla and SpaceX CEO said in a tweet Wednesday. “No kidding.”

Musk followed up with another tweet acknowledging that many homes in Flint have safe water; however he said he would organize an effort to add filters to houses that are still dealing with foul water.

“Most houses in Flint have safe water, but they’ve lost faith in govt test results,” he said. “Some houses are still outliers. Will organize a weekend in Flint to add filters to those houses with issues & hopefully fix perception of those that are actually good.”

The Flint water crisis

Musk called on Flint residents to reply to his tweet with test results showing contamination above the recommended limits. "Creating email flint@x.com, but I'm in China so that won't be working until tomorrow," he added.

The Flint water scandal unfolded four years ago when lead leached from old pipes after the city began using the Flint River without adding corrosion-control chemicals.

Earlier this month, Musk supported a program to give bicycles to children in Flint. Musk’s latest effort to help residents of Flint with lead-tainted water comes days after his attempt to help a Thai youth soccer team that was trapped in a cave.

On Thursday morning, Musk tweeted that he will call Flint’s mayor on Friday to discuss the city’s specific needs.

Starbucks announced on Monday that it intends to phase out plastic straws at all of its stores. The transition from straws to recyclable plastic lids with a raised lip is expected to be completed by 2020.

The initiative will eliminate more than one billion plastic straws per year, the company said.

"For our partners and customers, this is a significant milestone to achieve our global aspiration of sustainable coffee, served to our customers in more sustainable ways," said Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson.

Strawless lids

A strawless lid, designed and manufactured by the company, will take the place of plastic straws in all of the coffee giant’s iced beverages. The new lids -- which have drawn comparisons to “adult sippy cups” -- will be introduced to stores in Seattle and Vancouver this fall; they will be rolled out gradually to additional locations in the U.S. and Canada next year.  

The chain’s Frappuccino beverages will still come with dome lids, but with straws made from more environmentally friendly materials. Straws made of paper or compostable plastic will be available to customers who need or prefer one, but only upon request.

Seattle, where Starbucks is headquartered, recently banned plastic straws and utensils at all of its bars and restaurants. Starbucks said it has poured more than $10 million into developing recyclable, compostable cups for its hot beverages.

Earlier this year, McDonald’s announced that it would start phasing out straws in 1,300 of its U.K. restaurants and replacing them with paper straws. The company announced in June that it plans to test the use of paper straws at select U.S. locations later this year.

The initiatives come amid expert predictions that there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050.

"Plastic straws that end up in our oceans have a devastating effect on species," said Erin Simon, director of sustainability research & development and material science at World Wildlife Fund, US, in a statement. "We hope others will follow in [Starbucks'] footsteps."

Seattle has become the latest city to crack down on the use of single-use plastic products.

On Sunday, the city implemented a ban on plastic straws, utensils, and cocktail picks at all food service businesses -- including restaurants, grocery stores, delis, coffee shops, food trucks, and institutional cafeterias.

Businesses that violate the order could face a $250 fine. The ban states that food service businesses can opt for straws and utensils made from more environmentally friendly materials.

“Compliant options include durable or compostable utensils, straws, and cocktail picks. Compliant straws include those made of compostable paper or compostable plastic,” Seattle Public Utilities said in a letter. “Utensils banned include disposable plastic forks, plastic spoons, plastic knives, and plastic cocktail picks.”

The city also suggests that businesses only provide approved utensils upon request.

Fighting pollution

About 500 million straws are used by Americans each day, according to the National Park Service. Single-use straws are a major contributor to marine water pollution, since a majority aren’t recycled.

A number of businesses and cities have set out to reduce their negative impact on the environment through banning one-time use straws.

In March, the City Council of Malibu, California voted to ban single-use plastic straws and cutlery within city limits by June 1. In May, a legislation was proposed that would ban plastic straws and stirrers in all venues across New York City.

McDonald’s announced earlier this year that it would start phasing out straws in 1,300 of its U.K. restaurants and replacing them with paper straws. The company followed that up in June by announcing plans to test the use of paper straws at select U.S. locations later this year.

The initiatives come amid expert predictions that there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050.

Seattle’s new ban on plastic straws and utensils follows other efforts made by the city to reduce the amount of waste it produces. In 2009, Seattle banned Styrofoam. The following year, the city made it a requirement that "food service items" -- with the exception of straws and utensils -- be either recyclable or compostable.

“Plastic pollution is surpassing crisis levels in the world’s oceans, and I’m proud Seattle is leading the way and setting an example for the nation by enacting a plastic straw ban,” Mami Hara, the general manager of Seattle Public Utilities, told KOMO News.

A San Francisco federal judge has ruled in favor of five big oil companies in a lawsuit brought by two California cities, Oakland and San Francisco, over the fossil fuel industry’s responsibility in paying for the cost of climate change.

Judge William Alsup didn’t dispute the science of climate change, but he said it was a matter of the law. “This order accepts the science behind global warming,” Judge Alsup said in his order. However, “the issue is not over science. The issue is a legal one,” he said.

Judge Alsup ruled in favor of the defendants -- Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP. The companies argued that the case should be dismissed because the courts were not the proper venue to address climate change.

“The court will stay its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive branches,” Alsup wrote.

Public nuisance law

The lawsuits said that Big Oil created a public nuisance and that the companies should pay for sea walls and other infrastructure to protect against the damage from global warming and sea level rise.

However, if the courts determined that oil and gas production was a public nuisance, it would “invade the prerogatives of Congress and the executive branch,” Theodore Boutrous, the lawyer representing Chevron, said in a hearing.

“Earlier attempts to use nuisance claims in lawsuits about climate change have been heard under federal law in cases such as American Electric Power v. Connecticut, but none have succeeded,” the New York Times reports.

“In a unanimous 2011 decision, the Supreme Court said that the Clean Air Act displaced the federal common law of nuisance, leaving enforcement and regulation to the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Alsup said that although it's "true" that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels has contributed to global warming, we have all benefited from fuel and coal. “Development of our modern world has literally been fuelled by oil and coal,” he wrote.

"The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case," Judge Alsup concluded.

Bayer has won U.S. antitrust approval for its $66 billion takeover of Monsanto on the condition that it sells about $9 billion in agricultural businesses and assets, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

The deal, which the companies first announced in September 2016, has already received approval from regulators in the European Union, Russia, and Brazil. The DOJ approval was the last major regulatory hurdle in creating the largest seed and agricultural-chemicals provider in the world.

The $9 billion divestiture package is the largest in a U.S. merger enforcement case, said Makan Delrahim, head of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.

Addresses antitrust concerns

In its original form, the Bayer-Monsanto deal would likely have led to "higher prices, lower quality and fewer choices" for many seed and crop protection products, the DOJ said. It would also have "threatened to stifle the innovation in agricultural technologies that has delivered significant benefits to American farmers and consumers.”

The revised deal "preserves competition in the sale of these critical agricultural products and protects American farmers and consumers," Delrahim said. “We commend the parties for working with the Antitrust Division to resolve our concerns on behalf of American consumers.”

Under the proposed settlement, Bayer will sell its canola, soybean, and vegetable seed businesses, as well as its Liberty herbicide business, which competes with Monsanto’s Roundup. The company will also sell its digital farming business, as well as "certain intellectual property and research capabilities, including 'pipeline' R&D projects," according to the Justice Department.

“Receipt of the DOJ’s approval brings us close to our goal of creating a leading company in agriculture,” Bayer CEO Werner Baumann said in a statement. “We want to help farmers across the world grow more nutritious food in a more sustainable way.”

Corporate power

Critics of the merger argue that the deal will place too much power in the hands of one agribusiness giant.

“The Trump DOJ just waved through a merger that will consolidate the world’s food supply and agriculture industry into fewer hands. I hate to imagine the control Bayer-Monsanto will have over every farmer in the United States,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Ill).

Bayer has defended the deal by saying Monsanto’s expertise in agriculture and seeds will help to increase agricultural productivity as the world’s population grows.

"Farmers will benefit from a range of new, superior solutions aimed at helping to advance the next generation of farming and to address some of society's most pressing challenges," the company says on a website advocating for the settlement.

Bayer has until June 14 to close its purchase of Monsanto. The company has said that it’s confident the deal will go through.

On Wednesday, Democratic City Council Rafael Espinal introduced a bill that would ban plastic straws and stirrers in all venues across New York City. Everywhere from coffee shops and bars to restaurants and stadiums would no longer provide customers with plastic straws.

Plastic pollution has been a growing concern in New York, as well as in other parts of the country, and under Espinal’s legislation, plastic would be replaced with metal. People with disabilities or medical conditions would not be subject to the proposed law, but for all others, breaking the law would result in a $100 fine.

“One place in Brooklyn reported using 1.5 million straws throughout the year,” Espinal said. “It’s important for New Yorkers to understand that the plastic straw is not a necessity; it’s more of a luxury, and our luxury is causing great harm to other environments.”

If the law passes, New York would join Malibu, Seattle, and Miami Beach in other states that have already banned plastic straws. Internationally, Vancouver has voted to ban plastic straws, while Scotland and Taiwan aren’t far behind permanent bans. Additionally, New York would become the largest city in the world to ban plastic straws thus far.

Environmental consequences push the bill

According to Eco-cycle, Americans use approximately 500 million straws per day - which is roughly 1.6 straws per person per day. On that same note, up to 12 million metric tons of plastic end up in oceans each year.

The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) supports Espinal’s bill, with Executive Vice President John Calvelli reporting that plastic straws are one of the top ten sources of beach litter. “The sad thing is that probably by 2050 there will be more plastic, by weight, in the ocean, than fish,” he said.

WCS has created its own campaign -- Give a Sip -- to highlight the environmental damages of disposable straws.

“Through local field research, policy initiatives, and public outreach, our team seeks to protect and restore threatened species and critical habitats, encourage smart ocean planning to ensure a safe place for wildlife in our busy waters, and build ecological resilience in nearshore and river habitats,” the Give A Sip website reads.

The Give A Sip campaign reports that 71 percent of seabirds and 30 percent of sea turtles have been found with plastic in their stomachs. In Spain this past April, a dead whale washed onto shore with over over 60 pounds of garbage -- primarily consisting of plastic -- in its body.

“I’ve become more concerned about single-use plastic, when we have a federal government rolling back any environmental progress that we’ve made in the last eight years,” Espinal said. “It’s important that our cities take the lead. All plastic, whether it be a bag or a straw, is having a detrimental impact on our environment. It’s easy to drink your iced coffee or cocktail at night without a piece of plastic in it.”

Other attempts to curb plastic

Straws are the latest piece of plastic legislators are going after in an attempt to reduce pollution; however, efforts have been far more successful abroad than here in the U.S.

In February, the government of Taiwan announced that it will be banning most single-use plastic items -- such as straws, bags, and cups -- by 2030. Similarly, Scotland announced that it will be banning cotton-tipped plastic ear swabs and straws by 2019. The UK recently banned microbeads -- the small plastic beads commonly found in exfoliants and other body washes.

Stateside, two Hawaii hotels -- the Modern Honolulu and the Hilton Waikoloa VIllage -- stopped serving guests drinks with plastic straws. The hotels will now be serving drinks straw-less, unless guests request a straw, in which case it will be a paper straw. Portland farm-to-table restaurants have followed suit, as did restaurants in Davis, California.

Perhaps the biggest name to ban straws as of late is McDonald’s. The fast food giant will start phasing out straws in 1,300 of its U.K. restaurants starting this May and replacing them with paper straws. Moreover, the company will not be handing out straws to every customer; instead workers will keep them behind the counter and give them to customers upon request.

In regards to banning straws in NYC, Espinal is confident his bill will prove to be beneficial for New Yorkers, unlike Governor Cuomo’s April 2017 proposal to instate a five-cent charge on each plastic bag used by consumers throughout the state.

“I don’t believe there are any huge obstacles,” Espinal said. “It’s not like plastic bags, where consumers felt it was important for them to carry out their groceries. A straw is not a necessity for most New Yorkers, so I think this is more of a change of thinking.”

Less than a decade ago, California McMansion owners and others who wanted to install solar panels on the roofs of their own houses risked the wrath of their image-conscious homeowners associations.

But the state has gradually become more solar-friendly since then, and the rules are about to go a step further. New homes built in California after the start of 2020 will be required to be equipped with solar panels, the California Energy Commission ruled on Wednesday.

Shortly after California officials announced their decision, homebuilders saw their stock prices drop, while solar shares rose, Bloomberg news reported. The California Energy Commission estimated that the move would drive up housing costs by $10,000, but it says that the decision will eventually save consumers in the form of reduced energy bills.

Builders had initially criticized the measure but were on board with the final rules, after regulators agreed on Wednesday to a series of exemptions -- including one for houses with roofs too small to support solar installations.

"We're going to be able to look the home buyer in the eye and say, 'You are going to get your money back,'" Bob Raymer, the technical director for the California Building Industry Association, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Improving energy efficiency

California has led the state with renewable energy programs, including putting pressure on the federal government under Obama to adopt tougher emissions standards for cars and a goal for the state’s electrical grid to be sourced from 50 percent renewable energy by 2030.

“Improved efficiency unlocks millions in utility bill savings for consumers and lightens the load on our electricity system,” the California Energy Commission has said of its various renewable energy initiatives.

Homeowners Associations (HOAs) used to file lawsuits against homeowners in California who installed solar panels on their houses until the state passed a law to curb the practice in 2014.

Other sunny states are still struggling to bring solar panels to the masses. In Florida, the state’s main utility, Florida and Power & Light, had lobbied heavily to keep laws in place that made it illegal for homeowners to power their own homes with solar energy provided by solar panel leasing companies, a popular choice for middle-class consumers who cannot afford to buy their own panels.

After receiving heavy criticism for their role in limiting solar in the wake of Hurricane Irma, the Florida Utilities Commission last month overturned the long standing rule, opening up the doors for solar companies to start selling power in Florida.

The solar industry hopes that California will encourage the rest of the nation to follow its lead.

"California is taking a step further basically recognizing that solar should be as commonplace as a front door welcoming you home," Sean Gallagher, vice president of state affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association, told CNBC.

Residents in California could be seeing a lot more homes installed with solar panels within the next couple of years.

The Orange County Register reports that a vote on Wednesday by the California Energy Commission may make it mandatory for all new homes to come standard with the panels starting in 2020. The decision would be in line with the state’s lofty goals for reducing reliance on natural gas, increasing battery storage, and promoting clean energy.

If passed, the new mandate would apply to all new houses, condos, and apartment buildings that are up to three stories tall and do not meet exception requirements, such as being too shaded by trees or too small for the panels to be installed. Nevertheless, Bob Raymer -- technical director for the California Building Association -- says that the move would be unprecedented.

“California is about to take a quantum leap in energy standards. No other state in the nation mandates solar, and we are about to take that leap,” he said.

Pulling back from zero net energy

While the new mandate would vastly increase solar energy utilization in California, critics point out that it actually falls short of net zero energy goals that were proposed more than a decade ago.

Under that plan, regulators and clean energy advocates had hoped that all new homes would eventually be able to produce enough solar energy to offset any use of electricity or natural gas over the course of a whole year. However, state officials say that this goal isn’t realistic right now because many homes still depend on the state energy grid to power their homes at night.

“Zero net energy isn’t enough. If we pursue (zero net energy) as a comprehensive policy, we’d be making investments that would be somewhat out of touch with our long-term goals,” said state energy commissioner Andrew McAllister.

Driving up home costs

While the proposal would certainly be a boon to the solar energy industry, home builders say that installing solar panels on every new home could drive up costs dramatically.

C.R. Herro, vice president of environmental affairs for Meritage Homes, estimates that the new energy standards would add between $25,000 and $30,000 to construction costs compared to rates under the 2006 building code.

He goes on to say that $14,000 - $16,000 of that cost is related to solar energy implementation and $10,000 - $15,000 comes from increased insulation and more efficient windows, appliances, lighting, and heating. However, he concedes that the upgrades would save homeowners $50,000 - $60,000 in operating costs over 25 years.

Pushing homes out of reach?

Although consumers would financially benefit in the long run, many housing experts say that the increased initial cost may push already expensive homes in California even further out of reach. Bill Watt – home builder, designer, and former president of the Orange County Building Industry Association – suggests that regulators focus on price point before implementing sweeping changes.

“We’re not building enough housing already. Why not just pause for a little while, focus on the affordability and housing issues, then circle back?” he asks.

Not surprisingly, this line of thinking isn’t at all in line with environmentalists. “The technology is developing so fast, we think the timeline was a bit slow,” said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California.

A growing number of major tech companies are pushing their suppliers to switch to renewable energy, USA Today reports. The trend is causing big problems for the struggling coal industry.

Last month, Apple said that 100 percent of the electricity it uses for its facilities and data centers comes from renewable sources. The company said that 23 of its suppliers have also made a commitment to 100 percent renewable energy.

To win over big tech buyers (and the 20-year contracts they often promise), many energy companies are changing their policies to help tech companies’ hit their renewable energy targets.

Sourcing from solar and wind

Focusing on renewable energy is often being used as a way for companies to get an edge in the marketplace.

"The smart ones are seeing it as a competitive advantage," Lisa Jackson, Apple's vice president of environment, policy and social initiatives and former head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama Administration, told USA Today.

When Amazon wanted to build a wind or solar powered data center in northern Virginia, Dominion Energy created a special power purchase agreement that allowed Amazon to contract for 100 percent renewable electricity.

“We thought about it, we understood their reasoning, we convinced ourselves that it was in our best interests to do it and we ended up signing,” Greg Morgan, director of customer rates and regulations for Dominion.

Morgan said that tech companies have “knowingly and willingly paid a premium for green power” over the last few years because it has helped advance their self-stated goals.

Corporate buyers want clean energy

Corporate buyers of electricity -- such as Budweiser, General Motors, and Walmart -- are also setting green goals.

Walmart committed to going 100 percent renewable back in 2005. The company recently said it gets 28 percent of its global electric needs from renewable energy, and it’s striving to hit 50 percent by 2025.

Budweiser announced last year that it would be completely powered by renewable energy by 2025, and GM plans to hit the same target by 2050.

In today’s eco-minded energy marketplace, the coal industry continues to struggle. Shares of U.S. power produced by coal have decreased steadily since 2008 as the marketplace has grown increasingly unwelcoming of the non-renewable energy source.

The government hasn’t discouraged coal production, but many companies have indirectly done so through their efforts to create a healthier environment. “There are boards of directors that say 'we want to set a carbon footprint goal for our companies,'" said Appalachian Power President and COO Chris Beam.

Lyft co-founder John Zimmer announced Thursday that all Lyft rides are now carbon neutral thanks to the transportation service’s multimillion-dollar investment in carbon offset programs.

Lyft will balance out its vehicles’ emissions by investing in an undisclosed number of environmental and sustainability efforts. The company anticipates neutralizing “over a million metric tons of carbon” in just the first year of utilizing carbon offsets.

"Lyft rides are now carbon-neutral through the direct funding of emission mitigation efforts, including the reduction of emissions in the automotive manufacturing process, renewable energy programs, forestry projects, and the capture of emissions from landfills," Zimmer wrote.

Combating climate change

The decision to go carbon neutral is rooted in the fact that Lyft is aware of transportation’s harsh impact on the environment.

“The stark reality is that transportation is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions,” the company’s co-founders wrote. “As a growing part of the transportation ecosystem, we are holding ourselves accountable to being part of the solution.”

“This action is not the full solution, but a real step forward,” Zimmer and Green added.

An expensive endeavor

The company will invest millions in balancing out its carbon footprint. Lyft says it will be teaming up with an organization called 3Degrees, which oversees the registration and independent verification of carbon-offset projects.

“The majority of these projects will be in close proximity to our largest markets, and all projects will be US-based,” the co-founders wrote.

Lyft’s eco-friendly aspirations were initially born of President Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the Paris climate accord. After the decision was made, Lyft hired its own climate advisor and joined “We Are Still In” -- a coalition of businesses and local governments who pledged to continue to uphold the agreement.

Healthy diets are a leading cause of food waste in America, according to new research by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Researchers say that’s because fruits and vegetables are a central part of a healthy diet, and fruits and vegetables are the two types of food that are most likely to be thrown out by consumers (followed by dairy and then meat).

"Higher quality diets have greater amounts of fruits and vegetables, which are being wasted in greater quantities than other food," said Meredith Niles, a co-author of the study from the University of Vermont, in a statement.

"Eating healthy is important, and brings many benefits, but as we pursue these diets, we must think much more consciously about food waste,” Niles said.

150,000 tons of food wasted each day

For the study, researchers at the USDA analyzed eight years of food data, between 2007 to 2014, to see where food is wasted and what consumers say they do at mealtimes. The study found that 150,000 tons of food is wasted each day in the U.S., which is equivalent to one pound per person.

The researchers noted that fruits and vegetables are most frequently thrown out, and this category of food requires a substantial amount of water and pesticides to grow. Even diets that aren’t rich in fruits and vegetables can have a negative impact on the environment, as they lead to more wasted cropland.

Wasted food was found to have used 4.2 trillion gallons of irrigation water, 1.8 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer, 780 million pounds of pesticides, and 30 million acres of land each year. The use of these resources takes a toll on the environment, the researchers said.

Cutting waste through proper food storage

The study authors are calling for increased efforts to improve diet quality while simultaneously reducing food waste. “Increasing consumers’ knowledge about how to prepare and store fruits and vegetables will be one of the practical solutions,” the report said.

The authors suggested several paths to mitigating the problem of food waste in America. Consumers can be taught how to properly prepare and store fresh fruit and vegetables, as well as how to tell whether produce has actually gone bad or if it’s just cosmetically imperfect. Sell-by dates and labels could also be revised for consistency.

"Food waste is an issue that plays out at many different levels,” said lead author Zach Conrad from the USDA. “Looking at them holistically will become increasingly important to finding sustainable ways of meeting the needs of a growing world population.”

The study has been published in the journal PLOS ONE.

An international team of researchers may have accidentally engineered an enzyme that could help mitigate the global plastic pollution crisis.

The enzyme is able to digest polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic, of which hundreds of millions of tons are produced each year in the form of plastic bottles. PET plastics, which were first patented in the 1940s, can linger in the environment for centuries.

However, researchers from Britain’s University of Portsmouth and the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory say they may have serendipitously discovered an enzyme that can eat PET plastic.

How the enzyme was discovered

The discovery was made while examining the structure of a natural enzyme believed to have come of age in a Japanese recycling center. The bacterium had naturally evolved to eat plastic.

When the team tweaked the structure of the enzyme by adding some amino acids, tests showed that it made the molecule even better at breaking down PET plastic.

“What actually turned out was we improved the enzyme, which was a bit of a shock,” said lead researcher John McGeehan, a professor at the University of Portsmouth in the UK. “It’s great and a real finding.”

The enzyme’s plastic-eating abilities were enhanced by the slight alteration, which McGeehan says is “really exciting because that means that there’s potential to optimize the enzyme even further.”

The discovery could be a step toward eliminating the huge swaths of plastic waste often found floating in oceans or washed up on beaches all over the world, the researchers said.

Speeding up the enzyme

The researchers are currently working on improving the enzyme further to allow it to be used industrially to quickly break down plastics.

"Serendipity often plays a significant role in fundamental scientific research and our discovery here is no exception," said McGeehan. "Although the improvement is modest, this unanticipated discovery suggests that there is room to further improve these enzymes, moving us closer to a recycling solution for the ever-growing mountain of discarded plastics."

The research has been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In a state with a history of water quality issues, locals are questioning why Nestle will soon be able to speed up its bottled water operations.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality recently decided to grant a permit allowing Nestle to increase the amount of groundwater it pumps from a well in the Osceola Township.

Nestle, which sells bottled water under its Ice Mountain brand, currently has 50 water bottling plants across the state and pumps an average of 250 gallons per minute from the well in Osceola. In its permitting application, Nestle had requested to collect water at an even faster rate -- 400 gallons per minute.

The corporation, which makes billions from bottled water sales, only pays local officials $200 for permission to use their water, according to a Bloomberg News report published last year.

Nestle has defended its presence in the state, where the town of Flint continues to suffer from lack of access to clean water, by pointing to the jobs its plants create.

Public backlash

Nestle’s request to increase production sparked a massive backlash from locals, with over 80,000 people filing public comments to Michigan authorities urging them to reject the proposal; letters from nine tribal governments and eight citizens groups also urged action against the permit.

By contrast, only 75 comments were submitted in support of Nestle’s request.

Environmental groups blasted the state’s decision to side with the minority of people who submitted public comments, noting that Nestle pays limited costs for permission to use the water.

“Michigan residents are putting up with unaffordable and sometimes unsafe drinking water, while Nestlé, which had sales of $7.4 billion from water alone in 2016, pumps Michigan groundwater basically for free,” the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition told a local news station.

Michigan’s authorities had already suggested last month that they would side with Nestle, claiming that the concerns presented by residents, even if valid, did not take the law into account.

“We don’t have the power to say no arbitrarily. We can’t just say no for reasons that aren’t attached to the law,” Matt Gamble, a Department of Environmental Quality supervisor for the state, told Michigan Public Radio last month.

Application complied with state laws

Officials for the township and the county have also tried to fight Nestle’s permit, but the company appealed and won a key ruling last year from a local judge.

In a statement to the Detroit Free Press, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality director Heidi Grether said that Nestle had a thorough application that complied with state laws.

“The scope and detail of the department’s review of the Nestlé permit application represents the most extensive analysis of any water withdrawal in Michigan history,” she told the paper.

“We are hopeful that whether residents agree with the Nestlé permitting decision or not, they will acknowledge and respect the work that MDEQ staff did to thoroughly and conscientiously apply the law in reviewing the permit.”

In response to growing public concern over the use of plastic straws in restaurants, McDonald’s has announced that it plans to start phasing out straws in 1,300 of its U.K. restaurants.

The fast food chain will start moving to recycled paper straws in May. Additionally, it will start keeping straws behind the counter -- a move many customers have requested.

“Customers have told us that they don’t want to be given a straw and that they want to have to ask for one, so we’re acting on that,” McDonald’s U.K. CEO Paul Pomroy told Sky News.

"Straws are one of those things that people feel passionately about, and rightly so, and we're moving those straws behind the front counter,” Pomroy said. “If you come into McDonald's going forward, you'll be asked if you want a straw.”

Cutting down on plastic waste

Billions of single-use plastic straws are doled out each year around the world. In the U.K. alone, more than 8.5 billion plastic straws are used each year. Plastic waste is known to be a major contributor to ocean pollution. Experts predict that there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050.

Last week, conservationists and some government agencies voted to ban single-use plastic straws and cutlery in restaurants in Malibu, California. The city had already banned plastic bags and Styrofoam.

“It’s the right thing to do,” City Councilwoman Laura Rosenthal told the Associated Press. “If people could see all the plastics that we find on a daily basis, I think everyone would be supportive of this ban.”

McDonald’s will join the city of Malibu and a growing number of retailers in the U.K. who have decided to phase out environmentally-harmful plastic straws.

Protecting the environment

Banning plastic straws at its U.K. locations is just the latest effort by the fast food chain to curb its negative impact on the environment.

Earlier this month, McDonald’s pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at its restaurant and office locations by 36 percent from its 2015 numbers by 2030. The company claimed the endeavor would prevent 150 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

“To create a better future for our planet, we must all get involved. McDonald’s is doing its part by setting this ambitious goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to address the challenge of global climate change,” said CEO Steve Easterbrook.

Although the company’s existing plastic straws are already fully recyclable, McDonald’s said it has found that most customers throw them away.

At the start of the year, McDonald’s announced that all of its packaging will be made from renewable, recycled, or certified sources by 2025.

More retailers than ever are taking measures to curb their negative impact on the environment and win over eco-minded consumers. McDonald’s and Starbucks are the latest chains to announce new initiatives to make their franchises greener.

McDonald's has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at its restaurant and office locations by 36 percent from its 2015 numbers by 2030. The company claims the endeavor will prevent 150 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

The chain has promised to start using LED lighting, make kitchen equipment more energy-efficient, switch to more sustainable packaging, and “prioritize action” on beef products.

“To create a better future for our planet, we must all get involved. McDonald’s is doing its part by setting this ambitious goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to address the challenge of global climate change,” said CEO Steve Easterbrook.

“To meet this goal, we will source our food responsibly, promote renewable energy and use it efficiently, and reduce waste and increase recycling.”

At the start of the year, McDonald’s announced that all of its packaging will be made from renewable, recycled, or certified sources by 2025.

Starbucks developing a greener coffee cup

McDonald’s pledge to shrink its carbon footprint came the same day Starbucks announced that it’s making a $10 million commitment to develop a greener coffee cup that is fully recyclable and compostable.

Starbucks’ paper cups are currently manufactured with 10 percent post-consumer recycled fiber, but the company says it wants to do better.

The $10-million NextGen Cup Challenge initiative (in partnership with Closed Loop Partners' Center for the Circular Economy) will award grants to inventors who can create a fully recyclable cup.

“This is the first step in the development of a global end-to-end solution that would allow cups around the world to be diverted from landfills and composted or given a second life as another cup, napkin or even a chair – anything that can use recycled material," Starbucks said.

Earlier this year, Dunkin Donuts also announced plans to introduce a greener coffee cup. The company said it would keep 1 billion cups out of landfills by the year 2020 by switching from its traditional foam cups to paper cups at all of its locations around the world.

A drink with a plastic straw is a familiar part of the restaurant experience for diners, and placing a straw in a glass can feel like second-nature for workers. However, conservationists and some government agencies are now trying to put a stop to a practice that is all but ingrained in the modern dining experience.

Last week, the City Council of Malibu, California voted to ban single-use plastic straws and cutlery within city limits by June 1. Restaurants will be sent free, recyclable paper straws to help with the transition. The wealthy California coastal town has already banned plastic bags and Styrofoam, two other major contributors to ocean pollution.

“It’s the right thing to do,” City Councilwoman Laura Rosenthal told the Associated Press. “If people could see all the plastics that we find on a daily basis, I think everyone would be supportive of this ban.”

Worldwide plastic crackdown

Outside of the United States, authorities are taking more widespread action to crack down on plastic dishes and straws. The government of Taiwan announced on February 22 that it is banning a swath of single-use plastic items, including bags, straws, and cups, by 2030.

Scotland also announced this year that a ban on cotton-tipped plastic ear swabs and plastic straws will go in effect by 2019, making it the first country in the United Kingdom to ban single-use straws. The United Kingdom also recently banned microbeads, the small plastic beads common in exfoliants and body wash.

Debate over plastic waste reportedly became so heated across the pond that it incited a Twitter war between United Kingdom Environment Secretary Michael Gove and European Union Commissioner Frans Timmermans, both of whom accused the other of not doing enough to ban single-use straws.

“There has been no specific proposal - as yet - from the EU to ban straws,” Gove wrote on Twitter. Timmermans shot back that the Eunion Union is introducing legislation on single-use plastics “before the summer.”

Hawaii and California seek to pass legislation

The United States is probably a long way off from political Twitter wars over who has done a better job of cutting down on plastic waste, but businesses here are taking voluntary measures.

In Hawaii, the Modern Honolulu and the Hilton Waikoloa Village hotels announced last week that they will no longer serve guests drinks with plastic straws. Instead, the hotels will provide paper straws in drinks, but only upon request. Otherwise, visitors can expect their drinks to be straw-less.

In Portland, a handful of farm-to-table restaurants are reportedly taking similar steps. And the northern California town Davis last year passed an ordinance requiring servers to ask dine-in customers if they need a straw rather than automatically supplying one.

At the state-level, both Hawaii and California legislators have introduced bills to ban plastic straws, though both proposals have stalled. The measure in California is particularly controversial because restaurant servers themselves would face a fine of up to $1,000 or jail time if they give customers a single-use plastic straw without asking.

Reducing plastic pollution

Experts predict that there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050. Environmental advocacy groups like the National Resources Defense Council say that cutting down on individual plastic waste is an important measure to curtail plastic pollution, as only a small fraction of plastics are recycled.

In January, China announced that it will no longer accept the world’s plastic in its landfills, creating what experts warn is a major crisis for the United States and other plastic waste exporters.

Backlash to straws themselves began three years ago, when marine conservation biologists Christine Figgener and Nathan Robinson posted a video to YouTube showing a sea turtle that had a plastic straw stuck inside of its nostril.

A new study finds that consumer products like cosmetics, soaps, paints, household cleaners, and other chemical-containing products are now a key contributor to urban air pollution, rivaling emissions from cars.

As emission control technologies have helped to reduce car exhaust, consumer products have become just as big of a problem as smog.

Consumer products more volatile than previously thought

In the new study, researchers from the University of Colorado found that the amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by consumer products may be two or three times greater than estimated by current air pollution inventories.

The EPA estimates that about 75 percent of VOC emissions come from fuel-related sources and about 25 percent come from chemical products. However, the new study -- which used current chemical use statistics and previously unavailable atmospheric data -- found that the split was actually closer to 50-50.

Although people use 15 times more fuel than petroleum-based chemicals, lotions and other household products contribute just as much to low air quality, said the study’s lead author Brian McDonald.

"As the transportation sector gets cleaner, the other sources of emissions we identified become more and more important," said McDonald, a research chemist at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "A lot of chemicals we use in our everyday lives can impact air pollution.”

Indoor products affect outdoor air quality

The study's authors claim that it's how household products are used that make them a top source of air pollution. They point out that when a product that once gave off a smell no longer smells, it’s because chemicals that made the scent drifted off into the air.

“Gasoline is stored in closed, hopefully airtight, containers and the VOCs in gasoline are burned for energy,” said co-author Jessica Gilman, a NOAA research chemist.

“But volatile chemical products used in common solvents and personal care products are literally designed to evaporate. You wear perfume or use scented products so that you or your neighbor can enjoy the aroma. You don't do this with gasoline,” Gilman said.

Gilman hopes the study makes it clear that the products we choose to use do have an impact on the environment.

“The collective choices we make as a society, from our energy sources to which chemical products we use in our daily lives, are continually changing the composition of our atmosphere — Earth's atmosphere — the one atmosphere that contains all the air we will ever breathe," she said.

The full study has been published online in the journal Science.

The Trump Administration has approved tariffs on imports of solar energy cells and modules, as well as large residential washing machines.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said he made the recommendation to President Trump after determining that U.S. companies that produce both products have been hurt by foreign manufacturers' trade practices.

“These cases were filed by American businesses and thoroughly litigated at the International Trade Commission over a period of several months,” Lighthizer said. “The ITC found that U.S. producers had been seriously injured by imports and made several recommendations to the President."

Higher prices for consumers

Lighthizer said the actions are designed to defend American jobs. For consumers, the result could be higher prices for both washing machines and solar panels.

Solar panel importers will have to pay the tariff for four years. In the first year, the tariff on cells and modules will start at 30 percent, with percentages falling in increments of five percent over the following three years.Two-point-five gigawatt cells are exempt from the tariff.

The solar tariff was triggered by complaints from some U.S. solar manufacturers, but the action drew a dismayed reaction from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), whose members include installers, who worry more expensive solar panels will lead to job losses.

Job-loss concerns

“While tariffs in this case will not create adequate cell or module manufacturing to meet U.S. demand, or keep foreign-owned Suniva and SolarWorld afloat, they will create a crisis in a part of our economy that has been thriving, which will ultimately cost tens of thousands of hard-working, blue-collar Americans their jobs,” said SEIA CEO Abigail Ross Hopper.

SEIA estimates there were 38,000 jobs in solar manufacturing in the U.S. at the end of 2016. It says the vast majority produced things other than the components protected by the tariff.

If solar panels cost more, SEIA predicts as many as 36,000 jobs manufacturing things like metal racking systems, high-tech inverters, and machines that improve solar panel output by tracking the sun and other electrical products could be vulnerable.

But Doran Hole, head of solar developer ReneSola Ltd., is less concerned.

"While higher prices for the modules we buy are never welcome, the new tariff rate was widely anticipated," Hole said. "We believe the U.S. project development industry has already adjusted to the tariffs, and the impact on growth should be benign."

Washing machines

The cost of imported large residential washing machines will also rise because of the tariff. The three-year tariff adds 20 percent to the first 1.2 million units, 50 percent to any in excess of that number, and 50 percent on covered parts.

The tariff declines slightly in the following two years.

Food production and consumption in the United States have seen a radical shift throughout the 20th century, and -- with almost half of the food produced in the U.S. winding up in landfills -- our current situation begs for major intervention.

"When you think that 40 percent of the food produced in the U.S. goes to waste, that is just irresponsible,” said Ruth Litchfield, a professor of food science and human nutrition at Iowa State University.

Experts estimate nearly a billion people worldwide (including U.S. citizens) still don’t have enough to eat, making U.S. food waste a “huge problem,” says Litchfield, who points out that Americans average about 20 pounds of wasted food each month -- per individual person.

Why it’s happening

There are several reasons we waste so much food, and all of them have to do with Americans’ long-outdated “more is better” mentality. This likely subconscious approach informs every excessively large grocery store haul or restaurant order, Litchfield says.

To reduce our food waste, the first and most critical step is to move past the idea that more is better, she says.

On a large scale, the food service industry is taking steps to combat food waste by donating uneaten food to shelters or soup kitchens, incorporating extra food into other menu items, and collaborating with farmers to feed unused food to farm animals, says Susan Arendt, a professor of hospitality management at Iowa State.

"Some restaurants are also training servers to ask customers what they don't want with their meal,” Arendt added. “For example, instead of bringing both butter and oil with bread, they're asking the customer which one they prefer, rather than letting one go unused and have to be thrown out.”

How to limit your waste

Employing similar tactics at home can help you limit your own food waste and save money, says Litchfield. Here are a few of her tips for reducing household food waste.

• Plan a weekly menu. Meal planning can go a long way toward helping the planet and lowering your grocery bill. Take a look at your family’s activities for the week and try to match your activity plans with your meal plans. For example, if you know you will be too busy to cook certain weeknights, cut back on what you’re buying at the store or stockpile some homemade frozen meals.
• Find an alternative use for produce. Fresh produce can be frozen or donated if you don’t think you will eat it before it wilts or rots. Fruits and veggies can also be frozen and added to smoothies, sauces, or casseroles.
• Compost. Composting is another productive use for food that’s no longer edible. Whether you take advantage of a community composting program or compost at home, the environment will thank you, and so will the garden your compost fertilizes.
• Understand sell by dates. Confusion over “sell by” or “best by” labels is responsible for a large amount of wasted food. The date on the label has to do with the quality of the food, not the safety, says Litchfield. The “sell by date” simply tells grocers how long to keep the item on the shelves.

With Hurricane Irma bearing down on Florida, the dangers to people in the path of the storm are evident.

Forecasters think the storm surge could be as high as 10 feet and the winds have been clocked at 185 miles per hours, making it a monstrous Category 5 hurricane.

But the storm may also pose threats to people outside its direct path, since powerful winds are likely to extend well inland. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) says it's not only dangerous when the storm hits, but afterward too.

The CPSC says there are four main hazards that consumers should be mindful of after Hurricane Irma moves on.

Carbon monoxide

In the wake of the hurricane there will be wide areas without electricity. Consumers may fire up portable generators for lights and charcoal grills for cooking.

That's fine, as long as both are kept outdoors and away from enclosed spaces. In fact, the agency says portable generators should be kept at least 20 feet from the house since exhaust fumes can seep through windows and vents.

Never use a charcoal grill or butane camp stove inside a house. Both will produce dangerous carbon monoxide.

Live wires

Hurricanes tend to knock down power lines. On the ground, it's hard to tell whether they are still live or not.

Assume that they are and keep your distance. Electricity and water have always veen a bad combination. If appliances or circuit breakers in your home have gotten wet, have an electrician check them out before using them again.

Candles

When a hurricane knocks out power, some people light candles to provide some light at night. Candles may be romantic, but they can also be dangerous, especially when you have a lot of them lit at the same time.

Instead of using candles for light, use battery powered electric lamps available at most discount or camping stores. They provide more light than a candle and they're safer.

Gas leaks

High winds and flood waters can cause structural damage to a building, and when things are moving around, sometimes there is a break in the gas line.

If that happens, you're likely to smell it pretty quickly. If you do, don't flip a light switch or even use your cell phone. Once you are out of the house and at a safe distance, call 911 to report it.

An international study has claimed that 83% of tap water samples tested contained tiny particles of plastic.

The study, published by Orb Media, says the health implications are not clear, but probably aren't good. It notes that microplastics -- the name given to these tiny particles -- have been shown to absorb toxic chemicals linked to cancer and other illnesses, and then release them when consumed by fish and mammals.

While the world-wide average of water samples containing plastic was more than 80%, the U.S. and Lebanon had the highest rate -- 94%. Europe was among the lowest, at 72%.

How it gets in the water

So, how does this plastic get into our water? The authors say it's not that surprising, given how prevalent plastic is in the world. They say synthetic clothing like fleece, acrylic, and polyester shed thousands of microfibers with every wash. An estimated million tons of these microfibers are discharged into waste water each year, the authors contend, making their way into the environment.

And that's just one source. The researchers say styrene butadiene dust from rubber tires are constantly released into the environment as cars and trucks are driven. There are even microplastics in paint.

And then there is all the plastic that is simply discarded. Plastic doesn't degrade but it does get smaller and, over time, can break down into smaller and smaller particles. The authors contend the world has produced more plastic in the last ten years than in the entire 20th century.

Orb Media describes itself as an organization that produces journalism covering eight core issues, many of which are environmental in nature.

Besides federal disaster relief agencies, states and cities around the United States are offering to send help to storm-stricken Texas. So is Mexico. In a Sunday night telephone call, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray told Texas Gov. Greg Abbott that Mexico will help Texas "as good neighbors should always do in trying times."

Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, the Mexican consul general in Austin, said he has been in constant communication with the governor's office to determine how Mexico can best help, the Dallas Morning News reported. 

"As we have done in the past, Mexico stands with Texas in this difficult moment," Gonzalez said.

The offer of help came as President Trump tweeted his insistence on Sunday that Mexico would be forced to pay for the wall he proposes to build along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Mexico sent troops and a ship filled with food, medicine, and water to New Orleans 12 years ago after Hurricane Katrina. 

Although it smashed ashore over the weekend, creating a storm surge estimated at more than six feet in many areas, Hurricane Harvey is just getting started. The Category 4 storm is expected to linger over Texas throughout the week, dumping up to 40 inches of rain.

The massive storm is a catastrophe for those in its path and its effects will likely be felt by consumers throughout the country. Already, one quarter of oil production in the Gulf of Mexico has been shut down and Bloomberg estimates that 5 percent of U.S. refining capacity is out of action.

Experts have been predicting the storm will have little impact on gasoline prices, saying the extremely heavy rainfall over a vast area of Texas will dampen demand, thereby canceling out any effect on prices. 

Could be, but in 2005, retail gas prices rose steadily after two devastating hurricanes badly damaged the Gulf's oil and gasoline production capability. It's still too early to measure the extent of the damage to refineries, pipelines and the oil rigs that dot the Gulf of Mexico.

In Houston, with a population of more than 2 million, every major roadway was flooded Sunday. Thousands of motorists were stranded on freeways for hours because off-ramps were flooded with up to 15 feet of water.

“This is catastrophic,” said Greg Waller, a service coordination hydrologist with the National Weather Service’s West Gulf River Forecast Center in Fort Worth, according to Bloomberg. “When we say record setting it means you cannot use history on your side because the rivers have never been this high before.”

Flight cancellations

Harvey was disrupting airline operations throughout the United States, as delays and cancellations rippled out from the storm's center. More than 3,000 flights had been canceled by early Sunday. 

All flights were grounded at Houston Hobby Sunday, as water covered runways. Hobby is one of Southwest Airlines' biggest hubs and also serves several other major airlines. Bush Intercontinental, a major hub for United, canceled about 75% of its flights Sunday. 

Two cruise ships that had been scheduled to return to Galveston Saturday were diverted to New Orleans. Passengers praised the crew of the Carnival Cruise Line ships for staying out of the storm's way and keeping passengers safe and comfortable. 

Disaster declaration

President Trump was quick to issue a disaster declaration for the affected counties, releasing a flood of federal dollars and personnel to help with rescue and clean-up operations.

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department flew in teams of doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers from as far as as California, New York and Minnesota and positioned them around the areas expected to be hardest hit. Veterinarians and other specialists were also in place and ready to go to work.

HHS also provided local officials with information from its Medicare database, identifying consumers who rely on life-maintenance machines and processes like dialysis, oxygen, electric wheelchairs and home health services.

"These citizens are among the most vulnerable in their communities and most likely to need life-saving assistance in prolonged power outages," HHS said.

The Disaster Distress Helpline, a toll-free call center, is available at 1-800-985-5990, to aid people in coping with the behavioral health effects of the storm and help people in impacted areas connect with local behavioral health professionals.

Food safety

Those in or near Harvey's path face possible long-term loss of power. The U.S. Agriculture Department issued these recommendations for safe food storage and hangling when power is lost:

• Keep the refrigerator and freezer doors closed as much as possible. A refrigerator will keep food cold for about four hours if the door is kept closed. A full freezer will hold its temperature for about 48 hours (24 hours if half-full).
• Place meat and poultry to one side of the freezer or on a tray to prevent cross contamination of thawing juices.
• Use dry or block ice to keep the refrigerator as cold as possible during an extended power outage. Fifty pounds of dry ice should keep a fully-stocked 18-cubic-foot freezer cold for two days.

When power is restored:

• Check the temperature inside of your refrigerator and freezer. Discard any perishable food such as meat, poultry, seafood, eggs or leftovers that has been above 40 degrees F for two hours or more.
• Check each item separately. Throw out any food that has an unusual odor, color or texture or feels warm to the touch.
• Check frozen food for ice crystals. The food in your freezer that partially or completely thawed may be safely refrozen if it still contains ice crystals or is 40 degrees F or below.
• Do not eat any food that may have come into contact with flood water — this would include raw fruits and vegetables, cartons of milk or eggs.
• Never taste a food to decide if it’s safe.
• When in doubt, throw it out.

Scams & price-gouging

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton warned residents in hard-hit areas to be alert to scams and price-gouging.

“Unfortunately, in the wake of the damage from storms and flooding, we also see bad actors taking advantage of victims and their circumstances. To that end, I’d like to caution everyone in any area that may be affected by Harvey to be extremely cautious with people who may offer to help residents with rebuilding or repairs,” Paxton said.

Texans in areas affected by Hurricane Harvey who suspect they are being scammed or who encounter price gouging should call the Office of the Attorney General’s toll-free complaint line at (800) 621-0508, email consumeremergency@oag.texas.gov or file a complaint online at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov.

Consumers elsewhere should be wary of appeals for help from charities they have never heard of. The American Red Cross is on the ground providing help to storm victims and welcomes contributions of money, blood and other assistance. 

Mempis Meat isn't in Memphis and the meat it manufactures doesn't come directly from animals, but that hasn't stopped it from landing $17 million from such well-known investors as Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and food industry giant Cargill. 

The beefy investment was announced yesterday, setting off a burst of excitement in "clean meat" circles. 

"Today is a watershed day for our environment, for sustainable food production, for global health, and for animals," said Bruce Friedrich, executive director of the Good Food Institute.  

What is this clean meat anyway? It's sort of a way to have your meat and eat it too -- it's meat that has the same chemical composition as dead-animal meat. The difference is that instead of being raised on the hoof, so to speak, clean meat is made in the lab, using self-reproducing cells identical to those found in living animals.

The process is touted as beneficial because it reduces the pollution produced by large herds of animals. Also, in a world increasingly populated by consumers who want to promote kindness to animals, it doesn't require raising and slaughtering living creatures. Of course, it also means that fewer animals will get to experience life on earth, but that's perhaps a question for another day. 

“We’re going to bring meat to the plate in a more sustainable, affordable and delicious way,” said Uma Valeti, M.D., co-founder and CEO of Memphis Meats, in a press release. “The world loves to eat meat, and it is core to many of our cultures and traditions.

"Meat demand is growing rapidly around the world. We want the world to keep eating what it loves. However, the way conventional meat is produced today creates challenges for the environment, animal welfare and human health," Valeti said.

"Protein market"

For its part, Cargill says the investment "is an exciting way for Cargill to explore the potential in this growing segment of the protein market."

You won't find clean meat at the supermarket quite yet, though. Memphis Meats is very much a start-up and is still working towards bringing down the price of its product and clearing regulatory hurdles.

Valeti says it now costs the company less than $2,400 to make a pound of meat -- still a pretty hefty price but a lot less than the $18,000 it cost last year.

Both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department will have to sign off on the process. Before doing that, they'll need to be convinced that clean meat is fit to eat.

The solar eclipse didn't cause the mass havoc some had feared. There were no massive traffic pile-ups, unruly sun-watchers, or epidemics of damaged retinas. Ah, but then there are those salmon.

Washington State officials are urging the public to catch as many salmon as they can after it was discovered that high tides resulting from the eclipse damaged a net pen holding 305,000 farm salmon at a Cooke Aquaculture fish farm near Cypress Island, allowing an unknown number to escape, the Seattle Times reported.

The prison pen bust-out was discovered by fishermen over the weekend when they pulled up spotted, silvery salmon instead of the chinook they were expecting.

No one knows how many fish made the big break, but officials from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) say it's at least 4,000 to 5,000. The fish are about 10 pounds each. 

"High tides and currents"

Cooke is blaming the escape on “exceptionally high tides and currents coinciding with this week’s solar eclipse” although the pen apparently collapsed on Saturday, a few days before the eclipse.

“It appears that many fish are still contained within the nets,” Cooke said in the statement. “It will not be possible to confirm exact numbers of fish losses until harvesting is completed and an inventory of fish in the pens has been conducted.”

Fishermen and wildlife officials are worried about the effect the farmed salmon will have on the native Atlantic salmon that inhabit the waters in the area.

WDFW officials are urging licensed fishermen to catch as many of the farmed salmon as they can. 

“Catch as many as you want,” the WDFW's Ron Warren said. “We don’t want anything competing with our natural populations. We have never seen a successful crossbreeding with Atlantic salmon, but we don’t want to test the theory.”

You go into a fast-food restaurant and order a salad. It comes in a plastic bowl, covered by a clear plastic top.

The salad dressing is in a plastic bag and the utensils to eat the salad are made of plastic. They are encased in a clear plastic wrapper. When you're finished eating, all of that plastic goes into the trash.

And that's just one example of how nearly every consumer product produces some kind of plastic waste, waste that for the most part either ends up in landfills or the natural environment and doesn't break down over time.

Writing in Sciences Advances, researchers from several different universities point out that large-scale of production of plastic has only occurred since around 1950. Since then, production has surged, fueled by what is known as "single use" plastic -- material used in packaging or to produce the forks and spoons at fast-food restaurants.

8.3 billion metric tons

In that time, we've produced 8.3 billion metric tons of plastics, the researcher write. They say their analysis is the first to look at global plastic production, how it's used and where it goes.

Of the 6.3 billion tons of plastic that becomes waste, the researchers say only 9% was recycled and 12% was incinerated. Seventy-nine percent, they say, ended up in landfills or the natural environment.

“Most plastics don’t biodegrade in any meaningful sense, so the plastic waste humans have generated could be with us for hundreds or even thousands of years,” said Jenna Jambeck, study co-author and associate professor of engineering at UGA. “Our estimates underscore the need to think critically about the materials we use and our waste management practices.”

12 billion tons by 2050

Jambeck and her colleague say that if current trends continue, 12 billion metric tons of plastic waste will end up in landfills or the environment by 2050. To put 12 billion tons in perspective, that's about 35,000 times as heavy at the Empire State Building.

Researchers say part of the problem is in how plastic, an incredibly durable material, is used. They point out that steel is also durable, but once it is produced it usually goes into buildings and other structures, where it stays for decades.

An increasing amount of plastic, however, falls into the "single-use" category. The plastic elements in the fast-food salad mentioned above are used just once. Roland Geyer, lead author of the paper, says half of all the world's plastic becomes waste after four or fewer years of use.

The researchers say they aren't suggesting a total removal of plastic from the marketplace. Instead, they say there needs to be a more serious examination of how plastic is used and what happens to it after.

Limiting uranium mining in the Grand Canyon hasn’t been an easy political fight for Arizona residents, and Barack Obama’s presidency brought a mix of hope and missed opportunities to the battle.  The former president in 2012 agreed to issue a 20-year-ban on uranium mining in the Grand Canyon, grandfathering in sites where work had already begun but killing companies' hopes of mining anywhere new in the region. 

While the mining industry promptly sued the Obama administration and has been in court fighting the federal government ever since, Native American tribes and some lawmakers pushed the administration to go even further to protect the area's environment.

Had Obama made the Grand Canyon a national monument, as environmentalists petitioned him to do, mining and other heavy industrial activity would have been permanently banned from the region, activists said. But residents got word during Obama’s final days in office that he would not give the Grand Canyon that special monument status.  

“I can only express my profound disappointment,” Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat from Arizona, said in reaction to the news.  

Now energy interests, still fighting to overturn the current mining ban in the Grand Canyon, are hoping to benefit from the Trump administration's pro-industrialization of national parks stance. They see hope in not just the Grand Canyon but in public land where Trump, in an unprecedented move, is considering stripping away national monument protections that have already been granted by previous presidents.

Revoking a monument's protections?

President Teddy Roosevelt’s Antiquities Act gave presidents the authority to declare land and waters as national monuments, a designation  that people assumed was permanent. But Trump in late April signed an Executive Order asking his secretary of interior to review 30 national monuments and decide if any should be “rescinded, modified or resized.” 

Conservation groups argue that presidents don’t have the authority to “rescind” or “resize” land that has already been made a monument by past administrations. “We're prepared, and others are prepared, to challenge any revoking of any of the monuments established by Obama, Clinton or Bush,” says Roger Clark, a director at Grand Canyon Trust, a conservation group that aims to keep uranium mining and other industrial activity out of the Grand Canyon.  

“We contend that there’s no legal authority to rescind monuments once they've been established,” Clark tells ConsumerAffairs. 

The administration is framing its review of monuments as a small government vs. big government issue, and they say that regular citizens will benefit from opening up more protected land.

“In some cases national monuments have resulted in the loss of jobs, reduced wages and loss of public access,” Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters earlier this year. “We feel the public, the people the monuments affect, should be considered and given a meaningful voice.”

But it was the American Petroleum Institute, the major trade group representing oil and gas interests, that originally suggested this year that lawmakers “re-examine the role and purpose of the Antiquities Act,” according to a letter the API sent Congress in January.

“Many of our members explore for and produce oil and natural gas resources on federal offshore and onshore lands,” the group said, before going on to criticize the outgoing administration for adding new sites to the monument list.

“President Obama’s large designations under the Antiquities Act and suggestions of additional withdrawals before his term in office expires, present a threat to balanced management of America’s non-park, non-wilderness public lands onshore and offshore,” the API wrote. 

Bears Ears faces shrinking proposal

While Obama had declined to make the Grand Canyon a national monument, he did agree, at the urging of tribes and environmental groups, to protect approximately 265 million acres of land at other sites during his tenure. In his final days in office, Obama gave Antiquities Act protections to a controversial site in Utah called Bears Ears. The site consists of a pair of mesas and a vast landscape that a coalition of five different Native American tribes had lobbied for years to protect. 

Gavin Noyes, who helped draft the initial proposal to make Bears Ears a national monument in 2013, described the site in an interview in NPR “one of the wildest, most intact landscapes in Utah."

But the energy industry sees it differently. At least six companies have reportedly explored Bears Ears for natural gas before Obama made it a monument. And the American Petroleum Institute, while not calling out Bears Ears specifically, is among the many oil and gas interests that have a friendly relationship with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.

On June 12, Zinke released a proposal to significantly scale back the amount of land considered a monument at Bears Ears. The exact dimensions at this new, theoretical smaller monument in Utah are not clear. The plans are not yet finalized, as  Zinke is expected to make a determination on two dozen other monuments by the end of August.

Overturning the uranium mining moratorium in Grand Canyon

With more monuments potentially on the chopping block as an August deadline for Zinke’s report looms, officials who support uranium mining in the Grand Canyon are beginning to make a new public push for overturning the two-decade ban put in place by Obama.  This month the Mohave County Board of Supervisors sent a letter to Zinke expressing support for adding new mines in the Grand Canyon, claiming that “this ban took away much needed growth and jobs from our area.”

Among those who would be poised to benefit from lifting the moratorium is Energy Fuel Resources, a mining company that dominates uranium reserves in the Grand Canyon region. The company’s Canyon Mine at the bottom of the Grand Canyon first broke ground in 1986, when it was under the control of a Canadian company, but tumbling uranium prices caused the original owners to abandon the site.

New owners Energy Fuel Resources have tried to reopen the site in recent years, but they have been stalled in the courts by the Havasupai, the tribe who lives near the site and has led much of the effort to stop mining in the Canyon. Work on the mine came to a halt again in March when the site began filling with water.

“Energy Fuels supports lifting the withdrawal, as it needlessly cuts off access to the best uranium deposits in the U.S,” the company writes to ConsumerAffairs via email.

But they add that they have the authority to continue working as they please on the Canyon Mine, whether or not the current moratorium is lifted. “...whether the withdrawal is lifted or not, the Canyon Mine is grandfathered-in – President Obama’s Interior Secretary at the time the withdrawal was placed into effect (Mr. Ken Salazar) stated that up to 8 uranium mines could proceed under the withdrawal, including the Canyon Mine," the company says.

Research suggests water contamination from uranium mining in canyon

Tribal and conservation groups trying to fight new mining projects point to a study released by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2010 which found that areas near former mining sites in the Grand Canyon have elevated levels of uranium in the water. 

Roger Clark, the director at Grand Canyon Trust, adds that uranium mines in Arizona are not required to install monitoring wells up or downstream from their operations, something he says is considered a “best practice” in the industry and is required by other mining operators.

Uranium at mines near the Grand Canyon "could have easily spread and seeped into the aquifer and contaminate the aquifer...but we don't know because the agencies do not require these mines to have monitoring wells,” Clark says.

Energy Fuel Resources spokesman Curtis Moore responds to ConsumerAffairs that monitoring wells are unnecessary. “We can assure the Havasupai Tribe and all members of the public that our Canyon Mine is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including those governing air and water monitoring,” he says via email. “Installing additional monitoring (as you suggest) is costly, unnecessary, and not required by any government law, regulation or agency."

Moore additionally claims that “the federal government has not linked modern natural uranium mining with water contamination in the Grand Canyon,” arguing that the 2010 U.S. Geological Survey report that detected uranium in water did not conclusively blame modern mining operations as the culprit. The report, he added, “is confusingly written…. At worst (for us), the USGS report is inconclusive.”

Conservation groups like the Grand Canyon Trust and Center for Biological Diversity, meanwhile, argue that the US Geological Survey’s research is strong enough to make a case against any further mining of the region.“These reports demonstrate unequivocally that uranium mining should not proceed in these environmentally sensitive lands,” the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon chapter said at the time. 

Building a new terminal to export fracked gas might seem like an unlikely proposal for Portland, Oregon, where residents and lawmakers pride themselves on the city’s environmentally-conscious policies. But Portland’s then-Mayor Charles Hales supported that very project when Pembina Pipeline Corporation approached city leaders with the idea in 2015.

Echoing a common refrain made by national Democratic Party leaders and the former president, Hales claimed that natural gas is a cleaner, greener "bridge fuel." Natural or shale gas will help wean consumers from their addiction to coal and other dirty fossil fuels, lawmakers like Hales who express concerns about climate change have said.

But environmental activists don't support the argument that natural gas is a cleaner "bridge fuel." And neither does the science. Numerous studies, including a paper published that same year out of Cornell University, state that methane emissions from fracked wells are so high that they undercut the environmental benefits of burning natural gas.

While “carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use in the USA declined to some extent between 2009 and 2013” due to the widespread replacement of carbon-based coal with natural gas, the Cornell researchers said, “the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas is significantly larger than that of conventional natural gas, coal, and oil," thanks to methane leaks from shale gas production. (Methane is a greenhouse gas that researchers say is much more potent at trapping heat than carbon dioxide).

Local activists pushed back

After local activists in Portland pushed back against the project with similar arguments, Portland’s mayor eventually changed course, and responded by cancelling plans to allow the propane storage and exporting facility in his city. Then the Portland City Council unanimously passed a ban on allowing any new fossil fuel storage facilities in city limits, the first local ordinance of its kind in the nation. "The leadership on climate and sustainability rests with the cities," Hales said in a press conference afterward.

The recent news that President Trump is pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accord is a reminder once again that much of the burden of halting climate change falls on local communities and individual consumers. 

"Cities and state governments have been amazing in stepping up," Travis Nichols, a spokesman with Greenpeace USA, tells ConsumerAffairs. 

A supposed flip-flop from green groups on the Paris accord

Environmental organizations and Democrats were deeply critical of Trump’s decision to leave the Paris accord, the voluntary, international agreement calling for world leaders to limit the global temperature increase to 2°C.

Yet two years ago, when world leaders were negotiating the agreement, those same environmental groups described the goals netted out in Paris as inadequate at addressing climate change. Missing from the text in the actual agreement, as critics pointed out, were the words “shale,” “oil” or even “fossil fuel.”

After the deal was brokered, GreenPeace International director Kumi Naidoo said in a statement that he found parts of it to be frustrating, claiming that the emissions targets that the participating countries had set made it impossible for the world to meet its stated temperature goals. “There’s a yawning gap in this deal, but it can be bridged by clean technology,” Naidoo said at the time. 

Dr. James Hansen a leading climate scientist, was especially critical after the deal passed.“It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years,’” Hansen told the Guardian newspaper. “It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. “

Environmentalists’ hesitancy to hail the Paris agreement as a cure-all to climate change has become fodder for right-wing sites like the Daily Caller, which wrote a post suggesting that environmentalists were flip-flopping in their support of the climate deal after Trump took office. 

Nichols, the GreenPeace spokesman, dismisses this argument as cynical hypocrisy. "They don’t have another plan. It’s not like they’re saying, ‘Paris isn’t good enough, let's be more ambitious.” He points out that even major oil companies say they want the United States to stay in the deal.

“When it comes to policy, the goal should be to reduce emissions at the lowest cost to society,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods reportedly told investors last week. 

Why climate-deniers support Paris accord

Of course, the energy industry’s reasons for wanting to participate in international climate talks is probably not entirely altruistic. Exxon has spent millions to cast doubt on the causes and effects of climate change and continues to push the idea that renewable energy reliance is unrealistic. The oil corporation also wants to drill in the Arctic and calls for an increased reliance on natural gas, despite warnings from environmental scientists that natural gas worsens climate change. 

But energy companies also face pressure from investors who want oil companies to better account for the effect that climate change will have on their pocketbooks. “The world we live in acknowledges that climate change is real, that humans contribute to it and are the cause of it,” Nichols tells ConsumerAffairs."These companies live in the real world.”

Switching the grid from coal to renewables 

Also living in the “real world” are local lawmakers, who are able to see the direct effect that fossil fuel consumption and climate change have on their way of life. In response to Trump’s decision, 246 mayors across the United States signed an open letter stating that they would continue to follow the Paris accord regardless of what the president wants. 

Some cities are going further than others. The mayor of Georgetown, Texas, an Austin suburb with a population of about 50,000 people, is not one of the local leaders whose name is included in the open letter. Yet his city is one of the few in the United States that is powered completely by renewable energy. In an interview with NPR, Georgetown Mayor Dale Ross says it was a “business decision” that drove the city’s renewable policy.

The Sierra Club in a recent report identified six other municipalities that are poised to follow Georgetown’s lead by 2035 or sooner, as well three other cities -- Burlington, VT, Aspen, CO and Greenburg, KS -- that already are powered completely by renewables. 

Environmentalists stop short of saying that local lawmakers are the only hope at combating climate change. But local lawmakers have taken practical steps that even climate-concerned Democrats have been hesitant to embrace.

"You don’t have to be a scientist. You just have to be a city planner and you’d recognize this is a huge problem,” Nichols says. "Trump's administration is intent on making it as painful as possible for everyone...luckily it is not a hopeless situation, they're just making it harder."

Companies often talk about reducing their carbon footprint by cutting down on waste, but could all that extra carbon that’s out there actually fuel American industry?

Researchers from Texas A&M seem to think so. Dr. Joshua Yuan and his colleagues say that waste material from the paper and pulp industry could be repurposed to make all sorts of products, from tennis rackets to entire cars. The secret, they say, is collecting and repurposing a substance called lignin that is found in all that waste.

"People have been thinking about using lignin to make carbon fiber for many years, but achieving good quality has been an issue,” said Yuan. “We have overcome one of the industry’s most challenging issues by discovering how to make good quality carbon fiber from waste.”

Carbon fiber production

In basic terms, lignin is a class of organic materials that helps form the tissues and structural walls in certain plants and algae. The researchers say that about 50 million tons of lignin is thrown away each year in products disposed of by the paper and pulp industry.

Initially, the research team found some initial success in making fuel and bioproducts from lignin, but the processes involved still led to a lot of waste. That’s when they started thinking outside the box and considered making other products.

“We separated lignin into different parts, and then we found that certain parts of lignin are very good for high quality carbon fiber manufacturing,” explains Yuan. “We are still improving and fine-tuning the quality, but eventually this carbon fiber could be used for windmills, sport materials, and even bicycles and cars…Carbon Fiber is much lighter but has the same mechanical strength as other materials used for those products now. This material can be used for a lot of different applications.

Creating U.S. jobs

The researchers believe that the process they’re developing makes complete use of lignin and dramatically cuts down on waste. They say that certain parts of the substance could be used to make anything from bioplastics to asphalt binder modifiers that are used to make roads.

Perhaps best of all, Yuan points out that the sustainable nature of lignin allows for an economic return that would create jobs and fuel economic growth in rural areas of the U.S. where production would most likely take place.

“The entire supply chain is in the United States, which means the jobs would be here. The biomass is grown, harvested and transported here. It would be difficult to ever ship that much waste to another country for production. It all stays here…It would put agriculture production and industry together in a bioeconomy making renewable products,” he said.

The full study has been published in Green Chem.

When a Wikileaks email dump last year revealed that leaders of the Democratic Party worked to tilt their primary in Hillary Clinton’s favor against opponent Senator Bernie Sanders, a similar but lesser-known political battle between an established politician and an underdog reared its head in the state of Florida.

Tim Canova, an attorney, economist, and professor who currently teaches at Nova Southeastern University, challenged incumbent and then-DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz last year in a bid to represent Florida’s 23rd congressional district in the House of Representatives. Some of the major issues that Canova centered his campaign around included his support for a total ban on fracking in Florida and his opposition to the Sabal Trail Pipeline, a proposed $3 billion project that its backers say will deliver natural gas from Alabama and Georgia through Florida by June 2017.

The project, the EPA warned in 2015, could contaminate the Floridan Aquifer, where much of the state gets its water, but the EPA reversed its position one year later. Community groups and environmental groups, on the other hand, have continued to wage a campaign against the project. While the pipeline was a major focus of Canova’s campaign, the issue never came up in Wasserman Schultz’s.

Never uttered the words

“As far as I know, she’s never uttered the words Sabal Trail Pipeline,” Canova tells ConsumerAffairs. "Most of the political class in Florida has also remained silent. When you look at the state of Florida, a great number of politicians here have taken campaign donations from either Flower Power & Light, or Duke Energy, or NextEra," the same group building the Sabal Trail Pipeline.

Wasserman Schultz ultimately beat Canova by 6,775 votes, about 28,000 votes to his 21,000. But now, with the election in the rearview mirror, there is a sign that the congresswoman is at least paying attention to the controversial project. "Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she wants to know more," Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson, an organizer with Sierra Club’s Florida chapter, tells ConsumerAffairs.

The Sierra Club is one of several groups currently suing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to stop the Sabal Trail Pipeline. Malwitz-Jipson recalls getting a phone call from one of the congresswoman’s staffers about a week ago. The staffer, she says, “wanted to know about the public and what the public was doing about the pipeline,” so Malwitz-Jipson emailed him public documents detailing testimony that people gave about the project. (The congresswoman’s office did not return messages left by ConsumerAffairs).

What the staffer’s sudden interest means is anyone’s guess, but Malwitz-Jipson notes that their only hope to stop the project lies with national leaders. "Federal leadership is ultimately the one that’s responsible for federal permitting.”

Numerous risks to Florida's water

Florida is a state that experts say is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, due in part to the $69 billion worth of coastal property at risk of being inundated by a rising tide and the porous limestone that cities like Miami are built on. 

That limestone sediment means that Florida’s land is prone to both sinkholes and flooding. And the oil that Florida produces isn’t as high quality as oil found elsewhere. Yet despite all this, Florida continues to attract more oil and gas projects, says Jacki Lopez, a staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Florida is becoming this destination and hub for oil and gas exportation,” she tells ConsumerAffairs. 

The Sabal Trail Pipeline is just one of several projects that local organizers say could threaten the state’s fragile aquifer system. In January, Florida Power & Light won approval from Governor Rick Scott to store radioactive waste underneath south Florida’s Biscayne Aquifer, which supplies drinking water to the region.

The National Park Service last year gave drilling companies the go-ahead to conduct seismic exploration in the Big Cypress National Preserve, a protected wetland and another source of drinking water. Meanwhile, President Trump is planning to expand off-shore drilling along the Atlantic coast.

The state’s overall geology “makes our aquifer system and our natural resources really vulnerable to contamination,” Lopez adds. 

Lawmakers respond

At the state level, lawmakers are considering bills to both ban fracking and to expand it. Nationally, Republican Senator Marco Rubio “hasn't lifted a finger on this issue,” Lopez says, other than to write letters expressing his support for more oil and gas development. 

Florida’s Democratic Senator Bill Nelson has publicly expressed concerns about seismic exploration in the state’s protected wetlands as well as fracking. “He has been very strong at asking questions to the Department of Interior,” Lopez says, and “in saying that we don't want that in Florida.” 

Nelson has not yet spoken out for or against the Sabal Trail Pipeline however. His office has consulted with environmental groups about their concerns, representatives from the groups tell ConsumerAffairs. (Nelson’s office has not yet returned an interview request). "They listened,” says Sierra Club’s Malwitz-Jipson. “However, we still don’t see any movement from it, in terms of ending it.”

Former House candidate Canova recalls attending a hearing in West Palm Beach that Senator Nelson organized regarding climate change. The witnesses, Canova says, mostly talked about the ways that Florida should adapt to climate change.

“There was no discussion really about how do we really quickly become a leader in solar, wind energy and renewables? How do we get off of this addiction to fossil fuels?"

FPL and solar

With its sunny and suburban atmosphere, Florida would seem to be the ideal place for the solar industry to take off. Many Florida consumers are in fact using government and company rebates to install solar panels on their own homes, a move that is not welcomed by local or out-of-state energy companies.

Sabal Trail Pipeline backer Florida Power & Light, which is also the state’s largest utility, spent a reported $20 million backing a proposed state amendment last year that experts said would have discouraged consumers from purchasing solar panels. The amendment failed, and Florida Power & Light at the same time pledged to expand its solar forms, enough to comprise just four percent of the state’s energy needs by 2023.  

Florida Power & Light’s parent company, as former candidate Canova notes, has donated to the campaigns of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including Wasserman Schultz. Her former opponent sounds cynical about her office’s apparent, newfound interest in the Sabal Trail Pipeline.

“They realize that I might run against her again,” he speculates. “They probably want to figure out how to deal with that issue, whether it means her flip-flopping now, or just trying to find holes in our argument.”

Even veterans of the oil and gas industry are dismayed at the ease with which an energy company can seize a person’s land, especially in the state of Texas. "They're very aggressive,” says Rex White, an 82-year-old Texas attorney who has represented oil and gas companies for decades. Now he is pushing back against oil interests, lobbying for state legislation that would give more power to landowners who typically have no choice other than to allow development on their land.

“There are a number of landowners out there who are subject to condemnation proceedings that are not over,” White says of a new pipeline project crossing private property called the Trans-Pecos pipeline. “And yet the pipeline has taken possession," he tells ConsumerAffairs. Under the Texas property code, an oil and gas operator can begin building on private property even before the company has settled on a payment that both it and the landowner agree on. “That’s why I decided I wanted to change that law."

Cutting Texas off from Mexico, but sending over natural gas 

The United States' relationship with Mexico plays a contrasting role in eminent domain fights along the border. In March, the Department of Homeland Security began sending landowners a notice, “Declaration of Taking," also known as a condemnation letter.

The Department of Homeland Security, they explain in the notice, is ready to pay landowners in exchange for the ability to build President Trump’s multibillion dollar border wall through their private property. If the property owner doesn't agree to the terms, the feds are going to build the wall through their land anyway, the notice spells out, using the power of eminent domain.

Yet at the same time that the government is preparing to build a new barrier between the United States and Mexico, federal and local agencies are also allowing pipeline operator Energy Transfer Partners to seize sections of Texas ranchers' land for the Trans-Pecos Pipeline. The project delivers natural gas to Mexico as part of a deal with Mexico's utility commission and Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim.

As Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners explains of its project; “The Trans-Pecos Pipeline is a Texas intrastate pipeline designed to transport 1.4 billion cubic feet per day of clean-burning natural gas as part of an agreement with Comisión Federal de Electricidad, Mexico’s federal electricity commission.”

Though Energy Transfer Partners has told federal and local authorities that the Trans-Pecos pipeline would also benefit Texas communities along the route, and has rationalized its use of eminent domain by styling itself as a local public utility, there is minimal evidence that Energy Transfer Partners actually intends to supply the natural gas to the Texas towns the project passes through, as ConsumerAffairs reported several months ago.

Now concerns about losing sections of land to further oil and gas development or to a border fence are spurring local lawmakers and advocates to try to strengthen landowners’ rights. "I just find it odd that the most powerful nation in the world is so uncomfortable it has to build a fence to protect itself,” White remarks.

Farmers, hunters and conservationists unite against wall and lax land seizure

A coalition of hunters, conservationists, farmers, and ranchers are lobbying Texas lawmakers to support a bill that would reform the state’s eminent domain laws and offer landowners more protections against industry and the federal government. While not revoking an energy company’s rights to begin construction while dollar amounts are still in dispute, Senator Lois Kolkhorst's SB740 would at least give landowners facing condemnation more rights during the construction process, such as ensuring that landowners be compensated for all damages to their crops and for land experts' and attorney’s fees.

The bill demands that companies “lock and close all gates and fences as necessary to prevent damage to or destruction of livestock” and “repair and restore areas used or damaged outside the easement area to their original condition or better.”

Currently, ranchers complain that companies do little to offset the disruption to their land and in testimony have praised SB740 as a measure that would help landowners get adequate compensation. "A growing state with a strong appetite for new development has put a target on Texas private property,” writes the Texas Farm Bureau on its website, “leaving landowners searching for a fair offer and process in eminent domain cases.”

Hunters also have a vested interest in keeping the land pristine and protecting wildlife habitats. The Texas Wildlife Association, the group representing state ranching and hunting interests, has expressed similar concerns about a border wall’s effect on the local ecology. Such a wall, the TWA said, would “interrupt landowner/livestock/wildlife access to water from the Rio Grande, harm property values, and impair critical wildlife movement corridors for species such as black bears, mountain lions, white-tailed and mule deer, and desert bighorn sheep, among others.”

And park rangers note that one massive section of the Texas-Mexico border lies in the middle of a federally-recognized park, the Big Bend National Park. A natural barrier exists in the form of the vast Chihuahuan desert and mountain ranges on either side. The actual border is drawn along the Rio Grande River, raising further concerns about the wall’s effect on the local environment. The dangers to the local ecology are uniting an unlikely coalition of environmentalists and conservative Republican landowners.

“We’re really witnessing a rise in real Republicans,” says Nicol Ragland, a filmmaker who is filming and producing a documentary about the Trans-Pecos Pipeline and eminent domain laws in Texas.

Slow change

But SB740 does not go as far as some would like. Rex White, the oil and gas attorney, recently crafted a proposed amendment that would force companies to delay construction until all of the legal proceedings are complete. However, White doubts his amendment will get tacked on thanks to the heavy political weight that oil and gas interests still carry. “Most of the oil and gas associations are against any change,” he says.

Any reform for now is likely to remain slow and still  favorable to industries, or at least the oil and gas industry. Texas Governor Greg Abbott several years ago appointed Energy Transfer Partners’ CEO Kelcy Warren to serve on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Board, a move showing the strong hold that energy interests have over the state’s environmental and conservation regulations. The wildlife board itself has still not officially approved the nomination.

Last week, Sierra Club’s Texas director testified against Warren’s appointment to the board. “We don’t know how many existing or proposed pipelines either intersect or otherwise affect Parks and Wildlife land that are associated in one way or another with Energy Transfer Partners, its parent - Energy Transfer Equity - or other entities connected to its parent," he said.

As environmentalists are learning, the Trump administration takes a very different approach to environmental matters than its predecessor.

At midweek, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a petition to ban the use of chlorpyrifos, a widely used pesticide in agriculture. Under the Obama administration, the EPA had planned to impose a rule that would have effectively banned its use, citing research linking it to damage to the central nervous system.

Because of a court order, the current administration said it had until the end of this week to decide whether or not to ban the chemical, as environmental groups had filed suit to force it to do. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced the agency would not ban the pesticide as he issued an EPA Order.

“In this Order, EPA denies a petition requesting that EPA revoke all tolerances for the pesticide chlorpyrifos under section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and cancel all chlorpyrifos registrations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act,” Pruitt wrote. “The petition was filed in September 2007 by the Pesticide Action Network North America (P ANNA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).”

The petition was never formally acted upon during Obama's two terms, but in 2015 the administration announced its intentions to impose rules that would not allow for any trace residues of the chemical on food. In announcing his decision to deny the petition, Pruitt said it was based on science rather than “pre-determined results.”

Environmental groups react

“EPA turned a blind-eye to extensive scientific evidence and peer reviews documenting serious harm to children and their developing brains, including increased risk of learning disabilities, reductions in IQ, developmental delay, autism and ADHD,” said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, Senior Scientist at NRDC.

Kristin Schafer, policy director at PANNA, accused the EPA of caving to corporate pressure and of failing “to follow overpowering scientific evidence of harm to children’s brains.”

According to a pesticide information network, established by Cornell and several other universities, Chlorpyrifos is known as a broad spectrum insecticide. It was introduced in 1965 and used primarily to kill mosquitoes, but it's no longer approved for that use.

It is effective at controlling a variety of insects and is currently used on both food and non-food agricultural products.

The network also notes the chemical is “moderately toxic to humans.” It says studies have show that poisoning from chlorpyrifos may affect the central nervous system, as well as the cardiovascular system, and the respiratory system.

The Standing Rock Sioux's on-the-ground protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline drew a heavy, coordinated response from local law enforcement agencies, sanitation crews, federal agents from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms bureau. Even agents from the FBI’s joint terrorism task force reportedly opened investigations into some of the anti-pipeline activists.

But a pipeline leak on another North Dakota reservation drew a very different kind of bureaucratic reaction. 

“They don’t have any support. They feel kind of alone. They have no authority to go through,” recalls Dr. Aver Vengosh, a Duke University geochemistry professor who has studied the impacts of domestic fracking across the country since 2010. Several years ago, people from North Dakota’s Fort Berthold Reservation called to tell him about a spill on their land.

Officials initially said there was little reason for concern when fracking wastewater leaked onto the reservation in 2014 out of a gathering pipeline -- a pipeline that carries byproduct from oil and gas drilling. Gathering pipelines until recently received little government oversight at the federal or state level. This wastewater spill left 200 yards of dead vegetation in its wake and occurred right next to Bear Den Bay, a bay that feeds into Lake Sakakawea, which is the reservation’s source of drinking water.

Still, pipeline operator Crestwood Midstream Partners assured the public that “there is no evidence yet that the spill has contaminated nearby Bear Den Bay.” The Environmental Protection Agency said it had no confirmed reports that the brine reached the bay, and the Associated Press reported seeing “no visible signs of contamination in the bay” on a boat trip.

Widespread contamination found at the site

Vengosh and his team collected data from the bay anyway. “There was a need for that given the lack of local authority," Vengosh tells ConsumerAffairs. Sure enough, Vengosh and his researchers reported finding widespread contamination lingering in the bay and the soil.

At the Fort Berthold site and three other fracking wastewater spill sites in North Dakota, the fracking fluid, or brine, was laden with radioactive pollutants and inorganic compounds. The chemicals could not degrade over time, creating what the researchers described as  “a legacy of radioactivity at spill sites.” The researchers published their results in April 2016, nearly two years after the Fort Berthold spill had occurred. 

Regulators, Vengosh says, expressed little interest in his findings. “The reaction of the state was very defensive, there was not any true attempt to see what we found."

In the year following the spill, authorities calculated the total leak on Fort Berthold at one million gallons of brine. The EPA eventually gave Crestwood Midstream a "Notice of Potential Violation" concerning the leak in 2015, but that government investigation has appeared to languish since then.

"EPA’s investigation of the Crestwood Midstream brine spill is an ongoing enforcement matter,” EPA spokesman Katherine Jenkins now writes to ConsumerAffairs in an email. Crestwood recently indicated to investors that it would commence a clean-up or "remediation" of the Fort Berthold spill site -- but only once the EPA investigation is finished. "We expect to enter into a settlement agreement in the second quarter of 2017 and, thereafter commence the remediation actions contemplated by the settlement agreement," Crestwood wrote of the EPA investigation in its 2016 annual report. 

An attempt by a tribal agency to impose a $1.1 million fine on Crestwood has also been fended off, according to the annual report. “Although we continue to have productive settlement conversations with the Tribe,” Crestwood wrote to investors in its 2016 annual report, “we cannot predict if or when we will be able to settle the dispute.” Reached by ConsumerAffairs, a Crestwood spokeswoman said they had nothing more to say other than what was in the annual report. 

New study suggests nationwide under-reporting of fracking pipeline spills

Just six months after Crestwood Midstream announced a leak out of its gathering pipeline, a saltwater spill nearly triple its size leaked out of gathering line run by Summit Midstream Partners and into a creek that feeds the Missouri River. That saltwater spill was the largest of its kind in North Dakota's history. Summit Midstream promised to work "tirelessly" to clean-up the mess, but the following year the company experienced a leak in the same spot.  

Spills of this nature aren't unique to North Dakota. A new study published last week by researchers from the Harvard Law School’s Environmental Policy Initiative confirmed what the anecdotal evidence has suggested for years: that spills related to fracking, including spills of toxic saltwater as well as gas and oil itself,  have occurred "far more often than previously reported." North Dakota had the most spills out of four states the researchers studied. “Analyses like this one are so important, to define and mitigate risk to water supplies and human health," co-author Kate Konschnik told Courthouse News. 

North Dakota's health department, meanwhile, has been developing new guidelines for cleaning up saltwater spills. The agency has also done a better job than it has previously of helping ranchers affected by saltwater spills, Troy Coons, chairman of the Northwest Landowners Association, tells ConsumerAffairs. Last year, the state's industrial commission even finalized new rules governing gathering pipelines. "Are we heading the right direction? Yes. Is there more to do? Definitely," says Coons.

 At the same time, North Dakota's lawmakers are trying to give the oil and gas industry more breaks. A bill approved this year by the state House would no longer require companies to report spills of wastewater, crude oil, or natural gas that are less than 420 gallons, a move Coons describes as a major setback for landowners.

And while the ranchers affected by brine spills have received some clean-up help from authorities and industry, Coons is unsure whether people on reservations get the same assistance. Because reservations are designated as sovereign tribal nations, "there's different standards that they require on the tribal land."

North Dakota lawmakers crackdown on protesters

Rather than acting more aggressively to tackle pipeline spills, North Dakota's leaders have instead opted to set their focus on protesters. On February 27, Governor Dough Burgum signed into law four bills drafted in response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. The bills increase the penalties for criminal trespassing and the penalties for engaging in a riot, two charges that were commonly brought against anti-pipeline activists. The laws also criminalize wearing a mask or hoodie while committing a crime and give the state attorney general more authority to seek help from out-of-state law enforcement agencies.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has joined 34 tribes in court to support an ongoing lawsuit that the Standing Rock Sioux filed against the Dakota Access Pipeline, has described North Dakota's overall response to the protests as a "suppression of free speech and civil rights."

Vengosh's advice to Fort Berthold Reservation

In 2016, several months after the Duke University study on saltwater spills in North Dakota came out, author Dr. Aver Vengosh took another trip back to the Fort Berthold reservation. In the absence of any help from regulators, he wanted to discuss the group's findings directly with the community.

In several presentations, Vengosh says he tried to put the risks that the reservation faces in perspective. For example, he doesn't think there is an immediate risk that the reservation's drinking water will be poisoned. But there are long-term concerns and ecological dangers, he says.

Most importantly, the spill has a very easy remediation, Vengosh says---pumping out the contaminated spill water, collecting the contaminated soil, and storing it all in a landfill or in a deep injection well. But he has yet to see this mitigation process take place.

"What you need to do is very simple," Vengosh says, "and it hasn't been done."

The American Southwest as we know it today would not exist without the Colorado River. Spanning 1,450 miles through the region, the river irrigates farms, creates hydro-power, provides drinking water to millions and is a source of fun and beauty in federally-recognized recreation areas and parks along the route.

“We couldn’t inhabit the Southwest, with its large areas of desert, without a big river running through the middle of it,” according to to the author of a two-year-old report which found that the river is responsible for $1.4 trillion worth of economic activity.

All of which is to say, government agencies need to act fast if they want to preserve the economy of the Southwest. New research from the University of Arizona and Colorado State University shows that warming temperatures are causing the Colorado River to shrink.

A 21st-Century Decline

In the 21st century, from 2000 through 2014, the river’s flow reached only 81 percent of its 20th century average, the researchers found. They attributed that change in flow to warming temperatures, saying this is the first study of its kind to trace a direct link between global warming and the decreased Colorado River flow.