Eco-Friendly Living and Consumer Choices

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,