2021 Sustainability

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.