Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
Measuring greenhouse gas emissions, sometimes known as “carbon accounting,” is the hottest topic in business….
The post Earth911 Podcast: Breeze Founder Lucas Fraser on Business Carbon Tracking appeared first on Earth911.
As plastic production has skyrocketed over the past several decades, wealthy countries have benefited enormously — from increasingly lightweight, affordable products, for example. The full social and environmental costs of this plastic boom, however, have been disproportionately offloaded onto poorer people in the developing world.
According to an analysis published last week by the nonprofit World Wide Fund for Nature, or WWF, the costs of plastic across its life cycle — from production to disposal — are at least eight times higher for low- and middle-income countries than they are for high-income countries. In places like Brazil, Ethiopia, Fiji, and India, governments’ limited capacity to control or regulate plastic production has led to growing health risks from petrochemical plants’ toxic air emissions and chemical spills. Meanwhile, a pileup of discarded plastic threatens to overwhelm these countries’ waste management infrastructure, causing widespread land and water pollution.
“Our take, make, waste plastics system is designed in a way that unfairly impacts our planet’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged countries,” Alice Ruhweza, senior director of policy, influence, and engagement for WWF International, said in a statement.
As a third round of negotiations over a global plastics treaty begin this week in Nairobi, Kenya, WWF is hopeful that delegates will rally around policies to reduce plastic production and fund waste management in the developing world. “Business as usual could be a death sentence,” Ruhweza added.
Although environmental groups have long noted plastic’s outsize impact on developing countries, WWF’s report is one of the first to attempt to quantify that inequity. It takes into account the market price of virgin plastic, waste management costs paid directly by governments, and the costs created by the greenhouse gases emitted during the plastic production process — all of which are relatively easy to put a dollar value to.
Most of the cost disparity, however, comes from the end of the life cycle, when plastic is “mismanaged” — in other words, polluted into the environment. Mismanagement costs low- and middle-income countries at least $149 per kilogram of virgin plastic, compared to just $17 per kilogram for wealthier nations. This is because developing countries often lack the infrastructure to properly manage the mountain of trash that they generate domestically or import from elsewhere. They simply don’t have the means to prevent it from escaping into the environment and damaging ecosystems.
That $149 value represents only the most significant quantifiable impact of the plastic life cycle: the cost that poorer countries incur when plastic damages the marine environment. Diminished “ecosystem services” — the contributions that healthy ecosystems make to human well-being and the economy — could include impaired fisheries, for example, or the loss of natural water purification.
It’s more difficult to ascribe a monetary value to plastic’s other impacts — like on human health — but that doesn’t make them any less concerning. One study cited by WWF estimates that plastic pollution causes up to 1 million deaths each year in low- and middle-income countries, for a variety of reasons including the release of toxic chemicals from discarded plastic in large dump sites. Another study finds that these same countries account for 93 percent of all reported deaths that are directly linked to plastic production.
According to WWF, these inequities are baked into a global plastics system that deprives low- and middle-income countries of decision-making power. Although nearly two-thirds of the world’s plastic is produced outside of North America and Europe, plastic production and design considerations — which could make plastic more easily recyclable or less toxic — are typically controlled by multinational companies headquartered in wealthy countries. Meanwhile, the world lacks common regulations to hold plastic-producing countries and companies financially responsible for the life-cycle impacts of their plastic products.
Low- and middle-income countries have an “inability to say what products are being made in the first place, but we’re asking them to have the infrastructure to manage the waste,” said Erin Simon, WWF’s vice president of plastic waste and business.
As countries haggle over the global plastics treaty this week, Simon said the agreement should include legally binding obligations for countries to reduce their plastic production and eventually eliminate “all harmful plastic products.” Her organization is also calling for globally harmonized product design requirements that make reuse and recycling easier, and for rich countries and the private sector to help finance the treaty’s implementation in low- and middle-income countries.
Other groups would like the treaty to crack down on chemical additives used in plastic products, and to ban controversial waste management technologies like chemical recycling. Many organizations have also pushed for a just transition for waste pickers, the 20 million workers — mostly in the Global South — who make their living by collecting trash from streets, dumps, and landfills and selling it to recyclers.
The talks are scheduled to go until Sunday, at which point delegates hope to deliver a mandate to the international negotiating committee’s secretariat instructing it to complete a first draft of the treaty. A final draft is scheduled to be completed by the end of next year.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Plastic’s life-cycle costs overwhelmingly fall on poor countries on Nov 13, 2023.
This story was originally published by Capital & Main and was republished with permission.
With the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act last year, Congress and the administration of President Joe Biden made a colossal bet on nascent massive-scale technological solutions to the climate change crisis.
Together, the laws dedicated more than $100 billion to atmospheric carbon reduction, including grants, loans and tax credits for renewable energy projects; hydrogen hubs; electric vehicle fleets; and carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, or CCUS. (Some prefer a simpler phrase: carbon capture, use and storage.)
It’s that last category that has excited politicians in hydrocarbon-rich Texas because it involves cashing in on a new round of federal subsidies to scale up an activity that oil producers have already been doing for a long time: pumping liquefied carbon gas into the ground.
With expanded federal tax credits for CCUS up for grabs, Texas wants to become the “global leader in carbon capture and sequestration,” in the words of state Sen. Kelly Hancock, a Republican who represents Tarrant County. But environmental advocates say the motivation of politicians like Hancock has nothing to do with fighting global warming and everything to do with harnessing federal incentives to drive a boom in industrial growth.
For decades, producers have been injecting liquefied carbon gas and other fluids deep underground in order to re-pressurize aging oil wells. The practice is called secondary recovery, or enhanced oil recovery, which enables a company to squeeze the last drops out of a nearly depleted well — like pumping up a nearly empty Super Soaker. Enhanced oil recovery is the primary “U” in the CCUS acronym. Producers claim that hydrocarbons produced using the technique are “net zero,” based on the controversial assumption that the carbon going into the ground — and, theoretically, remaining trapped there — cancels out whatever carbon emissions result from burning the extracted fuels.
The new federal incentives prioritize CCUS projects that would remove carbon gases from ambient air in an as-yet-unproven process called direct air capture and from major emissions sources, including power plants and industrial facilities, known as point-source capture. In either case, beneficiaries will need to guarantee permanent geological storage of captured carbon, either through enhanced oil recovery or through sequestration in special injection wells bored into saline formations thousands of feet under the Earth’s surface.
The scale of the Biden administration’s investment in CCUS is historic, but federal subsidies for the industry have been around for well over a decade. Congress created the 45Q tax credit in 2008 to spur investment in carbon storage as part of a multipronged effort to combat man-made climate change. Projects eligible for 45Q credits include Class VI wells — the ones used for carbon dioxide injection and permanent geologic storage in deep underground saline formations — and Class II wells used for enhanced oil recovery.
In the first decade of the 45Q program, the CCUS industry struggled to get off the ground. Congress boosted the dollar-per-ton amount of the 45Q credit in 2018, and then, in 2022, the program received a major shot in the arm with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. Along with hiking up the value of the 45Q credit, the act drastically lowered eligibility requirements — reducing the volume of captured carbon at a qualifying facility by as much as 96 percent.
Expansion of the 45Q credit and lowering the bar to entry triggered “a bonanza around carbon removal,” according to Tara Righetti, Occidental Chair of Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Wyoming. The act also gave billions to the Department of Energy to use for loans for CCUS projects and other clean energy initiatives.
“Project developers are clamouring to respond to U.S. Department of Energy Funding Opportunity Announcements, tie up injection rights, and secure injection permits,” Righetti said in a January 2023 blog post. “In response, states have moved forward with efforts to assume regulatory authority for carbon sequestration and secure primacy for Class VI injection wells.”
The main difference between Class VI and Class II injection wells comes down to whether a well is used for permanent geologic carbon sequestration (Class VI) or some other purpose, such as wastewater disposal, enhanced oil recovery or temporary hydrocarbon storage (Class II). Primacy, as Righetti described it, refers to federally delegated regulatory authority over a category of injection wells. Class VI wells fall under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is meant to safeguard underground sources of drinking water, and are consequently subject to stricter siting and construction regulations than Class II wells. At present, the Texas Railroad Commission — the state’s oil and gas regulator, which has had no jurisdiction over railroads since 2005 — has primacy over Class II injection wells, but the EPA retains authority over Class VI wells.
Under the IRA’s expansion of 45Q, permanent geologic storage projects qualify for a significantly larger credit ($85 per ton) than utilization projects, including enhanced oil recovery ($60 per ton). Direct air capture projects, which remove ambient CO2 directly from the atmosphere, can receive $180 per ton for geologically stored CO2 and $130 per ton for captured and utilized CO2. In order to unlock the highest tiers of 45Q credits for permanent geologic storage and for direct air capture projects, Texas-based operators will need to drill many Class VI wells. But there’s a snag: The commission may still be years away from securing Class VI primacy, and the EPA’s own Class VI permitting timelines are glacial.
Nationwide, the EPA has approved just two Class VI facilities since the program began in 2010, and there are currently 109 applications in the backlog. Only two states, Wyoming and North Dakota, have secured Class VI primacy from the EPA. (Louisiana may receive primacy by the end of 2023.) That means the most remunerative tiers of the 45Q program are essentially blocked off by regulatory red tape. At present, any company that wants to build a Class VI facility in Texas faces a potentially yearslong federal permitting process.
Betting on the future boom in carbon capture projects, and eager to shorten permitting timelines, Texas is pressing ahead with its application to regulate Class VI wells by itself. The Railroad Commission has finished the pre-application phase for Class VI primacy and is awaiting EPA review before moving on to the formal application phase. “We hope our program will be able to streamline the process and allow for the timely issuing of Class VI permits,” Railroad Commission chief geologist Leslie Savage said in a July hearing.
Environmental advocates say the commission has not been a responsible regulator of the Class II program and should not be trusted with Class VI primacy. “If anybody is going to be permitting this kind of activity, it ought to be the EPA, and it’s OK if the EPA is moving slowly,” said Virginia Palacios, executive director of Commission Shift, in a recent webinar about carbon capture. Commission Shift is a Laredo, Texas-based watchdog organization focused on reforming the Railroad Commission.
All of the 45Q tiers are intended to mitigate climate change. But in hearings about CCUS-related bills in the 2023 legislative session, politicians like Hancock “did not talk about climate change,” Palacios said. “They did not talk about the need for us to address extreme weather as a result of climate change, or biodiversity loss, or impacts on low income communities on the coast,” she said. “They talked about wanting to be able to compete and sell gas to Europe and make lots of money. Many of them talked about trying to make sure that CO2 never gets regulated as a pollutant and that there’s never a limit on CO2.”
It is a Texas-sized irony that billions in federal funds earmarked for fighting climate change may end up going to the same oil and gas companies whose future depends on the survival of a carbon-intensive global economy. Those funds stand to benefit a state with a governor, Greg Abbott, who refuses to use the phrase “climate change,” and with an oil and gas regulatory agency run by elected commissioners whose campaign coffers are stuffed with industry money, who have flirted with climate change denial and who have threatened to sue the federal government over attempts to regulate methane.
But for all their hostility to climate mitigation, greenhouse gas regulation, and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies at home, these powerful Texas politicians know that certain image adjustments will be necessary for the industry to remain attractive to climate-conscious investors and foreign customers with increasingly strict clean energy policies.
The potential for explosive growth in the CCUS sector — fueled by federal incentives — could be the silver bullet they’ve been looking for: Expanding the CCUS sector to include enhanced oil recovery, which will help companies market their products as “net zero.”
There are at least two potential growth markets in CCUS that have politicians and industry players seeing dollar signs. The first is point-source carbon capture, which involves an industrial facility — a coal-burning power plant, for example — scrubbing a certain percentage of carbon directly from its stacks. The second is direct air capture, an unproven massive-scale technology that involves pulling ambient carbon from the atmosphere. In both cases, the captured carbon could be stored permanently underground or transported by truck or pipeline to another facility for storage or use in enhanced oil recovery or another industrial application. Environmentalists fear that companies could use 45Q credits to refine new and potentially lucrative technology, greenwash their images, and increase their profit margins at taxpayer expense, all without scaling back hydrocarbon production.
The projected size of the future CCUS market is enormous. Houston-based Occidental Petroleum, which is currently pursuing two DAC projects in Texas under a subsidiary called 1PointFive, estimates the CCUS industry will grow to $50 billion a year by 2030; ExxonMobil puts the figure at $4 trillion by 2050. As the nation’s largest oil and gas producers, Texas fossil fuel companies are well-positioned to tap into the windfall of 45Q credits delivered by the Inflation Reduction Act. There are already tens of thousands of Class II wells in the state, and the reduced barrier to entry will make 45Q a lifeline to smaller companies that might want to use enhanced oil recovery to prolong the viability of their currently producing wells.
As a map produced by Rice University’s Baker Institute shows, the deep underground geology of Texas is ideal for carbon storage, with saline aquifer and salt dome formations stretching across the Permian Basin from the Panhandle to the Mexican border and all the way down the Texas-Louisiana border, along the Gulf of Mexico and clear across the Eagle Ford Shale formation to the Rio Grande Valley. Oil and gas companies have already been injecting CO2 and fluids into smaller Class II wells for enhanced oil recovery and waste disposal in Texas for decades — and it’s the Railroad Commission’s light touch with regard to holding companies accountable for leaks, spills, and earthquakes related to those Class II wells that has environmentalists worried.
Commission Shift has published extensive reporting on the commission’s failure to adequately address the state’s constantly swelling list of orphaned, abandoned and inactive oil and gas wells, some of which are leaking vast quantities of contaminated water onto the surface or into adjacent groundwater reservoirs. The Environmental Defense Fund and Earthworks have repeatedly reported on the agency’s deficient approach to wasteful methane venting and flaring, despite having rules about when flaring is permissible and when it isn’t.
Palacios also expressed concern about commissioners’ recent approval of permits for new injection wells over the recommendations of staffers charged with carrying out technical review of the applications. Commission examiners had found that Oklahoma City-based company Lagoon Water Management, which was seeking approval to drill Class II waste disposal wells in Dawson County, “failed to prove the Proposed Disposal Wells are in the public interest,” because, according to the review, there was already sufficient disposal capacity in the area. Piñon Operating, an oil and gas producer with active wells in the same area where Lagoon wanted to put its wells, protested Lagoon’s applications on the grounds that additional disposal capacity was not needed, and that overpressurizing the affected formation could lead to migrations of fluids and hydrogen sulfide gas that could “cause higher drilling costs, loss of well bores, and ultimately, wasted oil and gas reserves.”
At a September 14 hearing, following a motion from Commissioner Wayne Christian, the commissioners rejected the examiners’ recommendations and approved Lagoon’s applications. Piñon Operating has filed a motion for a rehearing.
Asked for comment on the Lagoon permits, a spokesperson told Capital & Main that the commission “cannot comment on cases that are pending a final decision.”
Palacios said the commissioners’ decision to override the agency’s own examiners is something the EPA should take into consideration as it evaluates the state’s Class VI primacy application. “The EPA needs to understand that even if RRC’s technical staff seems like it will understand and seek to follow the Class VI CO2 injection well precautions,” Palacios said, “we have evidence that the railroad commissioners will disregard those recommendations and put Texas drinking water at risk.”
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Texas sees ‘bonanza’ in carbon storage market on Nov 11, 2023.
Joe Manchin announced his first Senate campaign in 2010 with an ad showing him taking a shot at the Democrat’s cap-and-trade bill with a rifle. It proved to be a metaphor for his time in Congress.
During the 13 years the Democrat represented the people of West Virginia in the upper chamber, he proved to be an essential supporter of climate legislation even as he stood in the way of climate legislation. He had no qualms about withholding votes on key legislation like the Build Back Better Act or demanding concessions — often in support of fossil fuels — to support party priorities like the landmark Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022. In a closely divided Senate, his ability to stymie President Joe Biden’s agenda made him a fickle ally in the climate fight — but an ally just the same.
And now he’s quitting.
Manchin, 76, was gearing up for his third Senate run and was widely expected to face Jim Justice, West Virginia’s Republican governor and billionaire coal operator. He was looking at a tough race, but earlier this year defiantly declared, “Make no mistake. I will win any race I enter.”
Apparently he’s had second thoughts. Manchin announced on Thursday that he believes in his “heart of hearts” that he has “accomplished what I set out to do for West Virginia” and will not run after all. He didn’t say what he might do next, but said he is leaving Congress in favor of a “movement to mobilize the middle and bring Americans together.”
Some have speculated that Manchin may be on the cusp of a third-party presidential run, which would, yet again, make him a thorn in Biden’s side — a particular strength of his. Regardless, his departure likely ensures a stronger Republican presence in the Senate, if not a GOP takeover of the chamber, and will make passing any kind of climate legislation a whole lot harder.
“I would think the implications are straightforward for climate policy,” Robert Stavins, a professor of energy and economic development at Harvard University, told Grist in an email. “If Manchin is (surprisingly) replaced by another Democrat, that could have positive implications for federal climate policy. If he is replaced (as seems likely) by a Republican, then the implications will be decidedly negative, particularly if it means a change of the Senate majority party.”
Not that Manchin ever made passing any kind of climate legislation easy. He is socially conservative and a big supporter of coal, both because of where he comes from and because his family owns a coal processing plant that earns him $600,000 per year.
Since arriving in Washington in 2010, he has rejected efforts to cap carbon emissions, opposed the Clean Power Plan, and supported building a petrochemical hub in the Ohio River Valley. He also voted with President Donald Trump about 50 percent of the time. But Manchin, being Manchin, also endorsed wind energy in his home state, came out against mountaintop removal coal mining, and worked with the United Mine Workers Association to help protect miners from black lung disease.
Biden took office in 2021 with Democrats holding a one-seat advantage in the Senate. That gave Manchin outsized power to influence the president’s agenda, as he was often the deciding vote. He refused to sign on to a little-known but vital piece of legislation, called the Clean Energy Performance Program, that would push the nation toward renewables even after multiple changes, and infamously refused, at the last minute, to support Build Back Better, even if it did ultimately pass.
However, as Democrats will grit their teeth and admit, what climate legislation did pass during Biden’s presidency did so largely because of Manchin’s support. As Democratic Senate majority leader, he has overseen the passage of several large climate bills and cosponsored the Energy Act of 2020, aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions, which passed as part of the year’s omnibus spending bill. And he did get the IRA passed, ushering in the nation’s first sweeping effort to address climate change.
Still, Manchin made his support of Biden’s signature legislation contingent upon Democratic approval of a permitting reform bill. Although he framed it as a means of accelerating clean energy projects, environmental groups noted that it also cleared the path for fossil fuel projects, including the Mountain Valley Pipeline that will carry natural gas 304 miles across West Virginia to Virginia. Manchin boasted in September that “because of the IRA, we are now producing fossil fuels at record levels.” He also was quick to remind voters in the bright-red Mountain State that the law was a bipartisan victory. “The Inflation Reduction Act isn’t a red bill or a blue bill, and it sure isn’t a green bill,” he said. “It’s an American bill.”
Still, his popularity at home took a hit. Barry Rabe, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, believes Manchin genuinely thought his support of the IRA would play better among his constituents. “I think he was kind of taken aback by the backlash that he received. The IRA is massive and throws a lot of money in different directions,” Rabe said. “He had every expectation [that] a lot of that would end up in West Virginia.”
But Manchin’s once reliably blue state has changed during his time in Congress. The socially conservative, labor-friendly Democrats who used to run things there are a vanishing breed, replaced by Republicans at every level. Despite Manchin’s efforts to appeal to the middle, Eric Engle, the board president of the Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, says voters are increasingly partisan. A successful Democratic candidate must offer a genuine alternative to Republicans rather than try to appeal to everyone with the occasional bipartisan gesture. Otherwise, voters are likely to lean toward Jim Justice — and the GOP knows it.
“We like our odds in West Virginia,” Republican Senator Steve Daines, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in a statement.
The sole Democrat left in the Senate race is Zach Shrewsbury, a Marine Corps veteran and coal miner’s grandson who is running as a worker-friendly candidate. He is a relative unknown, while Justice, who has been endorsed by Trump, is immensely popular despite his history of business mismanagement and refusal to address his companies’ dangerous unreclaimed coal mines.
Justice is widely expected to win the Republican primary in February. Should he make it to Congress, Engle says Justice won’t be any help addressing climate change. His record as governor and a businessman show’s he is no friend of environmental regulations.
“Justice has never seen a bill or a lawsuit or a liability that he didn’t try to weasel his way out of,” Engle said. “He’s trying to use being in political office to dodge accountability, and to maybe change rules and regulations as they apply to him.”
Nationally, political analysts say Manchin’s decision may not change much given that public opinion was already tilting against him. But with Manchin out, Republican and Democratic organizations probably won’t pay much attention to the state and instead focus on contested races in places like Ohio and Florida.
Rabe looked even further down the road, to what the U.S. and West Virginia might look like not just after Manchin, but after whoever comes after him. His efforts to play both sides — sometimes supporting climate policies while sometimes supporting fossil fuels — probably won’t play any longer. That could force the state’s Democrats to embrace something other than the middle-of-the-road energy and environmental policies Machin, and other representatives of fossil fuel-producing states, have embraced for so long.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Joe Manchin wasn’t always a climate ally, but his successor will be worse on Nov 10, 2023.
During the short, cold winter days, it’s even more important to care for your mind and body by getting outside. Hiking and camping are completely possible in the winter with the right preparation, but a short walk in a park to enjoy the winter scenery is just as beneficial. Here’s how to prepare — and enjoy! — an outdoor excursion on a cold winter day.
The right gear can make or break a winter excursion, and dressing correctly for the cold weather is key. As a rule of thumb, cover any skin that’s exposed, or carry extra clothes to do so later on if necessary (a hat, gloves, neck gaiter or scarf, etc.). A pair of waterproof shoes is also essential for winter hiking, snowshoeing, or enjoying a local nature trail.
In the winter, layering is crucial — you might feel really cold for the first half mile, but a hard hike could make you break a sweat halfway through. A three-layer system gives you the freedom to add and lose layers as needed: a base layer close to the skin that wicks away perspiration (like a long-sleeve shirt and leggings), an insulating mid layer (hiking pants and a fleece), and a waterproof shell layer to keep the moisture out (winter jacket and snowpants, if needed). Kids under five are usually best off with a full-body snowsuit in cold, snowy conditions.
The fabric of your clothing matters too. When it gets wet from sweat or precipitation, cotton loses its ability to insulate, and also traps moisture against the skin, which can cool the body down and possibly lead to hypothermia (hence the hiking motto “cotton kills”). Choose items made from breathable fabric that wicks moisture away from the skin instead, like merino wool, polyester, and nylon.
Besides clothing, other winter accessories can make a day outdoors more enjoyable, especially in the ice and snow. When in doubt, bring more than you think you need. If you think there might be icy sections of the trail, toss a pair of microspikes or crampons in your bag. Even if you’re not in the habit of using them in warmer weather, trekking poles can be very helpful with slick, icy terrain.
For overnight or highly specialized activities — like backpacking, climbing, or camping — there will be more winter-specific gear requirements for a safe trip. Consult REI’s winter camping and backpacking tips, and how to look for gear ratings when choosing winter-weather equipment. For example, a sleeping pad that works perfectly in the summer might not protect your body from the cold forest floor in the winter.
All of this winter gear can be expensive, so check out secondhand outdoor retailers or borrow whatever materials you can.
When the conditions are right, take advantage! Sunny days with minimal wind make for a more mellow winter excursion — especially if you’re getting outdoors with kids, or don’t feel prepared for super cold weather. Look at the weather ahead of time, and plan a trip for a day with milder conditions.
Besides grabbing all the right gear, make sure you’re prepared in other ways too.
Consider your transportation method, and how you’ll access the trailhead or other outdoor location: will your vehicle be able to get you there safely? When going out with a group, coordinate transportation with the car best-suited for icy conditions or treacherous terrain.
If you’re heading to a nature preserve or state/national park, check their website beforehand, which will warn you of any seasonal closings, or if extreme weather has made a trail inaccessible or hazardous. Even when open and available to visitors, trail conditions might be adverse or ill-suited to the needs of your group. Consult apps like AllTrails, where users can leave reviews of trails, or even refer to photos on Instagram tagged at the location to see what the terrain looks like from people who have recently visited. It can often be harder to follow snow-covered trails in the winter, and it’s easy to get disoriented, so have maps downloaded and handy. If you’re accessing maps on your phone, be sure to bring a portable charger too.
As always, have a first aid kit ready in case of emergency — especially in precarious winter terrain.
Yes, winter outdoor activities might feel unfamiliar at first, but colder weather brings a great opportunity to try something new! Snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and winter hiking require minimal equipment that can often be rented at local outdoor stores or larger chains. Take some time to learn about a new activity beforehand: watch instructional videos, learn from friends, or take an online or in-person course before getting out there. If you feel uncomfortable on your own, research group outings with your school, local clubs, or larger organizations like REI, which lead frequent outdoor trips.
Modify your expectations for outdoor activity in the winter — an eight-mile trek in snowshoes is very different from an eight-mile hike in the summer. But a long, remote hike isn’t required for spending some time outside — any amount of outdoor exposure during the winter months is beneficial. A 2019 study found that spending just two hours in nature every week has notable benefits for health and overall well-being, so even short walks around the neighborhood are beneficial. If you can’t access a trail or collect all of the necessary gear, walking through a local nature preserve or urban park to appreciate the sights and sounds can be just as valuable to the body and the mind.
In moderate temperatures, the average person needs half a liter of water per hour of activity. You might not expect to need as much water in the winter as you do in the summer, but your body is still working hard. An insulated thermos of tea or hot chocolate is always a good halfway-point pick-me-up too.
The body uses a lot of energy when exercising in the cold, so be sure to bring snacks and have them easily accessible — you don’t want to be standing around in the cold digging them out of the bottom of your pack.
The leaves might have fallen from the trees, and the ground may be a little less green, but a winter landscape is still full of life. Take winter as an opportunity to learn how to track animals, identify birds, and appreciate winter landscapes. Plus, you’ll probably have fewer people to share the trail with, and you can enjoy the quietness and serenity of a winter day without the crowds.
The post How to Enjoy the Outdoors in Winter appeared first on EcoWatch.
Since its invention more than 100 years ago, plastic has become increasingly ubiquitous in the environment, from the depths of the ocean to within algae beneath Arctic sea ice. Tiny microplastics have been detected floating high in the atmosphere above the French Pyrenees, as well as in human blood.
Plastics persist in the environment because they can take hundreds of years to break down. They also contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as “forever chemicals,” which can take even longer to degrade.
Now, a new study led by scientists from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden has found that recycled plastics contain hundreds of toxic chemical compounds, including pharmaceutical drugs, pesticides and industrial compounds.
The scientists say this means plastics are not fit for most purposes and interfere with efforts to build a circular economy, a press release from the University of Gothenburg said.
“Plastics are produced with a staggering array of chemical compounds, with many being known to possess hazardous properties, and others lacking comprehensive hazard data,” the scientists wrote in the study. “Furthermore, non-intentionally added substances can contaminate plastics at various stages of their lifecycle, resulting in recycled materials containing an unknown number of chemical compounds at unknown concentrations. While some national and regional regulations exist for permissible concentrations of hazardous chemicals in specific plastic products, less than 1% of plastics chemicals are subject to international regulation.”
The study, “A dataset of organic pollutants identified and quantified in recycled polyethylene pellets,” was published in the journal Data in Brief.
The third meeting of the Plastics Treaty Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee will be held November 13 through 19 in Nairobi, Kenya. At the summit, scientists, environmental and health advocates and delegates will discuss the most recent science showing no plastics are safe or suitable for reuse or regeneration due to their toxic chemical content, as well as their ability to adsorb additional chemicals during use, the press release said.
“Plastic recycling has been touted as a solution to the plastics pollution crisis, but toxic chemicals in plastics complicate their reuse and disposal and hinder recycling,” said Bethanie Carney Almroth, a professor in the Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences at the University of Gothenburg, in the press release.
For the study, the international research team tested plastic pellets taken from recycling plants in 13 countries in Africa, Asia, South America and Eastern Europe. The researchers found that the pellets contained hundreds of chemicals, including many highly toxic pesticides.
Altogether, the team found 491 organic compounds in the plastic pellets, with another 170 provisionally annotated.
Because more than 13,000 chemicals are used in plastics, a quarter of which have been classified as hazardous, scientists have said that “no plastic chemical [can be] classified as safe,” according to the press release.
For the most part, chemical compounds used to make plastics are not regulated, and the international plastics waste trade adds to the problem.
“Numerous studies show that hazardous chemicals can accumulate even in relatively close[d]-loop plastic recycling systems. We need to rapidly phase-out plastic chemicals that can cause harm to human health and the environment,” said Carney Almroth.
The post ‘No Plastic Chemical Can Be Classified as Safe’: Study Finds Hundreds of Toxins in Recycled Plastics appeared first on EcoWatch.
Researchers from University of California, Davis have published a study that outlines how artificial light pollution from things like city lights and highway traffic is threatening the habitats of mountain lions in Southern California.
“Well-lit streets, neighborhoods and commercial areas will reduce and fragment the areas available to mountain lions to move around,” Fraser Shilling, senior author of the study and director of the UC Davis Road Ecology Center in the Institute of Transportation Studies, said in a statement. “It’s not just the outsized human footprint that is squashing lion habitat, but the extended glow from that footprint, too.”
The study, published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, tracked 102 mountain lions (Puma concolor) via radio collars in coastal mountain regions, including the sprawling metropolises of Los Angeles and San Diego. The area is home to more than 20 million people.
Researchers tracked the mountain lions from 2001 to 2022 and analyzed the impact of disturbances like nearby lights, sky glow, and natural light from the moon.
They found that while mountain lion presence was largely unaffected by sky glow (or the diffused light in the sky from both artificial and natural light) and moonlight, the big cats seemed to stay away from areas with more upward radiance, or light from artificial sources, like city lights.
“Overall, we found that mountain lions try to avoid zones lit artificially, possibly to avoid interactions with humans,” Rafael Barrientos, lead author of the study, an ecologist with the Universidad Complutense de Madrid in Spain and a visiting scientist at the Road Ecology Center, shared in a statement. “This can have cascading effects on the redistribution of the species in the region, as well as the benefits wildlife provide in this ecosystem.”
Artificial light can contribute to habitat fragmentation, as mountain lions attempt to avoid highways and cities that emit artificial light. The study found that even in the daytime, mountain lions tended to avoid areas with more upward radiance.
Human and mountain lion conflict, particularly traffic-related incidents, has long threatened the animals. The famous mountain lion P-22, known for crossing major freeways in Los Angeles, died in late 2022 after a suspected vehicle collision, and about 70 mountain lions die in California because of vehicle collisions each year, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Further, major freeways can keep mountain lions from finding mates, which limits their genetic diversity and threatens the species.
The new research highlights that the animals’ avoidance of artificial light needs to be considered in the design and construction of wildlife crossings over or under highways, such as the Wallis Annenberg crossing over the U.S. Highway 101 and the proposed wildlife crossing at Interstate 15, near Temecula, a city south of Los Angeles.
“Our research has shown that even when structures exist to allow mountain lion passage under freeways, the light and noise can deter mountain lions from use of these safe crossing structures,” said Winston Vickers, study co-author and wildlife veterinarian with the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. “The findings in this analysis should increase the incentive for highway agencies to block light that spreads into the habitat from roads at crossing structures.”
The post Light Pollution Threatens Mountain Lion Habitats, Study Finds appeared first on EcoWatch.
When data scientist Xaio Wu arrived at Stanford University for his postdoctoral fellowship, California was coming off a record-breaking wildfire season. In 2020, nearly 9,900 fires had burned more than 4.3 million acres of land in the state, killing dozens of people and causing billions of dollars worth of damage.
That spurred Wu and his colleagues to figure out how they could use their skills to help prevent future disasters. One area they wanted to look more closely at was prescribed burning, which is the intentional use of controlled fires to help clear out natural debris, vegetation and other fuel. If allowed to accumulate unchecked in forests, this debris could propel bigger, out-of-control blazes, like the devastating Camp Fire, which incinerated the town of Paradise, California, in 2018.
Prescribed burning is not a new tool. Indigenous peoples have been utilizing the forest management technique for centuries, and it has seen a resurgence in recent years, as climate change has made wildfires more frequent and intense and state-led policies of “total fire suppression” have been called into question. In order to better quantify the effects that small fires can have on preventing large ones, Wu and his colleagues compiled and analyzed 20 years of California wildfire data.
The researchers categorized thousands of fires based on the amount of energy they released, which can be gleaned from satellite data. And, in a study published Friday in the academic journal Science Advances, they are publishing some of the most robust evidence yet that low-intensity fires can significantly reduce the risk of the high-intensity fires that are often most destructive.
“This research is at a larger scale than most previous research,” said Patrick Gonzalez, a forest ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study.
Wu, who is now an assistant professor of biostatistics at Columbia University, and his co-authors found that the chances of a high-intensity fire dropped by 64 percent in the first year after a low-intensity fire. Low-intensity fires provided some degree of protection for at least six years in total.
“It adds numbers to concepts that people already understand,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources’ Fire Network. “Having that kind of quantification is very helpful.”
While only a fraction of the fires in the study’s dataset were actually prescribed, Wu explained that the protective effect observed in the low-intensity fires provides empirical support for controlled burns as a forest management tool.
“It indicates that there is a lot of benefit to increasing the scale of prescribed burning in California,” said Wu, noting that the state has a goal to “deploy beneficial fire” on 400,000 acres annually by 2025. Both Gonzalez and Quinn-David agree — and added that the study also supports letting naturally-ignited fires burn in remote areas.
“When wildfires burn under moderate conditions, we get the same effects as we would with a prescribed fire,” she said. He added, “moving from after-the-fact firefighting to proactive use of natural fire could strengthen forest resilience and reduce catastrophic wildfires under climate change.”
Going forward, Wu would like to extend his work both scientifically and geographically. He would, for instance, like to also research the potential risks of prescribed burns — such as air pollution — so that policy makers can weigh them against the benefits. And, with wildfires becoming an increasing threat across the world, he said, “we really want to extend this research into other areas of the United States and globally.”
Applying this study’s methodology elsewhere would require acquiring and merging new data sets, Wu said, and the results won’t necessarily be the same. The predominantly conifer forests that researchers studied in California naturally burn frequently but at lower intensities, which may not be the case in other landscapes. But Wu believes that the overall pattern will likely hold.
“The magnitude and duration [of protection] will be influenced by a lot of factors,” he said. “[But] we are continuing to hold that prescribed burns will help prevent wildfires.”
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Controlled burns can provide years of protection against wildfires, new study shows on Nov 10, 2023.
