Let’s be honest: Tires make the world go ’round. Unless you’re a professional speed walker,…

The post Recycling Mystery: Tires appeared first on Earth911.

This week’s quote is from American novelist and playwright, Cormac McCarthy. In his novel, The…

The post Earth911 Inspiration: All Things Older Than Man appeared first on Earth911.

As the planet warms, summers are getting hotter, making it crucial to find effective ways…

The post Keeping Cool: The Surprising Summer Benefit of Home Insulation appeared first on Earth911.

This story was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

A limitless supply of heat exists beneath our feet within the Earth’s crust, but harnessing it at scale has proved challenging. Now, a combination of new techniques, government support, and the pressing need to secure continuous clean power in an era of climate crisis means that geothermal energy is finally having its moment in the U.S.

Until recently, geothermal has only been viable where the Earth’s inner heat simmers near the surface, such as at hot springs or geysers where hot water or steam can be easily drawn to drive turbines and generate electricity.

While this has allowed a limited number of places, like Iceland, to use geothermal as a main source of heating and electricity, it has only been a niche presence in the U.S, providing less than 1 percent of its electricity. But this could change dramatically, offering the promise of endless, 24/7 clean energy that can fill in the gaps of intermittent solar and wind generation in the electricity grid.

“Geothermal has been used for over 100 years, limited to certain geographic locations — but that is now changing,” said Amanda Kolker, the geothermal laboratory program manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL.

“As we penetrate the grid with renewables that are not available all the time, we need to find a base load, which is currently taken up by gas. There aren’t really many options for zero-emissions base load power, which is why geothermal is entering the picture.”

Geothermal capacity could increase twentyfold by 2050, generating 10 percent of the country’s electricity, according to a recent road map released by the U.S. Department of Energy. President Joe Biden’s administration has also funded new projects aimed at pushing forward the next generation of geothermal that aim to make the energy source available anywhere on America’s landmass, not just easy-to-reach hot springs.

“The U.S. can lead the clean energy future with continued innovation on next-generation technologies, from harnessing the power of the sun to the heat beneath our feet, and cracking the code to deploy them at scale,” said Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who added that she saw “enormous potential” in geothermal.

Expanding the geothermal footprint to the entire U.S. will take time, as well as plenty of money — the Department of Energy estimates as much as $250 billion will be needed for projects to become widespread across the country, providing a major source of clean power.

But advocates of geothermal say that such growth is within reach, because of a wave of geothermal technologies as well as government support. In February, the Biden administration announced $74 million for up to seven pilot projects to develop enhanced geothermal systems that, the government said, hold the potential for powering 65 million American homes.

Ironically, enhanced geothermal uses similar fracking techniques currently used to extract oil and gas, which must be phased out if the world is to avoid climate disaster. In the geothermal version of fracking, fluid is injected deep underground, causing fractures to open up, with the liquid becoming hot as it circulates. The hot water is then pumped to the surface, where it can generate electricity for the grid.

This, and other new techniques that involve deeper and horizontal drilling, in some cases 8 miles deep, allows geothermal energy to be drawn from hot rocks found anywhere underground, rather than select spots that have hot water near the surface. This vastly expands the potential of the technology.

“Anywhere in the country, if you drill, it gets hotter and hotter with each mile you go deeper,” said Koenraad Beckers, an NREL thermal sciences researcher.

“In the western United States, that temperature increases fast. If you drill just 1 to 2 miles deep, you have temperatures hot enough for electricity. To get those temperatures in eastern states, you might need to drill miles and miles down, but you can use lower temperatures to directly heat or cool campuses, neighborhoods, and even towns.”

Dozens of new companies are looking to push ahead with geothermal plans, buoyed by incentives offered by recent legislation, although only a few have so far managed to complete full projects in the country, such as Eavor, a Canadian firm that successfully drilled a 3-mile hole in New Mexico to prove it could access heat deep in granite rock.

At play for these companies is an inexhaustible energy supply. Just one type of next generation geothermal — called superhot rock energy, where deep drilling reaches temperatures 400 degrees Celsius (752 degrees Fahrenheit) or hotter — is abundant enough to theoretically fulfill the world’s power requirements. In fact, just 1 percent of the world’s superhot rock potential could provide 63 terawatts of clean firm power, which would meet global electricity demand nearly eight times over.

“While this modeling is preliminary, our findings suggest an enormous opportunity to unlock vast amounts of clean energy beneath our feet,” said Terra Rogers, the director for superhot rock energy at Clean Air Task Force, which produced the modellng tool to measure the potential of this approach.

“Energy security backed by always available zero-carbon energy isn’t a far-off dream.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The US aims to ‘crack the code’ on scaling up geothermal energy production on Apr 7, 2024.

This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Rolling up to a Tesla charging port, Illinois Republican state Senator Dan McConchie grimaced that wheelchair users like him couldn’t use it — or any of the others at the gas station where he filmed his Instagram reel. They’d all been placed on a raised surface that he couldn’t readily reach. McConchie introduced a state bill to improve relevant accessibility standards, including electric car chargers. But it’s a national problem: Electric vehicle charging stations are often inaccessible, despite being designed and built decades after the Americans With Disabilities Act, or ADA, became law. 

By April 2023, the Department of Energy reported, there were more than 140,000 public EV charging ports in the U.S., up from around 80,000 just three years earlier. The number of charging ports accessible to disabled drivers isn’t easy to pin down, an issue in itself; Department of Transportation data estimates that half of disabled adults under 65, some 10 million people, drive themselves around. By 2030, there will be more than 25 million electric vehicles on U.S. roads, according to industry group Edison Electric Insitute. That includes a growing share of more affordable plug-in hybrids, driving even more demand for charging infrastructure. But for drivers with disabilities, inaccessible chargers make it a lot less appealing to switch: In a 2022 U.K. survey, though two-thirds of disabled drivers planned to go electric, most — more than 70 percent — said concerns about inaccessible infrastructure factored in. And in a society that considers EVs key to a more sustainable future, the spread of inaccessible chargers signals that disabled people have been left behind. 

Adam Lubinsky, of New York–based architecture and design firm WXY Studio, has worked with New York state to find ways to make future EV charging locations more accessible. “If we really want to move the needle and get to a place where we’re really driving electric vehicles, we have to put them in the public realm,” Lubinsky said. In a city like New York, that means placing them on sidewalks, so residents of different neighborhoods have reliable access. “Once they’re in the public realm, we need to make sure they’re as universally accessibly designed as possible.”

Public charging stations provided by private entities, like the more than 2,000 operated by Tesla, are supposed to be accessible, according to the U.S. Access Board, an independent federal agency focused on making infrastructure and services more accessible for disabled people. The agency is developing enforceable accessibility rules for charging stations, but there’s no estimate for when those standards will come into force, says Juliet Shoultz, an Access Board transit engineer and accessibility specialist who helped develop its accessible design recommendations for EV charging stations. Meanwhile, nothing stops firms like Tesla, real estate developers, or local governments from reaching out to the board for technical assistance.  

The devices themselves, not just their locations, can be made more accessible, says Dak Kopec, a University of Nevada, Las Vegas architecture professor who focuses in part on how different health conditions shape our ability to use the built environment. Kopec has concerns about how aging people, or those with disabilities that cause muscle weakness, such as multiple sclerosis, would be able to operate the charging cord — especially while balancing something like a walker.

“These are all things that need to be considered as we start looking at the design of these stations,” Kopec said.

Shoultz also looked to existing, enforceable requirements — not specific to EV chargers — under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the 1968 Architectural Barriers Act. Under those rules, chargers have to be at a height that allows people using mobility devices to reach the power cable; they also need a clear and wide path that lets people with walkers, for instance, get to them. Chargers that rely on displays need speech output for people with low vision, and other communication features for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Under the ADA, for example, the highest operable part of a charging station shouldn’t be more than 4 feet off the ground. As with many inaccessibility issues, Shoultz says that enforcement “would probably be by somebody filing some sort of complaint.” 

Coming up with more effective ways for disabled people to access EV chargers isn’t always straightforward. Many are on raised platforms in parking lots. Car-to-car differences mean accessible parking spots can’t necessarily become EV stations. Building more municipal chargers on sidewalks near pedestrian ramps could let wheelchair users plug in more easily. These chargers would also help clear sidewalks blocked by the long, hefty cords of household chargers used by some drivers without garages.

Charging stations aren’t the only accessibility issue for electric vehicles: As Business Insider reported last year, there isn’t a fully wheelchair-accessible EV, with a large door opening and entry-exit ramp, on the American market. (The more accessible Volkswagen ID Buzz won’t launch in the U.S. until almost 2025.)

That’s no reason to delay the push for accessible EV charging, Kopec says: “Retrofitting costs more than simply doing it the right way to begin with.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Disabled drivers can’t use many electric car chargers. It doesn’t have to be this way. on Apr 6, 2024.

On April 8, millions of glasses-clad onlookers will, for the second time in seven years, hold their breath. As the celestial odds align, the Earth and moon will be in the perfect position to blot out the sun across the U.S., along with the solar power that makes up an increasing share of our energy mix. With eclipses anticipated decades in advance, local utilities have had time to prepare for the big day. From little Vermont to hulking Texas, how the eclipse will impact the energy grid paints a picture of energy progress, but also how we still depend on fossil fuels to stay resilient.

During the last full solar eclipse in 2017, an estimated 10 million pounds of extra carbon emissions were released into the U.S. atmosphere as fossil fuel-based power stepped in to replace the loss in solar output, according to Vahe Peroomian, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Southern California. That’s the roughly the annual equivalent of 1,000 gasoline cars. Since then, “our reliance on solar power has increased by about a factor of three,” Peroomian said, meaning the amount of energy to make up for will be greater than any previous eclipse.

Each of the 15 states along the 115-mile path of totality, in which the sun will be completely eclipsed for a short period of time, have a different mix of power sources feeding their grid. From the moment the moon’s shadow begins to block the sun, until it relinquishes its grip, their systems will have to switch it up. 

Even a small loss of sunlight directly translates to less energy. Batteries and other renewable energies, like wind, are expected to pick up some of the slack. However, even a leading clean-energy state like California, which will only experience a partial eclipse, may need to tap into its fossil fuel resources to keep up with demand, said Peroomian. “The impact is going to be nationwide.”

The eclipse is a challenge states can prepare for, highlighting how a renewables-dependent grid might deal with sudden weather changes, equipment failure, and other outage-causing events. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, utilities are also anticipating increased demand from homes and businesses that rely on small-scale solar, which may instead need to draw power from the grid.

Texas is the largest state to experience totality and has a couple of unique factors making it the ultimate testing ground for solar reliance. While other states tap into a larger regional utility system, Texas is an energy island and its grid primarily uses energy produced in-state. It’s also recently become a nationwide leader in solar energy, with nearly a 3,700 percent increase in the last decade. In most of the state, the eclipse will momentarily blot out some ninety percent of that power.

“It is perfectly timed to have maximum impact,” said Joshua Rhodes, an energy researcher at the University of Texas at Austin, who says the eclipse will pass over the state at “solar noon”, the time when the sun is highest in the sky and produces the most energy. But having collaborated alongside the state’s utility provider, ERCOT, for 14 years, Rhodes is confident that the grid is ready for the event. “I mean really we do this every day,” he said. “A cloudy day could create the same kind of gap that we’re going to see on Monday.

Following a winter storm in 2021 that caused days of blackouts, Texas invested in grid resilience, emphasizing renewables and giant power-storing batteries, which can provide energy when sources go offline. But the state still relies on fossil fuels for roughly 60 percent of its energy. In 2023, when a partial solar eclipse passed over, the loss of energy caused the amount of natural gas used to almost double momentarily.

Still, while the eclipse offers a look at our continued reliance on fossil fuels to meet demand, the recent prevalence of energy storage indicates a shift towards cleaner resilience. Today, according to the EIA, the U.S. has 15.4 gigawatts of battery storage, capturing solar and wind energy to release when needed. During the 2017 eclipse, the U.S. had only 0.6 gigawatts of these reserves. Even with the lost sunlight, the agency said it expects solar to be the third-largest energy source in the U.S. on eclipse day.

April 8 will also likely see increased emissions from another source: the crowds that will flood into cities along the path of totality, in numbers akin to 50 Superbowls, with most arriving in gas-guzzling planes and cars. In largely rural Vermont, some fear miles of stopped, idling traffic, overwhelming the state’s backroads and highways.

“Our biggest consideration is if someone has an outage or something, you know, how do we actually get to them?” said Andrea Cohen, manager of member relations at Vermont Electric Cooperative, which services 78 towns in the state’s north. But when it comes to sourcing energy, Cohen says the utility is “well prepared” for the eclipse, just as they would be on a bad-weather day.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What the eclipse reveals about the progress and shortfalls of U.S. energy on Apr 6, 2024.

When you order something from Amazon and it arrives, wrapped in plastic inside and out, do you ever wonder, “Why do we use all this plastic?”

A new report by Oceana has found that the amount of waste from plastic packaging produced by Amazon has increased in the United States, even as the online retailer began to phase out plastics in other parts of the globe.

“Amazon’s failure to reduce plastic in the U.S. is troubling. The company has dramatically reduced plastic packaging in other major markets including India and Europe. Why are U.S. customers being left behind? According to research by YouGov, 85% of Amazon customers in the U.S. reported being concerned about plastic pollution. It’s time for Amazon to step up and commit to a global plastic packaging reduction everywhere it operates — including in the U.S.,” said Matt Littlejohn, strategic initiatives senior vice president at Oceana, in a press release from Oceana.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Oceana (@oceana)

The report, Amazon’s United States of Plastic, estimated that 208 million pounds of waste from plastic packaging were generated by Amazon U.S. in 2022 — a 9.6 percent jump from the 2021 estimate.

The amount of “air pillows” were enough to circle the planet more than 200 times.

“We are swimming in and breathing in this plastic, and this stuff lasts for an eternity,” Littlejohn said, as The Guardian reported. “I don’t think the general public has caught onto how scary this all is.”

In arriving at their calculations, the researchers used available market data that took into account recent communications made by Amazon to the public regarding changes in the corporation’s use of plastic packaging, the press release said. Amazon disclosed a portion of its worldwide plastic packaging footprint for 2021 and 2022, but has not reported its level of plastic use in particular countries, nor all its transactions, including those satisfied by third-party sellers.

Oceana pointed out that a good portion of the online giant’s plastic waste would be deposited along coastlines or ingested by marine species, reported The Guardian.

“This sort of plastic film is a big problem for the oceans and a lot of it can’t be recycled,” Littlejohn said, as The Guardian reported. “Amazon is one of the most innovative companies on the planet. It has eliminated plastic packaging in Europe and they can clearly do so across the U.S., too, even without regulatory pressure. This is a completely solvable problem. They have just got to get on with solving it. They know what to do.”

Amazon said the overall amount of plastic packaging used for shipping orders through the corporation’s global operations network in 2022 had been reduced by 11.6 percent, in comparison with the previous year. This was mostly attributed to Amazon’s efforts at lowering its use of plastic packaging outside the U.S. In Europe, the company said single-use plastic had been replaced with completely recyclable cardboard and paper packaging in all of its delivery areas.

Oceana looked at data on plastic waste pollution from a 2020 study published in Science and estimated that as much as 22 million pounds of global plastic packaging waste from Amazon from 2022 would find its way into the planet’s oceans and waterways.

“Plastic pollution, including the type of plastic used in Amazon’s packaging, is devastating the world’s oceans. Amazon’s plastic packaging is made from the most common form of marine plastic litter in nearshore ocean areas — plastic film — which is also the deadliest type of plastic to large marine animals,” Oceana said.

Amazon shareholders have asked the online merchant to come up with an outline for a company-wide plan to lower its plastic footprint by a minimum of one-third.

Oceana said a plastic packaging phaseout in Amazon’s biggest market, the U.S., would help it accomplish this goal.

“As one of the biggest retailers on the planet, Amazon is increasingly defining how our goods are packaged. The company can solve its plastic problem on a global basis now and into the future if it commits to do so — and follows through,” Littlejohn said in the press release.

The post Amazon Has Increased Plastic Packaging in U.S. Despite Global Phaseout: Oceana Report appeared first on EcoWatch.

African great apes are some of the most iconic creatures on Earth. Humans’ closest living relative, these majestic primates are becoming increasingly impacted by climate change.

In the next three decades, African apes will experience more extreme events such as heat waves, wildfires and flooding, according to a new study led by Razak Kiribou, a Ph.D. student at Haramaya University’s African Center of Excellence for Climate Smart Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation in Ethiopia.

“Primates play an important role within their ecosystems; they contribute to forest community structure by aiding seed dispersal and plant pollination, ecosystem services that could be threatened by climate change impacts,” the research team wrote in the study. “Most African apes have experienced population decline (except mountain gorillas) and all are either listed as Endangered or Critically endangered by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Climate projections show that across Africa, 61% of primate habitat is likely to be exposed to increases in maximum temperatures of more than 3°C by 2050 and to changes in precipitation patterns.”

In order to better understand the effects of climate change on African great apes, the researchers looked at past and future climate at 363 sites in Africa, estimating the rainfall and temperature at each from 1981 to 2010, a press release from the Public Library of Science said.

“Through literature and some institution reports, we noticed that there is evidence that climate change impacts biodiversity. However large gaps remain in the vulnerable wildlife, particularly in the African Great Ape,” Kiribou told EcoWatch in an email. “The method is based on the climate data and the identification of those extreme events that have already affected Apes that we found in the literature… it has identified six types of extreme events for which there is evidence that they can negatively impact African apes.”

The researchers used two climate change scenarios to project the frequency with which great apes would experience climate change impacts from 2021 to 2050, as well as from 2071 to 2099. They estimated the probability of extreme events like droughts, wildfires and crop failure that could affect apes directly or indirectly.

“Extreme events can affect apes, for example, by reducing food resources and sources of drinking water, or by the destruction of ape habitat,” the authors wrote in the study.

Nearly half the sites examined in the study from 2007 to 2016 had been exposed to temperatures that were higher than average, with eastern chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) experiencing the most extreme temperatures.

“This part of Africa has registered the strongest temperature anomalies (up to 0.56˚C) with consecutive dry days and maximum daily temperatures in the past period,” Kiribou told EcoWatch.

Temperatures were predicted to increase at all locations under both climate scenarios, and nearly all sites would see crop failures and frequent wildfires in the near future.

“[C]rop failure in areas surrounding an ape site can lead to increased destruction of ape habitat by humans looking for food in the forest… climate events are ‘the main drivers of internal displacement, with an annual average of 23 million people displaced between 2009 and 2019’,” Kiribou explained. “[C]rop failure considers different types of crops: corn, rice, soybeans, and wheat.”

If global heating were to be limited to two degrees Celsius higher than pre-industrial levels, 78 percent of sites were expected to be exposed to infrequent flooding and 84 percent to frequent heat waves in the next three decades.

In a scenario where global heating rose to three degrees Celsius, the affected number of sites increased.

The study, “Exposure of African ape sites to climate change impacts,” published in PLOS Climate, was the first to demonstrate that great apes have already begun to be affected by climate change, and that more frequent extreme events will likely happen in the near future.

“The ways extreme events affect Apes are their behavior during the event. For example, we noticed that in some of the sites, Apes are drinking more water during hot periods, and others are moving out of their habitat looking for water. This is the case in Senegal with chimpanzees coming to drink water where breeders made a borehole to pump water for their animals,” Kiribou told EcoWatch.

Kiribou pointed out that education and understanding are key aspects of effective conservation strategies.

“[A]t the individual level, there is a need to raise people’s awareness. Introduce biodiversity conservation aspects in schools and associate or involve the local population in the Ape’s site conservation,” Kiribou said.

The researchers emphasized that conservation action plans should strive to bolster the resilience of African great apes to climate change.

“Regarding the type of conservation improvement, we provided climate impact information for each of more than 300 sites to help decision-makers take action. But for better planning, it is good to investigate how sensitive Apes are to extreme events. We just study the exposure, but the sensitivity to the events has to be explored for better conservation,” Kiribou told EcoWatch. “Despite some species being declared endangered by the IUCN, many conservationists did not include climate change impact in their conservation approaches. There is a hope of improving the Ape’s habitat by including climate change impacts effects in the conservation. This can facilitate Ape’s adaptation to the effects of climate change.”

The post Africa’s Great Apes Are Already Feeling the Effects of Climate Change, First-of-Its-Kind Study Finds appeared first on EcoWatch.

A new study has found that 58 banks in the United States are “sabotaging” their own net-zero commitments by providing financing to meat, dairy and animal feed corporations.

Research for the report, Bull in the Climate Shop: Industrial livestock financing sabotages major U.S. banks’ climate commitments, was conducted by U.S. environmental nonprofit Friends of the Earth and Profundo, a research group based in the Netherlands.

From 2016 to 2023, $134 billion in loans and underwriting was provided to meat, dairy, food processing, animal feed and agri-commodity corporations by 58 U.S. banks, according to the report. More than 50 percent of the financing the researchers investigated came from three major lenders: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, a press release from Friends of the Earth said.

“Since 2021, banks across the globe have pledged to slash financed and facilitated emissions. As signatories to the Net Zero Banking Alliance, U.S. banks — including Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase — committed to ‘transition the operational and attributable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from their lending and investment portfolios to align with pathways to net zero by 2050 or sooner,’” the report said. “To meet these commitments, major U.S. banks have prioritized reducing GHG emissions from fossil fuel related financing and yet, year over year, they have continued to finance the sector. These banks also continue to finance high-emitting industrial livestock production.”

Of the total greenhouse gas emissions associated with the banks’ financing, 11 percent was from lending to meat, dairy and animal feed corporations, even though the companies make up only a small portion of the banks’ portfolios — 0.25 percent. This means the financing represents a disproportionate barrier to banks achieving their climate targets.

“Banks have committed to pathways to net zero, but they are ignoring a huge ‘cow-shaped hole’ in their plans,” said Monique Mikhail, the study’s lead author and director of the Agriculture & Climate Finance program at Friends of the Earth, in the press release. “Big Meat & Dairy exerts a vastly disproportionate impact on the banks’ total emissions, putting their own stated climate commitments at risk.”

The report’s recommendations for the banks included stopping all new financing that supports the growth of industrial livestock production and requiring that meat, dairy and feed corporations disclose verified 1.5-degrees Celsius goals and action plans for third-parties that are in agreement with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or a comparable science-based pathway.

“Our research finds that by eliminating their financing of high-emitting corporations involved in meat, dairy, and feed production — a relatively small change in how they allocate their capital — these big banks can affect a sharp emissions reduction,” said co-author of the study Ward Warmerdam, Profundo’s senior financial researcher, in the press release. “According to our research, defunding industrial livestock production is one of the most climate-positive choices these banks could make.”

The study found that the 56 largest meat, dairy and feed production corporations examined in the study generated more carbon-equivalent emissions annually than Japan — the eighth biggest emitter in the world.

Banks in the U.S. financed and facilitated the equivalent of 69.6 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2022 through their lending and underwriting of corporations involved in meat, dairy, food processing, animal feed and agri-commodities. That is roughly equal to 14 million cars being on the road for a year — the same as all the registered cars in California.

The lending and underwriting of Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup alone have resulted in 26.9 million tons of carbon emissions.

“Methane impact is worse for warming than CO2: Up to 70% of the 58 U.S. banks’ total meat and dairy related financed and facilitated emissions are methane (using GWP20), which has 80X the warming potential of carbon dioxide. This means reducing methane will have an outsized impact on portfolio emissions,” Friends of the Earth said.

The researchers found that actual emissions from the corporations may be as much as four times higher than the reported numbers.

“Meat, dairy and feed corporations omit or understate their emissions by millions of tons a year, masking their impact on U.S. banks’ Scope 3 totals,” the press release said. “More than half of the corporations assessed in the study do not report emissions at all, and only 22% disclose Scope 3 (value chain) emissions. Scope 3 emissions account for up to 90% of agribusiness corporations’ total carbon footprint.”

Nestlé, Cargill and Bunge made up most of the financed emissions, while underwriting of global food giant JBS by Bank of America accounted for the majority — 87 percent — of meat and dairy corporations’ facilitated methane emissions.

“We weren’t expecting to see the banks sabotaging their own climate commitments to this level,” Mikhail said, as The Guardian reported.

The post Report: U.S. Banks ‘Sabotaging’ Climate Targets by Financing Meat & Dairy Corporations appeared first on EcoWatch.

In a new test commissioned by the Mamavation consumer activist website, results show the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in a majority of bandage brands tested. 

Mamavation tapped an EPA-certified laboratory to test 40 different types of bandages from 18 brands, including top brands like Band-Aid, CVS, Curad and Walmart. Most of the bandages, 65%, showed indications of PFAS. Similarly, 63% of the tested bandages that were marketed to people with black or brown skin had indicators of PFAS.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by L E A H S E G E D I E (@mamavation)

The test identified organic fluorine at an amount over 10 parts per million (ppm) as an indicator of PFAS. Leah Segedie, creator of Mamavation, explained that organic fluorine is considered a PFAS indicator because PFAS chemicals are made up of carbon-based compounds containing fluorine. In the tests, the amounts of organic fluorine ranged from 11 ppm to 328 ppm.

“Because bandages are placed upon open wounds, it’s troubling to learn that they may be also exposing children and adults to PFAS,” Linda Birnbaum, scientific reviewer of the testing and Scientist Emeritus and Former Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, said in a statement.

PFAS, also known as forever chemicals because of their inability to break down in the environment, may be used in bandages for their waterproofing or water-resistant properties. In Mamavation’s tests, they weren’t able to separate the adhesive part of a bandage from the rest of the bandage materials, but there were higher indicators of PFAS specifically within the absorbent pads and the adhesive backing on bandages.

PFAS in the absorbent pads of the bandages could be used to help prevent blood or other bodily fluid from soaking through the pad and the outer material of bandages, The Guardian reported.

“It is discouraging to find yet another important product space, bandaids or bandages, containing PFAS compounds where transfers into users are conceivable,” Terrence Collins, scientific reviewer for the testing and the Teresa Heinz Professor of Green Chemistry and director of the Institute for Green Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University, said in a statement. “PFAS compounds deserve the ‘forever chemicals’ name, such that when PFAS-containing bandaids and bandages are discarded post-use, the final resting places will be contaminated into the indefinite future.”

While several of the bandages tested detected over 100 ppm of organic fluorine, the Mamavation team reported nine types of bandages, only one of which was marketed to people of color, as “better” bandage options with less than 100 ppm of organic fluorine. Fourteen of the tested brands, including six marketed to people of color, were considered the “best” bandage options, with less than 10 ppm.

“It’s obvious from the data that PFAS are not needed for wound care, so it’s important that the industry remove their presence to protect the public from PFAS and opt instead for PFAS-free materials,” Birnbaum said.

The post Major Bandage Brands in the U.S. Contain PFAS, Study Finds appeared first on EcoWatch.