Coral bleaching occurs when stressors such as changes in temperature, nutrients or light cause corals to expel the zooxanthellae algae living in their tissue, turning them white. The most common cause of coral bleaching is warming ocean temperatures due to climate change.
Now, a new study by scientists from England’s University of Plymouth has found the deepest known evidence of the bleaching of a coral reef, nearly 300 feet below the surface in the Indian Ocean.
“As global temperatures continue to rise, shallow coral reef bleaching has become more intense and widespread. Mesophotic coral ecosystems reside in deeper (30–150 m), cooler water and were thought to offer a refuge to shallow-water reefs,” the scientists wrote in the study. “Studies now show that mesophotic coral ecosystems instead have limited connectivity with shallow corals but host diverse endemic communities. Given their extensive distribution and high biodiversity, understanding their susceptibility to warming oceans is imperative.”
The bleaching event was attributed to the Indian Ocean dipole — an irregular oscillation of ocean surface temperatures where the western and eastern parts of the ocean become alternately warmer, then colder. This led to a 30 percent elevation in ocean temperatures that damaged 80 percent of the coral reefs in parts of the seabed at depths that were thought to be resilient to warming, a press release from the University of Plymouth said.
“There are no two ways about it, this is a huge surprise. Deeper corals had always been thought of as being resilient to ocean warming, because the waters they inhabit are cooler than at the surface and were believed to remain relatively stable. However, that is clearly not the case and – as a result – there are likely to be reefs at similar depths all over the world that are at threat from similar climatic changes,” said Dr. Philip Hosegood, co-author of the study and an associate professor in physical oceanography at the University of Plymouth, in the press release.
The study, “Mesophotic coral bleaching associated with changes in thermocline depth,” was published in the journal Nature Communications.
Studies in the Central Indian Ocean have been conducted by researchers from the University of Plymouth for more than a decade, the press release said. During their research cruises, a combination of satellite-generated oceanographic data, in situ monitoring and underwater robots have been used to learn more about the distinct oceanography of the region, as well as its biodiversity.
Evidence of coral damage was first discovered during a November 2019 research cruise. During the cruise, remotely operated underwater vehicles equipped with monitoring cameras were used to observe coral health. Images from the cameras were transmitted live to the research vessel, giving the team its first look at the bleached corals.
Unexpectedly, during the same time frame, shallow water reefs showed no sign of bleaching.
Over the following months, the team looked at an array of additional data collected during the cruise, as well as satellite information on ocean temperatures and conditions.
The information showed that, while ocean surface temperatures had hardly changed during that period, temperatures below the surface had risen from 71.6 to 84.2 degrees Fahrenheit due to the deepening of the thermocline — the transition layer between the upper mixed layer and the water below — across the Indian Ocean at the equator.
“What we have recorded categorically demonstrates that this bleaching was caused by a deepening of the thermocline. This is down to the regional equivalent of an El Niño, and due to climate change these cycles of variability are becoming amplified. Moving forward, bleaching in the deeper ocean here and elsewhere will likely become more regular,” said lead author of the study Clara Diaz, who is a University of Plymouth Ph.D. student on mesophotic coral ecosystems, in the press release.
University of Plymouth researchers returned to the area in 2022 and 2022 and discovered that large portions of the reef had recovered from the bleaching event.
The researchers emphasized that, despite its complexities and challenges, monitoring the deep ocean seafloor is of dire importance.
“Our results demonstrate the vulnerability of mesophotic coral ecosystems to thermal stress and provide new evidence of the impact that climate change is having on every part of our ocean. Increased bleaching of mesophotic corals will ultimately lead to coral mortality and a reduction in the structural complexity of these reefs. This will likely result in a loss of biodiversity and a reduction in the critical ecosystem services that these reefs provide to our planet,” said Dr. Nicola Foster, co-author of the study and a professor of marine biology at the University of Plymouth, in the press release.
The research team had expected that mesophotic corals — those found between about 98 to 492 feet below the surface — would continue to deliver ecosystem benefits even as shallow water corals suffered more frequent and severe damage due to rising sea surface temperatures caused by the climate crisis.
The study demonstrated the possibility that might not be true, however. Deep water corals around the world remain mostly understudied, and similar bleaching events could be happening.
“The oceanography of a region is impacted by naturally occurring cycles that are becoming amplified by climate change. Currently, the region is suffering similar, if not worse, impacts due to the combined influence of El Niño and the Indian Ocean Dipole,” Hosegood said. “While there is no way we can stop the thermocline from deepening, what we can do is expand our understanding of the impacts that these changes will have throughout these environments of which we have so little knowledge. In the face of fast-paced global change, that has never been more urgent.”
At the United Nations’ annual climate change conference in Egypt last year, bleary-eyed negotiators reached a long-sought consensus on the push to pay out reparations for the damage caused by climate change. For the first time, the world’s countries formally recognized that developing countries, largely in the Global South, disproportionately suffer from the effects of climate change, and they agreed to establish a “loss and damage” fund to compensate for those harms.
While the agreement was historic, essential and controversial features of the new fund — who will pay into it, who will receive payments from it, and how it will be administered — were left to be decided by a committee made up of representatives from both developed and developing countries.
While there was hope for progress on these decisions by the time of the next UN climate conference, which goes by the name COP28 and will begin in Dubai next month, the transitional committee now appears deadlocked over a number of critical issues — in particular over whether or not to house the loss and damage fund in the World Bank. Proponents of that move, particularly the U.S. and European Union, see it as a natural fit with the international financial institution’s mandate, which since its 1944 founding, has been to support economic development in emerging economies. The World Bank only added climate change to that mandate earlier this year. Now, its stated goal is to “create a world free from poverty on a livable planet.”
But developing countries that stand to benefit from the fund say that the World Bank has cumbersome rules in place that would make it a slow and ineffective fund manager and could also limit which developing countries can draw from the fund. They also fear that a World Bank fund is likely to favor paying out loans, which will need to be repaid, over the grant-style funding that would be more in keeping with original visions for the fund. Decision-making power at the World Bank is skewed toward the U.S. and the European Union — indeed, the U.S. has had outsized influence in selecting the bank’s president — and developing nations have been calling for its reform.
“The push for the World Bank’s involvement as a host of the loss and damage fund — an entity notorious for exacerbating crises and perpetuating global inequality — is starkly inappropriate,” said Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy at the environmental organization Climate Action Network International and a longtime observer of climate negotiations, in a statement. “Wealthy nations must confront their longstanding inaction and acknowledge their significant role in the current climate crisis.”
Carl Hanlon, a spokesperson from the World Bank, told Grist in an email that the organization and its representatives are “supporting the process and are committed to working with countries once they agree on how to structure the loss & damage fund. We are not a party to the process, but we are prepared to help in any way we can.”
The discussions have been taking place this week, at the committee’s fourth and final meeting ahead of COP28. The committee is expected to release a set of recommendations that will form the basis of further negotiations over the loss and damage fund at COP28. With the recent deadlock, its ability to do so is now in doubt.
The world has already warmed an average of 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) globally since pre-industrial times. The loss and damage stemming from the effects of this warming — more intense storms, prolonged droughts, unprecedented flooding — are disproportionately felt by the world’s poor in developing countries. For this reason, loss and damage formed one of the pillars of the 2016 Paris Agreement, when the world’s countries agreed to take efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The other two pillars are mitigation, which refers to reducing warming-causing greenhouse gas pollution in the first place, and adaptation, which refers to adjusting to the effects of climate change. At previous United Nations climate conferences, countries have already established mitigation and adaptation funds. The need for a separate loss and damage fund continued to grow in the meantime, with researchers estimating that the price tag for loss and damage will be between $290 billion and $580 billion per year by 2030.
The U.S. has been the biggest roadblock in negotiations, according to developing nations. (U.S. negotiators could not be reached in time for publication.)
“We have been confronted with an elephant in the room, and that elephant is the U.S.,” said Ambassador Pedro L. Pedroso Cuesta, a representative of Cuba who is chair of the developing countries’ negotiation bloc. “[The U.S. has] come with a fixed idea: It’s either the World Bank or nothing.”
The U.S. opposed a loss and damage fund, but when international support for a fund reached a tipping point last year, U.S. negotiations reluctantly agreed to sign on. In the past, the country has been accused of employing diversionary tactics and “linguistic acrobatics” in an attempt to prevent a loss and damage fund from being set up.
Developing countries and climate justice organizations want a nimble fund that can deploy money quickly in the aftermath of a major natural disaster. In the past, setting up programs at the World Bank has taken years, and the institution has been slow to disburse funds. When nations are battered by hurricanes or face other natural disasters, the loss and damage fund needs to be able to respond to such catastrophes rapidly, developing nations say.
The World Bank also approved a new financial framework in 2019 that is “actually quite restrictive,” according to Liane Schalatek, an associate director with Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, a political foundation affiliated with the German Green Party. “One of the core issues for us is that it restricts implementing partners to just multilateral development banks, the International Monetary Fund, and United Nations agencies. We really see that as an impediment, and we know we only have one shot at a fund.”
Wealthy nations counter that the World Bank is an appropriate host because of its expertise managing programs that deploy funds to developing countries. “The developed countries are keen on the World Bank hosting the fund, using the argument that it has global presence, existing infrastructure including legal capacity and other expertise that can be drawn upon for a quick start to the new fund,” said Preety Bhandari, a senior advisor at the nonprofit World Resources Institute who has been observing the loss and damage fund negotiations this week.
International climate negotiations hinge on a crucial classification of nations into developing and developed blocs, based on their economic stature in the 1990s. But three decades on, countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea are wealthier and significant polluters. As a result, the United States and other wealthy nations want these newly prosperous countries to also contribute to the loss and damage fund.
At issue, then, is whether all developing countries should have access to the loss and damage fund — and whether relatively rich developing nations like China should contribute. Developing nations want wealthy countries, which have emitted nearly 70 percent of carbon pollution historically, to be the major funders, and they want funds to be available to all developing nations.
But rich nations have argued that funds should only be available to those developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Wealthier nations also want the fund’s donor base expanded to all countries in a position to contribute — a tricky proposition that developing nations say is an attempt by richer nations with a longer history of carbon pollution to abdicate their responsibilities.
The fund must build on “an initial capitalization from developed countries with voluntary contributions from others,” said Pedroso Cuesto, the Cuban ambassador. “There is a clear pathway to operationalizing the fund. It needs to be able to provide direct support in the form of largely grant-based finance to developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse consequences of climate change.”
Northeast Greenland National Park is the biggest national park in the world.
Yellowstone National Park was the first national park in the United States, established in 1872.
On average, there are 10.6 percent more animal species inside a protected area than outside one.
More than 50 million people visit wildlife refuges in the U.S. each year.
In the U.S., more than 800 wilderness areas in 44 states protect over 110 million acres.
Eighty-one rivers in the U.S. covering nearly 2,700 miles have been protected under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
What Is a ‘Nature Reserve’?
Nature reserves are large areas of land that have been set aside to protect and preserve natural habitat and ecosystems for common, rare and endangered animal and plants species and their natural processes.
Designating areas to be protected from human development ensures everyone will have access to these spectacular ecosystems for recreation, wildlife observation and the pure enjoyment of being surrounded by the beauty of nature.
It’s important to remember that nature reserves now owned by the U.S. government as public lands were, for thousands of years, the sacred homeland of Native American Tribes. In order to establish these protected areas, the government drove Tribal communities from their rightful territory. Tribal members were the original stewards of these lands and waters, which hold great importance to their culture and livelihoods.
What Are the Benefits of Nature Reserves?
Preserve Natural Habitat
The primary threat to species and the main driver of extinction and biodiversity loss is habitat destruction. Humans have developed land at a rapid pace, but have done a poor job at making sure their land use does not destroy wildlife habitats.
Agricultural expansion is the biggest driver of deforestation, degradation of forests and loss of biodiversity within those forests. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, agriculture is the main threat to more than 85 percent of species facing extinction.
The best way to protect species from habitat loss is to protect their natural environment from agriculture, development, logging, overgrazing, oil and gas drilling and any other activity that disrupts, threatens or destroys their habitat.
Promote and Protect Biodiversity and Genetic Diversity
The proposed Anthropocene Epoch — a new geological time period beginning from the start of significant human impact on the planet’s ecosystems and geology, including human-caused climate change — is an era that has also been referred to as the sixth mass extinction due to species becoming extinct at an alarming rate.
The protection that nature reserves provide species has, according to studies, led to a 10.6 percent higher average number of species inside a protected area than outside of it. Population numbers of the same species found inside the protected area are also 14.5 percent higher.
Sandhill cranes on a frozen lake at sunrise over the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico. Joe Sohm / Visions of America / Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Freedom of Movement for Species
Nature reserves provide enough space to allow species to move freely, have a more expanded range and exist without human encroachment and development. This allows them to forage for food, migrate, find mates and reproduce in a wider area, allowing for greater biodiversity and land health, while promoting genetic diversity.
Prevent Habitat Fragmentation
The U.S. is a patchwork of Native, public and private lands. The more large, protected areas we have, the less that animals will have to grapple with their habitats being bisected by human developments such as roads, energy plants and cities.
If you look at a map of the West Coast of the U.S., a myriad of national forests connect to provide extensive, uninterrupted habitat for many species. It truly is a green wonderland.
Forests in Olympic National Park in Washington State. Carmen Martínez Torrón / Moment / Getty Images
Prevent the Spread of Disease
When habitat is cleared to make way for commercial agriculture or development, animals are displaced and ecosystems become imbalanced. When wild animals are driven from their homes, they can come into increasing contact with humans, leading to the spread of infectious diseases.
But when ecosystems are left intact to maintain their healthy balance, the spread of the estimated 60 percent of diseases that are zoonotic and infectious can be avoided.
Allow People to Connect With Nature
Spending time in nature and green spaces has been proven to reduce anxiety and depression and improve mental health. Nature reserves give people the opportunity to experience nature in all its splendor, inspiring a feeling of connection to something larger than ourselves — a feeling of awe — that has been found to improve well-being. Who couldn’t use some of that?
Visitors enjoy poppy fields by the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve in Lancaster, California. FREDERIC J. BROWN / AFP via Getty Images
Protect Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights
In certain countries, especially those in Latin America, some nature reserves are established to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Community members own the land and can collect park fees, as well as continue their cultural practices and protect them for future generations.
The ability of nature reserves to preserve and protect the land and its waterways also ensures healthy ecosystems, soil, plants and clean water for the community.
Build Climate Change Resilience
Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane are stored in the silt and soils of our planet’s oceans, forests and peatlands. The sequestration of these harmful gases means they stay out of the atmosphere, thus preventing the disruption of climate regulation. Razing these natural carbon stores means an enormous amount of greenhouse gases is released, leading to global heating, extreme weather, sea level rise, the melting of Arctic sea ice and a feedback loop of climate change effects.
Preserving natural wildlands allows our planet to maintain its balance of pulling carbon from the air, turning it into oxygen and sequestering what is stored in plants when they break down into the soil.
Types of Nature Reserves
National Parks and Preserves
National parks are created by the government to preserve the natural landscapes that are habitats for wildlife and plants. Home to thriving ecosystems, these wildlands are examples of what nature looks and feels like when it is protected from human development and destruction.
There are a whopping 6,555 national parks on Earth. The five largest are Northeast Greenland National Park, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park in Mozambique, Namib Naukluft Park in Namibia and Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada.
Northeast Greenland National Park was established in 1974 and preserves 375,291 square miles of Greenland’s interior and northeast coast. It has no roads, developments or permanent residents. The park is bigger than all but 29 countries in the world.
Northeast Greenland National Park. Olaf Kruger / imageBROKER / Getty Images
The first national park in the U.S. was Yellowstone, established in 1872 and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant.
National parks are primarily wild animal and plant habitat, but recreation like hiking, kayaking, canoeing and camping are permitted.
National preserves in the U.S., such as Lake Clark National Park and Preserve in Alaska, tend to allow commercial activities like hunting, trapping and oil extraction under specific circumstances. These activities are detrimental to animals, as they bring pollution to otherwise unpolluted areas, destroy habitat and the noise and light pollution interfere with foraging, breeding and hibernation.
National Wildlife Refuges
The first national wildlife refuge in the U.S. was Pelican Island in Washington State, established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903. The purpose of wildlife refuges is to conserve wildlife, fish and plants, as well as their habitats and ecosystems. In the U.S., they are managed by the Fish & Wildlife Service.
The U.S. wildlife refuge system has grown to more than 560 sites, 500-plus of which allow activities like hiking, canoeing, kayaking, wildlife viewing and fishing. More than 50 million people visit wildlife refuges in the U.S. each year.
A small herd of American bison in the National Bison Range in Montana. Photo by James Keith / Moment / Getty Images
National Conservation Areas
National conservation areas in the U.S. are similar to national parks in that they are lands that have been set aside by Congress for people to enjoy now and for generations to come. Part of the Bureau of Land Management’s system of National Conservation Lands, they are designed for recreation and also feature historical, scientific and cultural sites.
Examples of the 905 national conservation areas that cover more than 37 million acres across more than a dozen states include California’s Lost Coast, King Range National Conservation Area and Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area on the Oregon Coast.
Wilderness Areas
Wilderness areas are lands set aside to preserve pristine areas, whether they be part of public lands, national wildlife refuges or national parks. In the U.S., more than 800 of these wildlands in 44 states protect over 110 million acres.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wild and scenic rivers are those that have been preserved in their free-flowing, natural state, without dams or modifications of any kind. These rivers allow fish and wildlife to use the stream as their ancestors have for millenia. They help increase climate change resilience and protect biodiversity.
The U.S. 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has protected 81 rivers, covering nearly 2,700 miles, including Oregon’s Rogue River and the Rio Grande, which flows through Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Mexico, where it empties into the Gulf.
Oregon’s scenic Rogue River flows about 215 miles from the Cascade Range to the Pacific Ocean. Bob Pool / Photographer’s Choice RF / Getty Images
National Seashores and Lakeshores
In the U.S., shorelines and surrounding islands are safeguarded when they are designated as national seashores and lakeshores. National seashores and lakeshores are protected wildlife areas, as well as public lands. While they include beaches for recreation, they also extend inland to natural areas like forests, marshes and wetlands. Some of them feature historic estates and lighthouses.
There are 10 national seashores in America along the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, each with its own unique combination of aesthetic beauty, wildlife and ecosystems.
Some of the national seashores located on the East Coast are Cape Cod National Seashore, designated in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy; Fire Island in New York; Assateague Island on the coast of Maryland and Virginia, which is home to two herds of small wild horses that freely roam the beaches; and Cape Hatteras National Seashore, a 70-mile stretch of wild, protected beaches in the Outer Banks of North Carolina that is known for its lighthouses, strong currents, storms, surfing and shipwrecks.
The Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts. Thomas Roche / Moment / Getty Images
The West Coast’s lone national seashore is California’s Point Reyes. Located on a peninsula in Marin County, this Pacific Ocean haven is home to almost half of the bird species in North America, as well as nearly 20 percent of the plant species in California. The San Andreas Fault separates Point Reyes National Seashore from nearly all of the continental U.S. Tule elk, once abundant in the meadows and prairies of Point Reyes, roam freely in this unique nature reserve. This National Park Service site has continued to allow dairies and ranches to operate within its boundaries, including more than 5,000 cows.
Any natural freshwater lake can be designated as a national lakeshore, but all four in America are on the Great Lakes.
Seashores and lakeshores are important habitats for nesting sea turtles, sea birds, sea lions, seals, crabs, clams, scallops, sea anemones, starfish, worms, sand dollars, insects and microorganisms.
National Trails
In the U.S., there are three types of national trails designated by Congress: historic, recreational and scenic. Examples include the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, which starts in Springer Mountain, Georgia, and goes all the way up to Katahdin, Maine, traversing 14 states along the way, and the Pony Express National Historic Trail, which goes through eight states, beginning in St. Joseph, Missouri, and moving across the Old West to Sacramento, California.
The Appalachian National Scenic Trail with a view of the Smoky Mountains on Max Patch Bald Mountain in North Carolina. Jon Lovette / Photodisc / Getty Images
National trails cross through the country’s varied terrain in its wild state, and the National Park Service encourages everyone to develop, protect and maintain them.
Challenges Facing Nature Reserves
Human Activities
All over the world, nature reserves are under threat from human activities that are illegal within their boundaries, such as poaching, mining, logging, agriculture, human settlements and industrial development.
Other human activities, such as the introduction of invasive species, pollution and climate change, also pose threats to nature reserves, even if they originate outside their borders.
Connectivity
A lack of connectivity between nature reserves and other protected areas is another challenge, since large species like bears, bison, big cats, elk and caribou need extensive swaths of land to be able to roam freely to find mates and food sources.
In order to remedy this issue, many more wildlife corridors need to be constructed to allow the free movement of species between protected areas of habitat.
A wildlife crossing bridge over a highway in Alberta, Canada. Education Images / Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Funding
Funding is often an issue with nature reserves, since establishing and managing them takes money, something not many countries can afford. Lack of funding is an especially acute problem for marine protected areas and developing countries.
Novel sources of revenue must be found for the establishment of new nature reserves, as well as for the maintenance of those that already exist.
Management
The management of nature reserves is necessary for ensuring they maintain their status as protected areas, keep human activities in check and are monitored for habitat health. Without effective management, human threats and climate change can erode the vitality and biodiversity of nature reserves.
What Can We Do to Support Nature Reserves?
As aSociety?
As a society, we can rethink our relationship with nature in general, not as something that provides resources for us — like water, food, recreation and habitat — but as something we coexist with and are stewards of.
We can become more aware of the wildlife that surrounds us, adopting a mindset of asking what they need and what we can do to help provide that.
Human products and activities like vehicles, industrial activities, oil extraction, construction, shipping and bright lights disrupt animals in their habitat; nature reserves are places where wildlife should be protected from those activities.
In Our Own Lives?
There are many things we can do in our own lives to help protect nature reserves, but it starts with reducing our ecological footprint and conserving the habitats around us.
Plastic has caused great damage to habitats all over the world, and the less we use it, the less demand there will be. Try not to use anything you wouldn’t want to see on the forest floor because the more things like plastic water bottles, straws, cutlery and plastic bags are used, the more likely they are to end up in waterways, the ocean and pristine areas like nature reserves.
We can organize trips to nature reserves near us, join conservationist groups, use books and phone apps to identify animals and plants in the wild and participate in citizen science projects.
When we visit nature reserves, we can be respectful of our surroundings by picking up trash and limiting noise and light pollution; not touching or bringing home native plants, wildflowers or wild animals; and not leaving human food for wildlife to find. Consuming human food disrupts their natural microbiome and can adversely affect their health.
Be aware of your surroundings and respect wildlife and their habitat. You’re a visitor, this is their home.
Takeaway
Nature reserves are there for everyone to enjoy, but are especially intended to preserve the natural habitats of native plants and animals and protect them from human activities. Support the creation of new nature reserves, the establishment of corridors to connect those that already exist and be respectful of them when you visit.
The Grand Prismatic Spring at Yellowstone National Park. Stephen Ehlers / Moment Open / Getty Images
On Monday, the U.S. military began draining jet fuel from 20 World War II-era storage tanks in Hawaiʻi, in a victory for Native Hawaiian activists and environmentalists who have, for years, warned of the risks the tanks pose to a critical source of drinking water on Oʻahu, the state’s most populated island.
The Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility consists of 20 underground tanks, about 250 feet tall and 100 feet in diameter, filled with more than 100 million gallons of petroleum, along with a system of pipelines and tunnels. It will take three months to drain the tanks, a process that involves releasing the fuel down three miles of pipelines to a pier at Pearl Harbor where it will be loaded onto tankers. From there, some will be stored onsite or transferred to West Oʻahu. More fuel will be shipped to San Diego, the Philippines, and Singapore.
Officials say some fuel and sludge will remain after the draining is complete and will require a much longer cleanup.
Constructed more than 80 years ago, the Red Hill facility has long been the source of multiple fuel spills, but it wasn’t until recently that calls to shut down the facility gained traction: In November 2021, about 93,000 people were exposed to jet fuel-laced water.
The problem began the weekend after Thanksgiving, when families in military housing noticed that their water smelled like gasoline. Some started to get headaches or feel nauseous, or noticed that their dogs refused to drink the water. When families raised concerns, Navy leadership initially said the water was safe to drink. Even after the state Health Department warned residents not to use the tap water, it took three more days for the Navy to confirm the petroleum contamination.
In the weeks after, the Navy continued to downplay the threat, contending that the jet fuel-laced water was “not a crisis.” A federal report later revealed that nearly 17,000 gallons of fuel leaked from the facility and at least 3,300 gallons contaminated the Navy’s drinking water system on Oʻahu.
The extent of the spill and the Navy’s bungled management of the situation gave ammunition to previously unheard calls from Indigenous and environmental activists to empty the tanks. Advocates contended that Red Hill threatened a critical aquifer, and they were joined by the Honolulu Board of Water Supply citing the potential for leaked fuel to contaminate the municipal supply. In December, the state’s Health Department joined the fight, and in March 2022, the Navy agreed to shut the facility down.
“We got here not because the U.S. Navy or the Department of Defense woke up one day and said, ‘Oh, we’re going to do the right thing,’” said Healani Sonoda-Pale, one of the organizers of Oʻahu Water Protectors, a grassroots organization. “We got here because of the collective voices of the people who were calling for the shutdown of Red Hill and the protection of our aquifer here on Oʻahu.”
But while the defueling process is being seen as a victory, it’s not without its own risks. According to the Department of Defense’s environmental assessment, there’s still a chance for leaks or spills as the fuel makes its way through underground pipelines and is shipped to other locations. The agency says it’s worked to reduce that risk through repairs and training.
“We listened to the community and have taken significant precautions to mitigate risk and protect the aquifer and the environment as we safely and expeditiously defuel the facility,” Vice Adm. John Wade, JTF-Red Hill Commander, said in a press release Monday.
Wayne Tanaka, who leads the local Sierra Club, is still worried. He says even a small amount of jet fuel leaking into the environment could be disastrous.
“We’ve been told repeatedly by the military that there’s nothing to worry about, that they have everything under control, that they thought of everything, and time and time again, unfortunately, events have proven them wrong,” Tanaka said. “Many of us are holding our breath, clenching our butts, and praying that for once, the [Department of Defense] will be able to execute.”
In preparation for the worst-case scenario, the Sierra Club has created a toolkit that urges local families to store clean drinking water and buy water-quality testing kits.
Healani Sonoda-Pale, who is also the chair of the Red Hill Community Representation Initiative, a group of elected community members who have input on the defueling process, has pushed the military to set up a hotline so that people can more quickly alert authorities if the fuel transfer results in more water pollution. An Environmental Protection Agency consent order requires that the Department of Defense notify the organization within 24 hours of a threat to health and safety. But the community group also wants a commitment from the agency to notify them if anything doesn’t go according to plan, given that health risks may not be obvious right away.
Ultimately, Sonoda-Pale hopes that the land where the storage facility sits can be returned to Hawaiians.
“All of the bases sit on stolen Hawaiian Kingdom, Crown, and government land,” Sonoda-Pale said. “When the overthrow happened in 1893, it was the U.S. military that landed troops to support a small group of American and European businessmen overthrowing a constitutional monarchy and literally stealing millions of acres of prime Hawaiian lands so that they can use that for their own self interests.”
She says it was only after the Navy poisoned their own people that politicians recognized how dangerous the underground storage tanks were and took action.
“If Hawaiians were in control of their own land and resources, this would have never happened.”
In Port Arthur, a small city located east of Houston along the Gulf of Mexico, a majority of residents live in close proximity to one of the 13 petrochemical facilities. For decades, residents have pushed back against blatant and unmitigated air and water pollution that has led to a host of medical problems.
One of those residents is John Beard, the founder, president, and executive director of the Port Arthur Community Action Network, as well as a former refinery worker. Beard explains that the industry exploits this allowance to pollute, affecting communities like his without concern for their lives. “We can’t simply stop breathing when they do these things,” Beard said.
Now, the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has an opportunity to take action. Next spring, the federal agency will finalize its proposed regulations that may protect frontline communities like Port Arthur from petrochemical pollution. The proposed rules would strengthen monitoring standards and cut an estimated 6,000 tons of air pollution a year.
Petrochemical facilities are often clustered in low-income and communities of color along the Gulf Coast, which have long organized against the outsized impacts of pollution and exposure to carcinogenic chemicals. The industry is the largest commercial consumer of oil and gas, processing extracted resources into products like fertilizers, pesticides, soaps, and plastic products. As demand for oil and gas as a fuel declines, many companies are increasingly pivoting to petrochemicals—so advocates say strengthening and enforcing these rules is more important than ever.
“Historically, the regulation hasn’t matched the risk nearby communities live with every day,” said Dionne Delli-Gatti, the associate vice president of community engagement at the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit advocacy group. “We have seen under-regulation in the petrochemical industry for a very long time,” she added.
The rules, which EPA is expected to finalize in spring 2024, would help address the concerns of the communities who have borne the brunt of this pollution. It would mandate additional monitoring for six chemicals the agency has listed as a priority concern. The proposal would apply to 218 facilities nationwide, nearly 60 percent of which are located in Texas and Louisiana. The map below is from CLEAR Collaborative and includes the facilities impacted by the EPA’s proposed rule.
Unfortunately, the device you’re using can’t show this complex
interactive map.
Please visit again on a tablet or computer.
Click a facility for details
Facilities impacted by EPA’s proposal **
** Dot size indicates relative scale of facility’s emissions
Facilities with a ring would be required to add fenceline
monitoring through EPA’s proposal
Existing local, state or federal monitors
Cancer risk
lower
higher
* Risks modeled for mapped facilities in 49km zone
Advocates say to be effective, the new standards must guard against a loophole that allows for the release of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals when sites are starting up, shutting down, or during malfunctions. In 2008, a Washington, D.C. District Court ruled that these kinds of emissions exemptions were illegal. The EPA set 2016 as a deadline for states to revise their rules, eliminating this loophole. Yet many have ignored it. Creating a federal standard will help close that gap.
Currently, the petrochemical industry is allowed to operate with a certain degree of autonomy and secrecy. This is best illustrated through the pollution allowances built into the Clean Air Act. In the case of an extreme weather event, like a hurricane, a facility will release untold amounts of chemicals in order to relieve pressure or shut down. But this can happen during minor weather events too, like when Texas’ electrical grid is strained. Facilities themselves get to decide if a situation is an SSM event. And in some cases, petrochemical facilities will pollute more in a single SSM event than in an entire year of normal operations.
Earlier this year, a Grist investigation found that this loophole has permitted companies to release 1.1 billion pounds of unpermitted pollution since 2002. Grist concluded that there was a relationship between precipitation and windspeed, and the amount of pollution facilities released: A 1 percent increase in precipitation averaged a 1.5 percent increase in pollution, and a 1 mile per hour increase in windspeed led to a 0.6 percent increase in pollution. As extreme weather events become more common, advocates fear polluting companies’ emissions excuses will increase in frequency.
Earthjustice, on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund and 15 other environmental and community organizations, submitted technical comments to the EPA calling on the agency to finalize the strongest possible version of the rule. Grassroots organizations, community members and environmental leaders also voiced support for EPA’s proposal–many calling for the safeguards to cover a wider range of chemicals at more facilities throughout the country. Comments from residents living near polluting facilities are critical, said Delli-Gatti, as they offer a nuanced, first-hand perspective on the impacts of toxic pollution, and what can be done to address community needs.
One of the most important results from the new rules may be an increase in the transparency demanded of companies that pollute, Delli-Gatti said. The proposal would require air quality monitoring at the fence line of chemical facilities. Currently, these companies self-report data on what they’re polluting, often derived from estimates, rather than actual measurements. But these emissions are often underestimated. Monitoring at the facility fence line would provide one way to verify what’s actually being emitted into the air. She argues that more needs to be done to understand the risks people face when exposed to multiple sources of the same chemical, or to several chemicals at the same time–and to ensure that regulations truly protect people’s health. Simply put, advocates say there isn’t enough accurate data about what is being polluted into the air. “Understanding what those emissions are will be really important in knowing exactly what needs to be done,” Delli-Gatti.
Advocates in Houston are hoping that a strong EPA rule will encourage state environmental agencies to adopt stricter permitting and emissions protocols. In Texas, that means regulating facilities’ risk management plans so companies aren’t allowed to claim they’re protecting communities when they don’t, said Jennifer Hadayia, the executive director of Air Alliance Houston, an environmental justice organization.
For example, facilities will frequently burn off natural gas through a process called venting or flaring. Companies can say burning these chemicals is necessary to relieve pressure from fuel tanks quickly in order to manage risk. This releases huge amounts of methane — a major contributor to climate change and a driver of poor air quality — into the atmosphere. “Industry would like us to think that flaring is the risk management plan,” Hadayia said.
Beard says these kinds of excuses bely common knowledge about available alternatives. Reliable backup systems, for example, can reduce pressure of natural gas within the facility system and act as an alternative to venting and flaring. He says the current regulatory process is failing in its obligation to protect communities like his. Beard has recently filed two lawsuits in Texas, one raising objections to adding an additional pipeline to GoldenPass, a liquified natural gas plant in Port Arthur. He’s also filed a second lawsuit questioning the validity of air quality permit applications by Port Arthur LNG, a subsidiary of Sempra.
“We’re sick and tired of being sacrificed for the oil and gas industry to make billions,” Beard said. “We have a right to be able to breathe clean and free air.”
One of the world’s leading international nonprofit organizations, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. To do so, EDF links science, economics, law, and innovative private-sector partnerships. With more than 3 million members and offices in the United States, China, Mexico, Indonesia and the European Union, EDF’s scientists, economists, attorneys and policy experts are working in 28 countries to turn solutions into action.
Grist’s editorial team has covered the petrochemical industry previously. This article is sponsored content from EDF and is not connected to Grist’s previous coverage. Sponsors play no role in Grist’s editorial coverage.
This story is co-published with The Guardian and produced in partnership with the Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism and the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. It is part of Record High, a Grist series examining extreme heat and its impact on how — and where — we live.
Jasmine Granillo was eager for her older brother, Roendy, to get home. With their dad’s long hours at his construction job, Roendy always tried to make time for his sister. He had promised to take her shopping at a local flea market when he returned from work.
“I thought my brother was coming home,” Granillo said.
Roendy Granillo was installing floors in Melissa, Texas, in July 2015. Temperatures had reached 95 degrees Fahrenheit when he began to feel sick. He asked for a break, but his employer told him to keep working. Shortly after, he collapsed. He died on the way to the hospital from heat stroke. He was 25 years old.
A few months later, the Granillo family joined protesters on the steps of Dallas City Hall for a thirst strike to demand water breaks for construction workers. Jasmine, only 11 years old at the time, spoke to a crowd about her brother’s death. She said that she was scared, but that she “didn’t really think about the fear.”
“I just knew that it was a lot bigger than me,” she said.
Jasmine Granillo on the steps of the U.S. Capitol during another thirst strike on July 25, 2023. Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call
In December 2015, shortly after the protest, Dallas became the second city in Texas to pass an ordinance mandating water breaks for construction workers, following Austin in 2010. These protections, however, were rescinded last month when the state legislature implemented a new law blocking the local ordinances.
“I was baffled,” Granillo said. “You should be able to sit down and have a water break if you need to — if your life is on the line.”
As climate change fuels record high temperatures across the country, the number of workers who die from heat on the job has doubled since the early 1990s. Over 600 people died on the job from heat between 2005 and 2021, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But federal regulators say these numbers are “vast underestimates,” because the health impacts of heat, the deadliest form of weather event, are infamously hard to track, especially in work environments. Medical examiners often misrepresent heat stroke as other illnesses, like heart failure, making them easy cases for workplace safety inspectors to miss. Some researchers estimate that the number of workplace fatalities is more likely in the thousands — every year.
Outdoor workers can be exposed to extreme temperatures. Grist / Columbia University
Workers who already lack labor rights are often the most at risk. In many states, undocumented laborers drive outdoor industries like agriculture, landscaping, and construction. Labor advocates say it’s easier for these workers to be denied basic necessities like water, rest breaks, or even time to use the bathroom because many fear that they’ll be retaliated against and deported if they report unsafe working conditions. Between 2010 and 2021, one-third of all worker heat fatalities were Latinos.
Yet there are almost no regulations at local, state, or federal levels across the United States to protect workers.
In 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, announced its intent to start the process of creating protections to mandate access to water, rest, and shade for outdoor workers exposed to dangerous levels of heat. But it’s uncertain whether such a rule will ever be implemented, and most OSHA regulations take an average of seven years to be finalized. In July, Democratic representatives introduced a bill that would force OSHA to speed up this process. It was their third attempt. They have failed to secure enough votes every time.
In the absence of federal protections, some states have attempted to pass their own regulations after experiencing worker fatalities during record-breaking heat waves. But trade groups for impacted industries, like agriculture and construction, have strongly opposed these efforts, claiming that such rules are costly and unnecessary. Statewide heat regulations have been blocked in some of the hottest regions of the county. Currently, just five states — California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Minnesota — have heat-related protections for workers.
“We’re asking for something so simple,” Granillo said. “Something that could save so many lives.”
Earlier this year, Paul Moradkhan, a representative from the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, spoke to a committee of Nevada lawmakers. They were deciding whether to implement heat protections for indoor and outdoor workers. Nevada is one of the fastest-warming states in the country, and heat-related complaints reported to workplace safety regulators more than doubled between 2016 and 2021. Moradkhan was joined by representatives from the Nevada Home Builders Association, the Nevada Resort Association, the Nevada Restaurant Association, and the Associated Builders and Contractors of Nevada, among other industry groups, all there to argue against the proposal.
“While these requirements may appear to be common sense,” Moradkhan said at the hearing, “we do believe these regulations can be complicated, egregious, burdensome, and confusing.”
The campaign was straight from a playbook that industry groups across the country have deployed to fight worker heat protections in recent years: claiming that regulations already address heat illness, businesses already protect workers, and that a one-size-fits-all approach will be costly and ineffective.
When Virginia’s Department of Labor and Industry tried to pass a heat standard in 2020, several industry groups stated that businesses should protect workers from heat in the manner best for them. The Associated General Contractors of Virginia wrote to regulators that “a one-size-fits-all approach” would harm an employer’s ability to “protect employees from heat-related illnesses.” The Prince William Chamber of Commerce, which represents the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, wrote in a public comment that the changes being proposed were already “in practice by many, if not all businesses … operating in Virginia,” and that “requiring 15 minute break[s] each hour will hurt businesses’ bottom lines.”
The state’s Safety and Health Codes Board ultimately rejected the proposal.
A billboard displays the temperature in Phoenix on July 16 during a record-breaking heat wave. Brandon Bell / Getty Images
In some states, industry influence has been strong enough that business leaders haven’t needed to debate the issue publicly.
Labor advocates in Florida have demanded that lawmakers pass heat protections for outdoor workers for the past five years. There have been more attempts to pass a heat protection bill in Florida than in any other state — but almost all of them have died without being heard in a single committee meeting. Industry groups have not spoken out publicly against these proposals, but lobbyists, activists, and lawmakers who support worker protections told Grist they are most likely conducting private conversations with state representatives to garner opposition.
“So much of this happens behind closed doors,” said Democratic State Representative Anna Eskamani, who has sponsored the bill each session. Business lobbyists would “rather just cut you a check and avoid the media attention,” rather than vocally oppose a pro-worker bill, she said.
In 2020, after years of advocacy from organized labor, the Maryland legislature passed a bill requiring the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board to develop a heat standard for workers. Industry groups opposed the bill during state congressional hearings, but did not submit any public comments to regulators when they began to draft the rule.
A construction worker pours water on his face to cool off as he digs a sanitation pipe ditch during a heat wave in 2022 in Philadelphia. Mark Makela / Getty Images
The proposal that regulators presented after two years shocked activists. It allowed businesses themselves to decide what heat conditions were safe in their workplaces and didn’t require them to create any written heat safety plans.
“It took them two and a half years to draft this and it’s two pages long,” said Scott Schneider, the director of occupational safety and health at the nonprofit Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund of North America, who helped petition for the regulation. “We said to them, ‘This is ridiculous, if it isn’t written down, how is it enforceable?’” — referring to the fact that the regulation does not require businesses to write down their safety plans.
Advocates pushed Maryland Secretary of Labor Portia Wu to revise the rule. A representative from her office said they are currently working “to review and re-examine the standard,” but would not state whether Maryland’s rule would ultimately be amended.
After five years of inaction by the Florida legislature, WeCount! — a local labor group fighting for heat protections — spearheaded an effort to take their battle to the county level. The group pushed the Miami-Dade County Board of Supervisors to pass its own rule, hoping that the largely Latino and bipartisan district would be more sympathetic. The Miami area sees temperatures above 90 degrees for over a third of the year, a more than 60 percent increase over the last half century, putting those who work outside at considerable risk.
On September 11, the board’s Community Health Committee pushed the bill forward. It seemed possible that a heat rule could finally come to fruition in the state.
Workers and advocates with the organization WeCount! gather for a rally on June 21 in Miami to demand workplace protections against extreme heat. AP Photo / Wilfredo Lee
Industry groups decided to change their strategy and began to publicly oppose the measure. A long line of speakers representing the state’s agriculture and construction industries addressed the committee, calling the bill costly and convoluted. Barney Rutzke Jr., president of the Miami-Dade Farm Bureau, who spoke at the hearing, questioned the need for the regulation, claiming that there are “already OSHA rules and standards in place.” When a worker is seriously injured, OSHA can fine employers if they determine that their workplaces are unsafe, but the agency has no specific requirements that businesses must follow concerning heat. Carlos Carillo, executive director of the South Florida chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, said that “a vote for the ordinance is a vote against Miami-Dade’s construction and agricultural businesses.”
“They are scared,” said Esteban Wood, WeCount!’s policy director, “because they think that it might pass.”
While the hottest regions of the country have blocked heat protections for workers, there are some states in the West that have gotten it right, reacting to mounting worker deaths.
During a blistering three-week heat wave in California’s Central Valley in 2005, temperatures reached 105 degrees as Constantino Cruz struggled to sort thousands of tomatoes on top of a mechanical harvester. When his shift ended, Cruz collapsed. He was one of six workers to die from heat on the job in California that summer. United Farm Workers, one of the most powerful agricultural unions in the country, pushed lawmakers to respond. Shortly after Cruz’s death, his family joined Governor Schwartzenegger to announce an emergency heat protection for outdoor workers. A year later, the first statewide heat standard was enacted.
But the deaths continued.
A farmworker picks grapes in Lamont, California, in 2021 while dealing with extreme heat and drought conditions. Frederic J. Brown / AFP via Getty Images
The year after the law passed, three more farm workers died, and in 2007, regulators found that more than half of the employers they audited were violating the new rule.
United Farm Workers, a labor union, and the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, sued California’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or Cal-OSHA, charging that the agency had failed to protect workers from heat. In 2015, Cal-OSHA settled the lawsuit by agreeing to strengthen its regulation, mandating rest breaks every two hours when temperatures reached 95 degrees and special emergency medical plans for heat illness.
Researchers began to see results. The Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a nonprofit research organization, analyzed worker compensation data in California and found that workplace injuries from heat had declined 30 percent since the state created its regulation.
California’s heat rule became a model for other states, and its neighbor to the north also recently finalized heat protections.
Labor rights activists had been petitioning Oregon state regulators for years to protect outdoor workers from heat. But until the 2021 disaster, “I think we all kind of thought of heat as an inconvenience more than an actual, lethal threat,” Kate Suisman, an attorney and campaign coordinator with the Northwest Workers’ Justice Project, said. That changed quickly.
A worker picks peaches from the last crop of the season in Fort Valley, Georgia, on July 23. Due to weather extremes earlier in the year, the farm’s peach season ended a month earlier than usual. Joe Raedle / Getty Images
Oregon OSHA passed the strongest heat protections in the country, covering both indoor and outdoor workers, in 2022. Washington and Colorado created their own standards that same year.
“It was an immediate hazard,” said Ryan Allen, a regulator for Washington’s Department of Occupational Safety and Health, who helped oversee the state’s rule-making process. “We needed to address it.”
Elizabeth Strater, an organizer with United Farm Workers in Washington, said that their effort faced “robust pushback” from industry leaders in agriculture and construction. But strong coalitions of labor groups, environmental advocates, and immigrant rights organizations were able to persuade policymakers to act. The visible impacts of climate change that summer helped build a consensus among advocates and regulators that heat was becoming a threat to everyone in the state.
The reality was setting in that “heat is coming for us all,” Strater said.
In 2022, Oregon Manufacturers and Commerce, Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc., and Oregon Forest & Industries Council sued the state’s OSHA to block its new rule, arguing that heat is a general hazard that affects employees beyond the workplace and should therefore be treated as a public health risk, not a workplace issue. But their lawsuit was dismissed.
In Texas, industry opposition has been more effective. Over a decade after labor advocates successfully pushed for mandatory water breaks for construction workers in Austin and Dallas, State Representative Dustin Burrows, a Republican, introduced the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act, which bars cities and counties from adopting stricter regulations than the state.
A worker from CNS Signs hangs a sign outside a building amid a 2022 heat wave in El Centro, California. Mario Tama / Getty Images
The new legislation is alarming, said David Chincanchan, policy director at the labor rights group Workers Defense Project. Before, policymakers were simply ignoring their demands, he said. “Now they’ve moved beyond inaction to obstruction.”
Around the same time that Burrows introduced the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act, State Representative Maria Luisa Flores, a Democrat, authored a bill that would’ve created an advisory board responsible for establishing statewide heat protections and set penalties for employers that violate the standard. Her bill never got a hearing.
The issue “just wasn’t a priority for the leadership,” she said.
Houston and San Antonio have fought back, suing the state on the grounds that the new act violates the Texas Constitution. It’s unknown whether their lawsuit will be able to overturn the law.
Jasmine Granillo worries that her father, who still works in construction, faces the same risks her brother did. She encourages him to take breaks, but sometimes his employers push him to work beyond his limits, she said. Motivated by her brother’s death, Granillo has decided to pursue medicine, and the 19-year-old continues to advocate for heat protections to honor Roendy.
“I know that doing this will always keep him alive,” she said.
Victoria D. Lynch, a postdoctoral research scientist at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, contributed to this project. Heat-related data were produced and processed by Robbie M. Parks, an environmental epidemiologist and Assistant Professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, and Cascade Tuholske, a geographer and Assistant Professor at Montana State University.
Fungi are everywhere, even if we can’t see them. There are between two and four million known species of fungi on Earth with thousands more discovered every year, and we’re increasingly recognizing their ability to address plastic pollution, climate-warming greenhouse gases, and environmental toxins. Below the soil, mycelium breaks down organic matter, and mushrooms are the fruiting body that rises above ground. Some are toxic, some are medicinal, and many have specific cultural importance. The mushrooms below are just a few of the many that have proven benefits to human health. If you’re foraging and harvesting mushrooms yourself, remember to use caution and consult foraging guides to make sure you’re collecting the right species, and doing so in a way that isn’t harmful to the ecosystems you find them in.
General Health Benefits of Mushrooms
Mushrooms are high in vitamins and minerals like calcium, iron, magnesium, niacin, potassium, riboflavin, selenium, and zinc, and are good sources of protein and fiber. They also have numerous other benefits for brain, heart, and gut health, and are even showing anti-cancer properties — long believed in traditional medicine — in emerging research.
Brain Health
A 2018 study conducted in Singapore found that participants who ate two cups of mushrooms each week were 50% less likely to develop MCI: that is, mild cognitive impairment, which includes difficulty with language and memory. The study lasted from 2011 to 2017 and involved 663 participants, who ate six common mushrooms including button, shiitake, and oyster mushrooms.
Heart Health
Mushrooms have multiple features that make them beneficial for heart health and for lowering your risk of heart-related illnesses. A high intake of sodium is associated with high blood pressure and hypertension, which can cause stroke and heart diseases. Mushrooms are naturally low in sodium — a cup of white mushrooms has only five milligrams of sodium, but they can reduce the need for salt in meals while maintaining flavor. Thus, mushrooms are a great substitute for meat — even partially — in some recipes if you’re hoping to decrease sodium levels in your diet. They are also a great source of potassium, which helps reduce the impact of sodium and relieve blood vessel tension, all of which is beneficial for blood pressure.
Gut Health
Besides their high concentrations of fiber, mushrooms provide other benefits to the gut. They are high in polysaccharides — a type of carbohydrate that helps the body grow healthy bacteria — and also act as “prebiotics,” a type of fiber that cannot be digested by the body, but is stored and fermented in the large intestine by bacteria. As a prebiotic, mushrooms stimulate the growth of microbiota in the gut.
Vitamin D and Immune Health
Mushrooms have gotten increasing attention for their immune system benefits, with their concentrations of Vitamin D being one of the many factors. In fact, mushrooms are the only sufficient produce and non-animal source of vitamin D. When mushrooms are exposed to UV light, they become higher in Vitamin D. Vitamin D helps the body absorb calcium, which is important for bone and immune health. It’s also considered a “shortfall nutrient,” meaning it’s common for Americans not to reach their recommended intake.
Cancer Prevention
Given their concentrations of ergothioneine — an antioxidant/amino acid that works to prevent and slow down damage to cells — there’s some evidence that mushrooms can decrease your risk of cancer. A review of a relatively small number of cancer studies between 1966 and 2020 found that consuming 18 grams of mushrooms per day could reduce the risk of developing cancer by about 45%. The study found that any variety of mushrooms was helpful, but shiitake, oyster, maitake, and king oyster have especially high concentrations of ergothioneine.
Five Super Beneficial Mushrooms
While fungi as a whole have tons of awesome health benefits, these mushrooms are especially known for their medicinal properties, and many have been used in traditional medicine throughout history.
Shiitake
A basket of freshly picked shiitake mushrooms at Le Saut aux Loups restaurant in Loire Valley, France. Tim Graham / Getty Images
Growing on fallen logs, Shiitake mushrooms have a long history in East Asia as both a source of medicine and food. Shiitake are high in vitamin B6, which is important for the formation of red blood cells and proteins. B vitamins in general help with cell growth, thus aiding hair, skin, and nails. Shiitakes are also high in eritadenine, a compound that can reduce cholesterol levels. That in combination with their inflammation-reducing beta glucans prevents cholesterol from being absorbed. So, if you’re struggling with high cholesterol, add some shiitakes to a stir fry, noodle or pasta dish, sauce, or over rice for a delicious and healthful meal.
Chaga
A chaga mushroom growing on a birch tree trunk. Ksenia Shestakova / iStock / Getty Images Plus
The first known use of Chaga was in 17th-century Russia, and now it’s famous for its immune system benefits. Chaga grows on birch trees in colder climates, and looks more like a rock than a mushroom. Its woody texture makes it a better candidate for tea or capsules than actual cooking, but it does nothing to diminish its benefits. It contains polysaccharides (that healthy, bacteria-growing carbohydrate) that help the body produce lymphocytes — white blood cells that help with immune response to infection. They also contain oodles of antioxidants — just one cup of chaga tea has the same level of antioxidants as thirty pounds of carrots.
Reishi
Reishi mushrooms growing in a forest. James Mahan / iStock / Getty Images Plus
The history of reishi’s use in traditional Chinese medicine is long — its first records were from the Han Dynasty. Like many other mushrooms, their beta glucans and glycoproteins boost the immune system. Some research also points to reishi’s anti-allergy properties due to its ability to inhibit the release of histamines, which cause cells to swell and result in typical allergy symptoms like sneezing and runny noses. By reducing dermal oxidation, reishi protects your skin from wrinkling and other symptoms of aging, while also benefiting energy levels.
Lion’s Mane
A lion’s mane mushroom on a tree trunk. Arterra / Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Lion’s mane doesn’t look like your typical mushroom with a distinctive round, smooth cap — instead, it’s characterized by the tons of long, thin, pale strands hanging from a central body that looks, of course, like the head of a lion. In Chinese medicine, the mushroom was traditionally used for treating stomach problems with its strong anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial properties, particularly those relating to the spleen and the gut. It was called the “spirit plant,” and was believed to promote longevity. Lion’s mane also has strong neurological benefits, and early research shows that it protects against neurological damage and prompts nerve-tissue growth. It stimulates NGF — standing for nerve growth factors — which are proteins that protect neurons and help new ones grow, and thus helps nervous systems. Therefore, it could be beneficial for people with MS, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s.
Turkey Tail
Turkey tail mushrooms. Arterra / Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Like Lion’s mane, turkey tail looks just how the name suggests, like a flared turkey’s tail. The mushroom is greatly beneficial to the immune system, especially with its high concentrations of polysaccharides and triterpenes that have immunomodulating benefits. Turkey tail also contains PSK — a cancer drug used in Japan — and PSP: two beta-glucans that regenerate white blood cells, and create and support T-cells, macrophages, and NK (natural killer) cells, all of which support the immune system.
The Department of Energy announced on Wednesday that it would funnel $3.46 billion toward upgrading the country’s aging electric grid — marking its largest-ever investment in that part of the United States’ energy network.
The funding, which comes from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that President Joe Biden signed in 2021, is intended to prepare the grid for more renewable energy capacity as the U.S. transitions away from fossil fuels, and to prevent blackouts caused by increasingly severe climate disasters.
Between 2011 and 2021, the country experienced a 78 percent increase in weather-related power outages compared to the previous decade. Twenty percent of these outages were caused by hurricanes, extreme heat, and wildfires.
“Extreme weather events fueled by climate change will continue to strain the nation’s aging transmission systems,” U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in a statement. She added that the new funding would “harden systems” and “improve energy reliability and affordability.”
The new funding targets 58 projects across 44 states that, cumulatively, are expected to leverage $8 billion in federal and private investments in grid expansion and resiliency. Many of these projects involve building new “microgrids,” groups of dispersed but interconnected energy-generating units that can provide electricity even when the larger grid is down. For example, a solar microgrid involves lots of rooftop solar panels all feeding into a common pool of electricity — usually stored in a battery that serves as a source of backup power during an outage.
The funding also will also support the development of several large-scale transmission lines, including five new lines across seven Midwestern states. These lines help carry electricity from place to place, allowing clean energy to be generated in rural areas, where land tends to be more plentiful, and delivered to population centers.
Other projects involve more general upgrades to accommodate greater loads of electricity or improve emergency monitoring systems. Altogether, the DOE says the projects will help bring 35 gigawatts of renewable energy online, equivalent to roughly half of the U.S.’s utility-scale solar capacity in 2022. This will contribute to President Biden’s goal of moving the country’s electricity generation away from fossil fuels by 2035. As of 2021, the power sector accounted for a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
The Energy Department highlighted the selected projects’ commitments under Justice40, a Biden administration initiative that promises to direct at least 40 percent of the benefits of federal investment in infrastructure, clean energy, and other climate-related projects to disadvantaged communities, often defined as those that are low-income or that have been disproportionately exposed to pollution. According to the Energy Department, 86 percent of the projects contain labor union contracts or will involve collective bargaining agreements, and the agency says they will help “maintain and create good-paying union jobs.”
Many of the projects also have a specific focus on improving grid reliability for rural or low-income households. For example, one project in Oregon aims to upgrade transmission capacity and bring carbon-free solar power to remote customers on the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation. Another project in Louisiana will create a backup battery system that could reduce energy bills for disadvantaged communities.
Wednesday’s announcement allocates just some of the funds included in the Energy Department’s broader, $10.5 billion Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships Program, which is expected to fund more grid resiliency projects in the future. Meanwhile, experts say funding to upgrade power grids needs to double globally by 2030 in order to facilitate the transition from fossil fuels to technologies powered by electricity — electric vehicles instead of gas cars, for example, or heat pumps instead of furnaces. Otherwise, a report released Tuesday by the International Energy Agency warns that aging electric grids could become a “bottleneck for efforts to accelerate clean energy transitions and secure electricity security.”
