At the turn of the 20th century, as the United States developed the West, the federal government built hundreds of hydroelectric dams on major rivers in the region. These dams destroyed river ecosystems and flooded Indigenous land, but they also provided a cheap and abundant source of renewable energy for tens of millions of people. Hydropower today meets around a quarter of the region’s energy needs.

But the hydroelectric fleet in the West has taken a beating over the past 20 years as a series of devastating droughts have battered the area. When major rivers dry up, less water flows through hydroelectric dam turbines — and dams produce less electricity as a result. At the same time, the heat waves that often accompany dry periods lead to more demand for power as people crank up their air-conditioning. That’s bad news for grid operators, who have to find an alternate source of electricity just as dams are falling short.

This decline in hydropower leads to a significant surge in fossil fuel emissions, according to a new study published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a leading scientific journal. After looking at power generation across the West between 2001 and 2021, the authors of the study found that coal and gas plants ramped up their activity during dry months to replace lost hydropower, leading to more carbon emissions and more local air pollution. While that finding was expected, the scale of the increase in fossil fuel emissions surprised the researchers.

“The effect on the power mix is actually pretty large,” said Minghao Qiu, a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford University who is the lead author of the study.

All in all, the decline in hydropower caused an extra 121 million metric tons of carbon emissions between 2001 and 2021 — about the same as if an additional 1.3 million cars had been on the road during the same period. The size of the change varied from grid to grid and from power plant to power plant, but it was considerable everywhere. Fossil fuel emissions rose by 11 percent in the Northwest during the driest months, and by a whopping 30 percent in California. At some plants, generation jumped as much as 65 percent above normal levels during dry spells.

During the driest years, this increase had staggering consequences for the climate: In 2001, for instance, a decline in hydropower caused fossil-powered plants in the West to emit 27 million tons more carbon dioxide than they otherwise would have, or about 10 percent of their total emissions from that year. 

Read Next

At last, states reach a Colorado River deal: Pay farmers not to farm

Jake Bittle

Because coal and natural gas tend to be more expensive to produce than hydropower, droughts likely led to higher energy costs for customers in the West. But the study also argues that declines in hydropower generation have come with big costs for the environment and public health — to the tune of more than $20 billion so far this century. Not only did the drought-driven rise in carbon emissions cause future warming that will lead to more climate disasters, but air pollution around fossil fuel plants also made nearby residents sicker, which will lead to greater public health costs later on. 

In 2001, for instance, California’s natural gas plants ramped up to offset a drought-driven decline in hydropower across the region, leading to a more than 40 percent surge in emissions of toxic chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitric oxide.

These negative health effects didn’t always occur in the same places where a drought happened. When the hydropower fleet in a state like Washington faltered, grid operators imported electricity from other states, ferrying electrons over long transmission wires that crisscross the region. This replacement energy came from coal plants in Montana and gas plants in California, and people near those distant facilities bore the health costs as those plants burned more fossil fuels. The study found that more than half of the increase in fossil fuel generation from 2001 to 2021 happened in states that weren’t themselves experiencing drought.

“A climate shock in one place can really cause damages in faraway places, because the energy grid is so connected,” Qiu told Grist.

In an interesting twist, the study found that even a rapid renewable buildout might not fix the problem of more pollution during drought times. Western states are racing to build more solar and wind, and the Biden administration is pushing to build more of these facilities on the region’s abundant public land. But Qiu’s study found that fossil fuel plants will still provide backup power when other sources like hydropower fall short, since they can ramp up on short notice, unlike renewable sources that are dependent on the amount of sun and wind available. In order to tamp down fossil fuel emissions during dry spells, according to Qiu, states and the federal government need to work on developing better storage options, such as enhanced batteries, to preserve extra energy produced by renewables.

“We’re looking at the generators that increase their generation while there is a demand increase due to a heat wave or a supply decrease due to drought,” he told Grist. “If there is a future drought, it’s still going to be fossil fuel power plants that increase their generation to meet that gap of electricity.”

Update: This story has been updated to include a cumulative figure for carbon emissions attributable to hydropower loss.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How the Western drought has increased carbon emissions on Jul 10, 2023.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the western United States has been experiencing some of the driest conditions on record, and according to the UN, more than 75% of the world could be facing drought conditions by 2050. Bottom line: as climate change continues to cause water stress, we need to find ways to conserve water and adapt to drier conditions — including in our yards and gardens. 

The traditional expanses of pristine green grass that characterize most lawns use huge amounts of water. It’s estimated that 30% of residential drinking water is used outdoors, and even more in the summer. This can be a huge expense and a drain on water resources, especially in areas of the country facing water shortages. 

The goal of creating a water-wise yard is threefold: to increase the amount of moisture your soil can hold, capitalize on naturally available water, and choose plants and designs that require less water to begin with. Landscaping using water-wise methods is often called “xeriscaping,” a term first used by the Denver Water Board to describe landscaping methods that reduce the need for irrigation, capitalize on natural precipitation, and overall require less water than traditional landscaping methods. Whatever the name, there are many ways to increase the resilience of your yard in the face of drought. 

Sustainable Hardscaping 

Usually integrated with xeriscaping, hardscaping basically means designing and decorating your yard with non-organic features like walls, paths, patios, or driveways. Hardscaping itself is not inherently sustainable, but sustainable hardscaping works in harmony with the ecosystem, built intentionally with the goal of having a positive effect on the environment rather than a negative one. 

Use Well-Draining Materials

A primary feature of sustainable hardscaping is allowing for permeability, which traditional materials and methods — like building expanses of unbroken concrete for patios or sidewalks — don’t reflect. These impermeable surfaces don’t allow water to percolate through to the soil, but instead allow it to run off to other areas and deprive the soil of water. Using materials like gravel or stones with gaps in between to build walkways and other yard features will allow rainwater to infiltrate rather than run off. 

Build a Dry Creek Bed to Capture Runoff 

After a heavy rain, you might notice that water pools in a specific area of your yard, or rushes down gulleys in the dirt. Building a dry creek bed from rocks in the areas where water usually collects will force it to percolate back into the soil. There are many different ways to design these beds, but the main goal is to dig a trench, using the displaced soil to build up the walls. Line the bed with larger rocks, and cover the inside with medium-sized rocks. There will be some spaces in between, which you can fill in with gravel or river rock. 

To beautify the creek bed, plant some native greenery along the top of the trench around the large rocks, or create a rain garden at the bottom with your garden’s moisture-loving plants to put that water to use and prevent further erosion.

Capture Rainwater 

Using municipal water to water your garden can be expensive — especially in the heat of summer — and some municipalities facing water shortages might impose restrictions on water use for yards and gardens. Instead, use the water that’s being given to you for free! Capture rainwater in a store-bought rain barrel, or make an easy DIY version yourself. Most connect to a drain spout, and have a spigot at the bottom for easily accessing the water. For a low-tech solution, put out some buckets and barrels right before a rainstorm to collect water for tomorrow’s watering. Note that collected rainwater should never be used for drinking, and when watering the garden, water plants right at their base in case of any contaminants in the water, then thoroughly wash any produce. 

Choose Better Plants 

Kentucky bluegrass — the grass that usually coats our lawns — is thirsty, and requires a lot of water to stay green. Choosing plants with greater tolerance to low-water conditions will require less attention, and less water. 

Perennials 

Unlike annuals — which have a single-year life cycle — perennials overwinter in gardens and come back year after year. Because of this, their root systems are robust and much more well-established, meaning they require less watering. Planting perennials also results in less soil disturbance (since you aren’t replanting every year), which leaves the organic matter of the soil intact and thus maintains high water retention. Foxglove beardtongue, purple coneflower, yarrow, and Russian sage are among the many beautiful perennials that are especially drought-tolerant.  

Drought-Tolerant Plants

Because they only live for one year, annuals have shallow roots and generally require more water than perennials. However, some annuals — like California poppies, cleomes (or “spider flowers”), cosmos, creeping zinnias, marigolds, sunflowers, and vinca (aka periwinkle) — have a higher tolerance for drought. For grasses and greenery, try fountain grass, pampas grass, blue fescue, lamb’s-ear, and sweet potato vine. Succulents and cacti do especially well without much water, although check the tag to make sure they are suited for your hardiness zone.

Native Plants 

Among all of the options for ornamental plants, you’ll likely find the greatest success with those that naturally grow in your region. Native plants have adapted over time to the climate, soil, and other local conditions, which means they don’t require as much attention, are more resistant to pests and disease, and usually require less water. Blanketing your yard with species native to your area will lead to a biodiverse, successful, and water-wise yard. 

Cluster Thirsty Plants Together 

Put your thirstiest plants in the same area of the garden, especially if you water with a hose. By concentrating your heavy watering into just one area (rather than all over the yard), you’ll save a good deal of water; even just walking around with the hose spraying as you move from area to area can be a drain on water. 

Garden Maintenance 

Maintain Healthy Soil

Paying attention to the health of your soil is important for growing robust plants above the ground. While soil composition varies widely by region, healthy soil acts like a sponge, retaining water for when the plants need it while still being porous enough for roots to penetrate. Organic matter increases the water-retention capacity of soil — add compost at the beginning of the growing season to deliver more nutrients to the ground before planting. 

Mulching 

A layer of mulch overtop a garden can greatly reduce loss of moisture through evaporation. Store-bought wood chips aren’t the only option for mulching — fallen leaves, leaf mold, pine needles, and grass and garden clippings will work just as well. When you chop perennials at the end of their life, (or do any pruning of plants) leave the clippings over top of the soil to trap in moisture. Inorganic mulch like gravel and shells can work, but it can make it harder to work in the garden.

Plant Hedgerows

Both wind and strong sunlight can decrease soil moisture during the day. To combat this, plant tall shrubs and plants around the perimeter of the garden to act as a barrier. Before doing this, notice how shadows work in your yard, and plant accordingly. Some plants want full sun all day, so plant those away from the shade, and plant more shade-loving plants closer. 

Targeted Irrigation 

When watering with the hose, we tend to spray over a wide range, likely wetting areas that don’t need the moisture. In general, plants do better with less frequent waterings that penetrate deeper into the soil, which encourages them to grow deeper root systems. Instead of a typical garden hose, try a drip irrigation system or soaker hose instead, which targets the roots directly and wastes no water in the process. 

Use a Rain Gauge

These low-tech, relatively inexpensive tools measure the amount of water your garden is getting so you can adjust your watering schedule accordingly — you may be watering much more than is necessary without realizing. Most gardens are okay with one inch of water per week (although arid climates will need slightly more), aside from especially hot periods. When you water, check to make sure the soil actually needs it. If it’s dry an inch below the surface, it’s time to water, but if not, wait until it’s dried out a bit more.

The post Low-Water Landscape and Garden Designs for Water-Wise Yards appeared first on EcoWatch.

The International Maritime Organization, or IMO — the United Nations body in charge of regulating the global shipping industry — wrapped up two weeks of negotiations on Friday with an agreement that the industry should reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions “around” 2050.

That’s an improvement over the IMO’s previous climate target for the sector — to merely halve emissions by midcentury — but it’s left many environmental advocates severely disappointed.

“There is no excuse for this wish-and-a-prayer agreement,” John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition, said in a statement. Others called it a “historic failure” and a “wishy-washy compromise.”

Negotiators sealed the deal on Friday following 10 days of heated discussions meant to address the shipping industry’s outsize carbon footprint. Cargo ships, which carry goods and materials across oceans and are responsible for almost all international trade, account for about 3 percent of humanity’s overall carbon emissions — about as much as Germany. 

In order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) — the target countries agreed to in the 2015 Paris Agreement — experts have estimated that the shipping industry must cut emissions by 45 percent by 2030 before reaching near-zero emissions in 2040.

Those are the targets that a coalition of Pacific Island countries, plus a few allies including the United States and the U.K., were advocating for at the IMO summit. “Anything less than 36 percent by 2030 and 96 percent by 2040 will be detrimental” to reaching international climate goals, the Marshall Islands negotiator Albon Ishoda told journalists at the summit last week. 

Instead, the agreement set a decarbonization deadline for “by or around, i.e., close to 2050,” with the justification that this would provide greater flexibility for poorer developing countries. (Countries will be responsible for setting policies to achieve the emissions reductions.) The final agreement also included interim targets for 2030 and 2040, although they are far less ambitious than what scientists and many developing countries had been hoping for. The nonbinding agreement asks the shipping industry to reduce emissions by at least 20 percent by 2030 and 70 percent by 2040. It says the industry should continue “striving” for greater reductions of 30 percent and 80 percent.

“Nations failed to put the shipping industry on a credible, 1.5-degree C pathway,” said Madeline Rose, senior climate campaign director for the nonprofit Pacific Environment. She said the IMO’s agreed-upon strategy would exhaust the shipping industry’s carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5 degrees by 2032, although individual governments and shipping companies could take more aggressive action to prevent that from happening.

Several groups said the only reason there were any interim targets at all was because of a handful of negotiators from small island states, including Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands. These negotiators, whose countries are particularly sensitive to sea-level rise and other climate impacts, eked out stronger targets in the face of heavy opposition from oil-exporting countries like Saudi Arabia, which stand to gain from continued reliance on a fossil fuel-powered shipping sector. 

Larger developing countries like Brazil and Argentina also argued that any reduction in climate pollution would cause them disproportionate economic harm — despite evidence to the contrary. A widely cited report published late last month found that existing solutions — some as simple as reducing ships’ speeds — could reduce global shipping emissions by up to 47 percent below 2008 levels by 2030, with minimal impacts to global trade.

Other solutions in the report, published by the consulting firm CE Delft, include adopting wind-assisted propulsion technologies and replacing 5 to 10 percent of ships’ heavy fuel oil with zero-emissions alternatives like green hydrogen and green methanol.

Maggs said countries baselessly refuted the report and others like it as if they were in a “Trumpian, post-truth alternative reality.” He said the shared desire to come to some kind of agreement gave the obstructionist countries outsize negotiating power. Delegates were “prepared to put up with a weak agreement,” he said, so long as they produced something by the end of the summit.

In addition to the emissions targets, the IMO’s agreement reached on Friday also includes a “basket of measures” to help them reach the new goals. One is an international fuel standard for greenhouse gases, similar to what the IMO has already adopted for sulfur oxide pollution. The other is a global levy on shipping emissions that could generate revenue to fund the shipping industry’s transition away from heavy fuel oil. Both measures are set to be designed in greater detail over the coming years, with implementation scheduled for no later than 2027.

The levy in particular proved controversial, and many consider its inclusion in the agreement a major success. More than 70 developing and developed countries supported it, while Brazil, Argentina, and China, the world’s largest exporter, led a coalition to oppose it. In a diplomatic note delivered to developing countries last month, Beijing officials said the levy was “a disguised way by developed countries to improve their own market competitiveness.”

None of the IMO’s newly agreed-upon targets are mandatory, meaning the onus will now fall on member states for compliance and enforcement. Many environmental advocates are hopeful that national policies will nudge the shipping industry to decarbonize faster, although this will likely lead to a more confusing tangle of standards than if the IMO had unified countries around a single set of science-based targets. “It’s not ideal,” said Delaine McCullough, shipping emissions campaign manager for the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy. “But it needs to happen.”

In the U.S., for example, the recently introduced federal Clean Shipping Act would set emissions standards for shipping companies that dock at American ports, requiring them to align with a pathway toward net-zero by 2040. Other proposed laws like the International Maritime Pollution Accountability Act, which would place a pollution fee on large ships unloading cargo at U.S. ports, could serve as policy models on the international stage.

Individual cities and ports can implement similar regulations on their own, before federal policies are passed. Freight companies can take action too. The shipping giant Maersk, for example, is aiming for net-zero by 2040 and has committed not to buy new ships unless they can run on carbon-neutral fuel. It recently announced the world’s first effort to retrofit a fossil fuel-powered ship to run on green methanol.

“[T]he time to act is now,” Marie Cabbia Hubatova, global shipping director for the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “This is our last chance to get shipping close to Paris Agreement alignment and set the standard for other hard-to-abate sectors.” 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline UN sets ‘wishy-washy’ climate target for global shipping industry on Jul 7, 2023.