The United States Department of the Interior has announced a final rule to curb methane emissions from natural gas waste during oil and gas production on the country’s federal and Tribal lands.

The updated regulation modernizes rules that are more than four decades old. It will require oil and gas companies to stop wasteful practices, find and fix leaks and compensate Tribal mineral owners and taxpayers through the payment of royalties, a press release from the Interior Department said.

“This final rule, which updates 40-year-old regulations, furthers the Biden-Harris administration’s goals to prevent waste, protect our environment, and ensure a fair return to American taxpayers,” said Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland in the press release. “By leveraging modern technology and best practices to reduce natural gas waste, we are taking long-overdue steps that will increase accountability for oil and gas operators and benefit energy communities now and for generations to come.”

It is expected that the final rule will generate additional royalty payments of more than $50 million annually from natural gas. At the same time, an enormous amount of gas — billions of cubic feet — that might have been flared, leaked or vented during oil and gas operations will be conserved. The conserved gas can then be used to power homes and industries across the country.

“This rule represents a common sense, fair, and equitable solution to preventing waste that provides a level playing field for all of our energy-producing communities,” said Tracy Stone-Manning, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) director, in the press release. “The BLM worked extensively with a wide range of stakeholders to modernize our decades-old regulations and help protect communities across the country.”

The development of oil and gas on public lands has expanded quickly since the 1980s. This growth has led to double the percentage of gas lost to venting and the burning of vented gas through flaring.

From 2010 to 2020, an average of roughly 44.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas was lost each year to venting and flaring, reported Tribal and federal onshore lessees — enough to power more than 675,000 residences.

Several states — including New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado and Pennsylvania — as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — have implemented measures to limit oil and gas venting, flaring and leaks in order to improve air quality or prevent waste.

The modernized BLM rule is different from the EPA rule. It ensures that oil and gas operators are able to comply with state, federal or Tribal rules while also meeting commonsense requirements.

“It requires operators of federal and Indian oil and gas leases to take reasonable steps to avoid natural gas waste from the very beginning of operations, carry out leak detection and repair across ongoing operations, and cut down on wasteful gas venting and flaring. Consistent with the Inflation Reduction Act, the rule also sets new limits on ‘royalty-free’ flaring, so that public and Tribal mineral owners are properly compensated through royalty payments for avoidable losses of natural gas,” the press release said.

Thousands of comments were received by BLM — from environmental groups, academics, landowners, oil and gas producers, industry experts and other stakeholders — that helped inform the proposed rule changes.

Environmental groups expressed support for the new policy.

“Taking action to limit methane waste on public lands offers a win-win-win for taxpayers, producers and communities harmed by this waste and associated pollution,” said Jon Goldstein, Environmental Defense Fund’s regulatory and legislative affairs senior director, as reported by Reuters.

The post Biden Admin Takes ‘Long Overdue’ Steps to Limit Methane Emissions From Drilling on Public and Tribal Lands appeared first on EcoWatch.

Bamboo toilet paper has been touted as a more sustainable alternative to conventional toilet paper, which is linked to deforestation. But according to a new report, some brands of bamboo toilet paper available in the UK are actually made with woods like eucalyptus and acacia and contain very little bamboo.

A report by Which?, a nonprofit organization based in the UK, revealed three out of five tested bamboo toilet papers contained wood fibers, despite being made from “100% bamboo” or “bamboo only.” 

Bamboo is not a wood; it is technically a dense and hardy grass. According to composition testing of the toilet papers, two brands, Naked Sprout and Bumboo, contained 4% and 2.7% unidentified grass fibers, respectively. The brand Bazoo contained 26.10% bamboo.

“Given so many shoppers are taking steps to be more sustainable, it’s vital they can trust claims made by brands — particularly when they are paying more for a product they believe is better for the environment,” said Emily Seymour, sustainability editor for Which?, as reported by The Guardian. “Businesses must take responsibility for ensuring their products contain what they say on the packaging, so that shoppers who want to make sustainable choices can trust the information they are given.”

The researchers specifically identified acacia wood fibers in two brands, Bazoo and Bumboo, which raised concerns over deforestation, particularly in Indonesia. A separate study by Nusantara Atlas found that deforestation related to wood pulp demand reached a record high in some parts of Indonesia in 2023, and the amount of primary forests converted into plantations for pulpwood increased 15% compared to 2022.

Further, Which? found virgin hardwood fibers present in Naked Sprout, Bumboo and Bazoo brands’ toilet papers, yet all three brands feature Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certifications or labeling. 

FSC told Which? that it will be conducting an investigation following the report.

Which? used TAPPI T 401 in an independent lab to conduct the composition testing, to which some of the brands highlighted in the report praised, while others criticized the results.

Bumboo told Which? that it found an issue in its supply chain and remedied the problem as well as contacted customers. It also called TAPPI T 401 the “gold standard” in fiber testing and announced plans to incorporate this type of testing to ensure 100% bamboo toilet paper moving forward.

Bazoo noted it is audited every six months by FSC and is currently investigating with FSC and its manufacturer following the report.

According to Which?, Naked Sprout said its materials are fully traceable and FSC-certified and that the TAPPI T 401 testing has limitations. As Which? reported, the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry responded that it “seems disingenuous” that the testing would work properly for four brands but not for one.

Not all of the brands were found to contain wood fibers, though. Who Gives a Crap and The Cheeky Panda, both of which claim to contain 100% bamboo in their toilet paper, did meet their claims, according to the tests.

Bamboo toilet paper is considered more sustainable because of bamboo’s fast regrowth rate, but Which? pointed out that while some environmental organizations have noted that bamboo toilet paper has a lower impact than toilet paper made from virgin wood fibers, recycled toilet paper may be an even better option.

“We should be working towards reducing our paper consumption in Europe as much as possible and using recycled paper where we can, which definitely includes toilet roll,” Johannes Zahnen, senior officer of forest policy at WWF Germany, told Which?.

The post 60% of Bamboo Toilet Paper Brands in the UK Were Made With Other Woods, Testing Finds appeared first on EcoWatch.

A landfill is a place of perpetual motion, where mountains of garbage can rise in days and crews race to contain the influx of ever more trash. Amid the commotion, an invisible gas often escapes unnoticed, warming the planet and harming our health: methane.

On Thursday, the climate-data sleuths at Carbon Mapper published a study in Science that shows U.S. landfills emit methane at levels at least 40 percent higher than previously reported to the Environmental Protection Agency. At more than half of the hundreds of garbage dumps surveyed — in the largest assessment yet of such emissions — most of the pollution flowed from leaks, creating concentrated plumes. The researchers found these super-emitting points can persist for months or even years, and account for almost 90 percent of all measured methane from the landfills. Tackling these hotspots could be a huge stride toward lowering emission rates, but blindspots in current monitoring protocols mean they often evade detection.

“It’s a very hard problem to get totally right without any leaks at any place,” said Daniel Cusworth, an atmospheric chemist and project scientist for Carbon Mapper, a nonprofit that provides data to inform greenhouse gas reduction efforts. Sometimes Cusworth conducts aerial surveys of landfills and is relieved to find nothing. “And then other times, you know, I’ll see a massive billowing plume that’s three kilometers long.”

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas created by, among other things, decaying trash, and it often seeps through the soil and plastic covers meant to contain it. Although federal regulations require large facilities to use gas capture systems, landfills remain the third biggest source of these emissions in the United States, accounting for over 14 percent of the national total. Because methane is 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide during its first 20 years in the atmosphere, scientists say reducing the amount of it floating around up there is the quickest way to curb global warming. Doing so also benefits communities: A disproportionate number of U.S. landfills are near marginalized neighborhoods, where gas exposure impacts health or poses an explosion risk.

Leaks that exceed the Clean Air Act’s limit of 500 parts per million are common, as shown by the hotspots Carbon Mapper identified. These areas typically appear after unanticipated events, such as cracks in landfill covers, valve failure in the vast gas collection systems, and other maintenance or construction issues. “They really dominated the total emissions for the landfill,” Cusworth said. The survey found that average release from the most surveyed sites was at least 1.4 times, and sometimes as much as 2.7 times, larger than those reported to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.

Although federal guidelines require these facilities to track emissions and provide that data to the EPA, current reporting and monitoring methods just aren’t up to snuff, according to the study. Most operators report an estimate, using EPA guidelines, calculated from the amount of trash they take in, not from measured data. Regulators also require facilities to perform walking ground surveys four times a year, but experts like Cusworth say these efforts aren’t frequent or precise enough. Hotspots can easily escape notice because many areas are too dangerous or inaccessible to walk on, and monitoring sensors react only to high concentrations on the ground and wouldn’t catch dispersed plumes. “You can’t manage what you can’t measure,” said Cusworth, adding that it’s a popular cliche in the air monitoring business. 

In the survey, the Carbon Mapper researchers flew over landfills with airplanes that captured infrared images, revealing the plumes. Similar remote sensing methods, such as drones and satellites, are among recent technological advances that could keep the pollutant in check, helping facilities find and address leaks quickly. Other innovations to methane capturing systems, such as self-calibrating caps on valves and sensors that can detect leaks, further reduce the risk of failures.

“In the waste sector, specifically, we know what technologies to implement – we’ve known for a number of years. They’re feasible, readily available, and a number of them are actually quite cost effective,” said Kait Siegel, waste sector manager on the methane pollution team at Clean Air Task Force. “We need to have regulations in place.” This upcoming August, the EPA is expected to update its landfill management policies as part of a required 8-year review cycle. 

Tom Frankiewicz, a waste sector methane scientist at RMI, which collaborated with Carbon Mapper on the study, said addressing outsized methane sources, like landfills, is urgent due to the short lifespan and extreme potency of the gas, compared to the longer-lasting carbon dioxide. The world won’t see the climate benefits of reducing CO2 emissions for a century, he said. That time frame drops to a decade when curbing methane. “We have to be working on both, and leaning in on methane because it buys us time.” And in the race to mitigate climate change, every moment counts.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Landfills bake the planet even more than we realized on Mar 28, 2024.

Building a small cold frame greenhouse from reclaimed wood is a enjoyable and sustainable weekend…

The post Creating a Small Cold Frame Greenhouse from Reclaimed Wood appeared first on Earth911.

Today’s inspiration is a quote from naturalist Ellen Meloy. In her book, Eating Stone: Imagination…

The post Earth911 Inspiration: Last Refuge of All That Is Truly Wild appeared first on Earth911.

Why does it feel like the world has made so much progress on addressing global warming, but also none at all? 

In H Is for Hope: Climate Change from A to Z, Elizabeth Kolbert, a longtime environmental journalist, considers hard questions like this one. Using simple language, she explains that governments are passing climate-friendly laws, clean energy is expanding, companies are creating green technologies, and yet fossil fuel emissions are still, after all these years, rising.

Kolbert’s latest book, a primer brightened by Wesley Allsbrook’s colorful illustrations, is a quick, entertaining read. A is for Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist who wanted to figure out what caused ice ages, landed on the idea of carbon dioxide, and built the world’s first climate model in 1894. Arrhenius imagined that a warmer world would be a happier one for humanity. B is for “blah, blah, blah,” the climate activist Greta Thunberg’s mocking summary of what three decades of global climate conferences have accomplished. C is for capitalism, one convincing explanation for why those conferences didn’t accomplish much.

Kolbert, a staff writer at The New Yorker, has written several books, most notably The Sixth Extinction, a Pulitzer-Prize winning account of Homo sapiens’ asteroid-level power to wipe out other species. In H Is for Hope, she grounds the abstract problem of climate change in concrete experiences. Kolbert ends up riding an exercise bike in a humid, 106-degree-Fahrenheit vault, monitored for an experiment. (“What is the future we’re creating actually going to feel like?”) She stares up at the blades of a 600-foot wind turbine off the coast of Rhode Island, and, after visiting a “green concrete” company in Montreal, takes a cinder block of the substance home as a souvenir.

In an interview with Grist, Kolbert explained why she thinks climate change resists traditional narratives around hope and progress and how she attempted to tell a more complex, down-to-earth story in her new book. This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Q. I want to start by talking about hope, which is usually how people end interviews. I’ve heard climate scientists and activists say they’re tired of being asked what gives them hope, I think because it can feel naive. How can we talk about hope in a way that’s more realistic and useful?

A. Well, many people, as you say, have pointed out that that’s not really the opposition that we should be focusing on, hope versus not hope. I think we should be focusing on action versus non-action. How we feel about it — it really doesn’t make much difference to the climate. What we do is what makes a difference. Now, that being said, having written this book called H Is for Hope, I am very interested in how we think about hope, and that’s one of the motivating ideas behind the book.

Q. How did you end up choosing that title? I think there’s something kind of delightful about a title that emphasizes optimism but also plays off Sue Grafton detective novels — you know, her book was H Is for Homicide.

A. Right. There’s also a really wonderful book by Helen Macdonald called H Is for Hawk. So I knew I wanted to name the book after one of the letters; that’s the whole point, it’s an abecedarian. And that one just popped out as the obvious candidate.

Q. I thought that approach was interesting. What inspired you to write an alphabetic primer on climate change?

A. I was trying to sort of re-animate this story, which can be very overwhelming and has so many different aspects. It’s really everything, everywhere, all at once, and on one level, I was trying to break it down for people so that it was understandable and comprehensible in all its complexity. On the other hand, I was also trying to suggest that any simple narrative probably was not complete.

Q. You started off the book by saying that climate change resists narrative. What did you mean by that?

A. It’s not personified. It doesn’t have a fate. You know, we’re all participating in causing it. We’re all participating in suffering from it. Obviously, some are participating in causing it much more than others, and some are suffering from it much more than others. It’s this creeping, perpetual problem that will be with us forever now. And when it’s acute, when there’s a crisis, a wildfire or a hurricane that was made worse by climate change, it still wasn’t exactly caused by climate change. You have that agency problem, and stories demand agency.

Q. One of the themes in the book is the difficulty of reckoning with climate change on a deeper level, the sense that we’re watching things fall apart, but we don’t really internalize that, or that we’re waiting for someone or some miracle technology to rescue us. Why do you think people have that response?

A. On the one hand, it’s a global problem. It’s been described as the ultimate “tragedy of the commons” problem. It has to be addressed on a global scale. So it is very easy to feel overwhelmed. “What does it matter what I do?” On the other hand, I do think that what we are seeing, in the U.S. in particular — you know, I include myself in this — is that we’re very stuck in our ways, and they’re very carbon-intensive ways. So I think we would like every solution that keeps being proposed to be something that allows us to continue to do exactly what we’re doing, just differently. And that’s what we want to hear.

Q. That’s true. It’s really hard to picture how we would live different lives, or what exactly those lives would look like. And I feel like that is part of the problem.

A. Yes, and our whole economy is based on doing things a certain way. You know, there’s a big argument in climate circles, which is one of the points in the book: Can you have what’s called “green growth?” Can you just keep growing, but do that in a, quote unquote, “green” way, or can you not? That is an unanswered question.

Q. How do you think we need to change the narratives that get told about climate change?

A. Well, this book is my attempt to do that. I can’t give you the poster child for climate change that’s going to change everyone’s perceptions of it, or the story that’s going to finally cut through all the BS. Many approaches have been taken, some are more successful than others, but we still seem stuck. And I was really trying in this book to get around that problem, or fool around with that problem, that the traditional narratives don’t seem to work.

Q. Was there anything else that you wanted to say about the book?

A. I think what’s important about climate change coverage is that it has some element of pleasure, which seems odd to say for such a grim subject. But I think that what we — and I include the artist, Wesley Allsbrook, whose amazing illustrations are a big part of the book — tried to do was make it both a pleasurable reading experience and a super visual experience. I do think the unrelenting grimness does get to people, and this book, while it definitely has a very serious message, is trying to offer something up in a way that is kind of fun, I hope.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Elizabeth Kolbert wants us to rethink the stories we tell about climate change on Mar 28, 2024.

Venture capital is no longer the sole route to fuel your startup’s growth, given today’s economic uncertainty and evolving financing landscape.

Americans throw out approximately 416,000 mobile phones each day, according to 2014 figures from the…

The post We Earthlings: Mobile Phones Discarded Daily appeared first on Earth911.

More heat waves and unpredictable rainfall could destroy vineyards from California to Greece by 2100, according to a new study, while at the same time creating ideal conditions for wine growing in the United Kingdom and other unexpected regions.

“Climate change is affecting grape yield, composition and wine quality. As a result, the geography of wine production is changing,” the study said. “About 90% of traditional wine regions in coastal and lowland regions of Spain, Italy, Greece and southern California could be at risk of disappearing by the end of the century because of excessive drought and more frequent heatwaves with climate change.”

The researchers looked at the effects of drought, increasing temperatures and changes in diseases and pests on wine regions across the world, reported AFP. They found that there was a “substantial” risk of 49 to 70 percent of wine-producing regions losing their economic viability, depending on the level of global heating.

“Climate change is changing the geography of wine,” said lead author of the study Cornelis van Leeuwen, a viticulture professor with the Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin at Bordeaux University and Bordeaux Sciences Agro, as AFP reported. “There will be winners and losers.”

The study, “Climate change impacts and adaptations of wine production,” was published in the journal Nature Reviews Earth & Environment.

“You can still make wine almost anywhere (even in tropical climates)… but here we looked at quality wine at economically viable yields,” said van Leeuwen, as reported by AFP.

Up to a quarter of vineyards could experience improved wine production, with totally new winegrowing regions emerging at higher altitudes and latitudes, according to the study.

“Warmer temperatures might increase suitability for other regions (Washington State, Oregon, Tasmania, northern France) and are driving the emergence of new wine regions, like the southern United Kingdom,” the study said.

It will all depend on how much global temperatures rise. If global heating stays within the two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average set by the Paris Agreement, wine regions will have to adjust — most will survive.

“Existing producers can adapt to a certain level of warming by changing plant material (varieties and rootstocks), training systems and vineyard management. However, these adaptations might not be enough to maintain economically viable wine production in all areas,” the study explained.

In the face of more extreme warming, “most Mediterranean regions might become climatically unsuitable for wine production,” the study said, according to AFP.

The study added that, in the lowland and coastal areas of Greece, Italy and Spain, roughly 90 percent of wine regions “could be at risk of disappearing by the end of the century.”

And Southern California could watch as many as half of its famous wineries dry up.

Meanwhile, northern parts of the United States — like Washington State, the Great Lakes and New England — could become premium wine producing regions.

Van Leeuwen said France may need to turn to more resilient varieties of grapes such as Chenin for whites and Grenache for reds.

The viticulturist discouraged the use of irrigation to make up the difference in a warmer world.

“Irrigated vines are more vulnerable to drought if there is a lack of water,” Van Leeuwen said, adding that using such a scarce resource to irrigate hardy crops would be “madness,” as AFP reported.

The post ‘Climate Change Is Changing the Geography of Wine,’ Study Finds appeared first on EcoWatch.