Earth Wise

By Randy SimonScience Education Self-Improvement Natural Sciences Nature

Earth Wise episodes

August 02, 2019 Fishers Helping To Clean The Oceans
Marine litter – particularly plastics – is a global, persistent, and increasing threat to the oceans. Much of it comes from discarded materials on shore that makes their way to the sea but waste from the fishing industry is a also a major contributor to the problem.
Commercial fishers are acutely aware of the potential for marine
litter to damage and even destroy their livelihoods and are starting to try to
be part of the solution instead of just part of the problem.
An initiative called Fishing for Litter, which has been operating
around the British coastline since 2006, is an example.
With hubs in Scotland and South West of England, FFL aims to reduce
the amount of marine litter in the sea by physically removing it while also
highlighting the importance of good waste management in the fishing fleet. Fishers have to assume responsibility for
their own waste and dispose of it in a responsible manner. They also have a unique ability to access
remote and hard to reach marine litter caused by others.
A survey of 120 commercial fishers revealed that they often found marine litter in their hauls and that keeping the sea and coasts clean was important to them.
The responsibility for reducing marine litter does not belong to any
single industry or organization. It
requires a collective global change of behavior. The problem directly affects fishers, so they
are especially motivated to do something about it. They can make an important contribution to
an issue that ultimately affects us all.
Groups like Fishing for Litter are providing a model for behavior that
we can only hope that others around the world can emulate.
**********
Web Links
Fishers keen to help address the problem of marine litter
Photo, posted July 9, 2009, courtesy of Rennett Stowe via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
August 01, 2019 A Record European Heatwave
Sahara Desert winds blasted Europe in June, especially during a five-day heatwave that set many records. Between that and weather elsewhere, June was not only one of the hottest ever for that continent, but also for the world as a whole.
In Europe, the average temperature was about 5 degrees Fahrenheit
above the June average of a century ago.
The global temperature was nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit higher.
The European heatwave broke temperature records in France,
Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and Spain.
A temperature above 114 degrees was recorded near the French city of
Nîmes.
The intense heat lead to wildfires in Spain and Germany, and widespread
disruption across Europe. Undoubtedly,
the heatwave has caused many premature deaths, but it will take some time to
compile those statistics. The European
heatwave of 2003 caused more than 70,000 premature deaths.

According to calculations by climate scientists, the record-breaking heatwave
in June was made at least 5 and as much as 100 times more likely by climate
change. Global heating caused by the
carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and other human activities means
that heatwaves are becoming more probable and severe. So-called attribution studies estimate how
much more likely and severe such events are.
The researchers used temperature records stretching back to 1901 to
assess the probability of a heatwave last month and in the past. They also examined climate change models to
assess the impact of global heating.
More than 230 attribution studies to date around the world have found
that 95% of heatwaves were made more likely or worse by climate change.
It was the hottest June on record in Europe by a country mile and
there are likely to be more months like it in the future.
**********
Web Links
Climate Change Made Last Month’s European Heatwave At Least Five Times More Likely
Photo, posted February 13, 2018, courtesy of Guilhem Vellut via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
July 31, 2019 Climate Change And The Bottom Line
Large companies around the world are facing up to the fact that climate change could substantially affect their bottom lines within the next five years. Shareholders and regulators have been applying pressure to companies to disclose the specific financial impacts they could face as the planet warms and companies are increasingly making those disclosures.
A non-profit charity called CDP (formerly known as the Carbon
Disclosure Project) runs the global disclosure system for investors, companies,
cities, states, and regions to manage their environmental impacts. In 2018, more than 7,000 companies submitted
reports to CDP and, for the first time, CDP explicitly asked firms to try to
calculate how a warming planet might affect them financially.
Analysis of the reports from 215 of the world’s 500 largest corporations revealed that these companies alone potentially faced roughly $1 trillion in costs related to climate change in the decades ahead unless they took proactive steps to prepare.
Climate-related risks range from extreme weather that could disrupt supply chains to stricter climate regulations that could hurt the value of coal, oil, and gas investments. Technology companies like Google’s parent company, Alphabet, Inc., face increased costs to cool energy-hungry data centers as temperatures rise.
In all, the world’s largest companies estimated that at least $250
billion of assets may need to be written off or retired early as the planet
heats up. Previous studies, based on
computer climate modeling, have estimated that the risks of global warming, if
left unmanaged, could cost the world’s financial sector between $1.7 trillion
to $24.2 trillion in net present value terms.
**********
Web Links
Companies See Climate Change Hitting Their Bottom Lines in the Next 5 Years
Photo, posted February 29, 2016, courtesy of Ben Nuttall via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
July 30, 2019 The Largest Offshore Wind Farm
The world’s largest offshore wind farm recently began operations in the North Sea, a notoriously gusty stretch of open water that has become home to multiple large wind farms. The new Hornsea One wind farm is located 75 miles off the east coast of Yorkshire in the United Kingdom.
The first 50 turbines are now in operation and are generating
electricity for up to 287,000 homes.
When the farm is completed sometime next year, it will have 174 turbines
with a total capacity of 1.2 gigawatts, enough to power a million homes. The farm will send electricity to the UK,
Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Scandinavia.
The Hornsea One farm will have more than twice the capacity of the
current largest offshore operation, which is also in the UK.
Because the farm is so far from shore, teams of workers will live at sea for two to four weeks at a time maintaining it. Such operations are unprecedented and required new ways of operating to overcome the logistical and technical challenges of operating a massive power station far from land.
The UK has the largest offshore wind generating capacity in Europe,
now more than 8.2 gigawatts and accounting for 44% of Europe’s offshore wind
capacity. All that capacity is one of
the big reasons that the UK has been successfully weaning itself off of coal
for increasingly long periods of time.
Meanwhile, the US continues to lag far behind in offshore wind with a
grand total of 0.03 gigawatts of installed capacity. That situation may be changing after the
federal government auctioned off 3 major tracts of ocean late last year that
potentially could generate over 4 gigawatts of power if fully developed.
**********
Web Links
The World’s Largest Offshore Wind Farm Just Came Online
Photo credit: Hornsea Project One.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
July 29, 2019 The Microplastic Diet
According to a new study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Americans consume more than 70,000 microplastic particles every year from the food they eat, the water they drink, and the air they breathe.
While the health impacts of ingesting these tiny particles are largely
unknown, there is the potential for the plastic to enter human tissues and
cause an immune response or perhaps release toxic chemicals into the body.
The analysis by biologists at the University of Victoria in Canada
examined data from 26 previous studies on microplastic contamination. It found that Americans eat and drink an
estimated 39,000 to 52,000 microplastic particles each year, depending on their
age and sex. The numbers jump to 74,000
to 121,000 when inhalation of microplastics is included.
Americans who drink water solely from plastic bottles consume an
additional 90,000 particles annually, compared to only 4,000 particles for
people who only drink tap water.
The researchers warn that their findings are likely to be drastic underestimates of the problem. Several major U.S. food groups – including poultry, beef, dairy, grains, and vegetables – have not been studied for their microplastic contamination. Thus, the estimate of microparticle ingestion is associated with only 15% of an average person’s caloric intake. Furthermore, there is no assessment currently available for how much plastic might be entering our bodies from food packaging.
The report’s findings suggest that microplastics will continue to be
found in the majority if not all items intended for human consumption. Realistically, the only way to reduce the
human consumption of microplastics will be to reduce the production and use of
plastics.
**********
Web Links
Americans Consume Tens of Thousands of Microplastic Particles Every Year
Photo, posted June 18, 2016, courtesy of Sirirat Kornsongkaew via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
July 26, 2019 Indoor Pollution
We mostly think of air pollution as an outdoor problem. The primary culprits are vehicle and factory exhaust as well as occasional wildfire smoke. What we don’t think about is the air quality inside our own homes.
Researchers at Washington State University have found that indoor pollution levels can be surprisingly high and that they vary throughout the day and increase as temperatures rise.
Indoor air pollution comes from a variety of sources, including
building materials, furniture, household chemical products, and from activities
like cooking. One of the most serious
pollutants is formaldehyde, which often is emitted from gypsum wallboard. About half of the gypsum used in homes as
drywall is made from waste products from the coal industry. When the material is heated, formaldehyde and
possibly even mercury can be emitted.
Pollutant levels rise in homes as temperatures increase. Thus, the highest levels of pollution occur
in the afternoon and the lowest are in the early morning. Before this research, manufacturers and
builders assumed that pollution levels were pretty much constant over time.
Building laws require that homes are structurally sound, and that
people are comfortable, but there is little regulation of air quality in
people’s homes. One of the best ways to
clear out harmful chemicals is with ventilation to the outdoors. But with increased concern about reducing
energy use, builders are making homes more airtight, which may inadvertently be
worsening the problem.
We need to balance making more energy efficient homes with protecting
our health by being aware of the dangers that lurk in the air in our
homes. Running the air conditioning or opening
windows are good things to do.
**********
Web Links
Researchers uncover indoor pollution hazards
Photo, posted October 14, 2010, courtesy of Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
July 25, 2019 Packing With Banana Leaves
More and more places are instituting bans on single-use plastic bags. Places like California and Hawaii already have bans in place and New Jersey is considering such a ban. New York’s law will go into effect next March. Supermarkets will no longer provide plastic bags at the checkout line. But the laws have some exceptions, including the plastic bags used to hold produce and to pack up meats.
Banning or reducing single-use plastic bags is a growing trend in Asia
as well including places like South Korea, Vietnam and Thailand.
One supermarket in Thailand came up with a novel approach to
eco-friendly packaging: wrapping produce
in banana leaves. The idea quickly
became a viral hit on social media and drew the attention of supermarkets in
Vietnam. Several big supermarket chains
in that country also began experimenting with banana leaves as a packaging
alternative.
Representatives of Vietnam’s Lotte Mart chain said that the banana
leaf packaging was still in the testing phase, but they plan to replace plastic
with leaves nationwide very soon. Aside
from wrapping vegetables and fruits, the grocery chain intends to also use the
leaves for fresh meat products.
Customers seem to be quite positive about the new packaging noting
that it is actually quite attractive visually.
The banana leaf packaging also makes people more aware of the need for
protecting the environment.
While Vietnam is a relatively small country, it turns out that it
ranks number four in the world for the largest amount of plastic waste dumped
into the ocean. The country disposes of
about 2,500 tons of plastic waste per day. So, efforts like the banana leaf
packaging are not just symbolically important, they are genuinely a major
environmental imperative.
**********
Web Links
Supermarkets in Asia are Now Using Banana Leaves Instead of Plastic Packaging
Photo courtesy of Perfect Homes Chiangmai via Facebook.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
July 24, 2019 The New York Climate Plan
New York lawmakers have passed a sweeping climate plan that requires the state to eliminate almost all of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The plan calls for the phase-out of gasoline cars and oil- and gas-burning furnaces and requires all of the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free sources.
The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act requires the state
to slash its carbon emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050 and to offset
the remaining 15% by other means such as removing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. The bill requires New York
to get 70% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
The challenges of reaching the program’s goals are daunting. New York has so far only reduced its
emissions by 8% since 1990. The state
currently does get 60% of its electricity from carbon-free sources – mostly
hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants – but it will require offshore
windfarms, ramped-up solar installations, and battery storage systems to push
the numbers dramatically higher.
Transportation, which is responsible for a third of New York’s
emissions, will be particularly tough to tackle. The Trump administration is rolling back
federal vehicle efficiency rules and is trying to prevent states from setting
stricter standards. Currently, electric
car ownership is primarily attractive for single-family homeowners who can plug
in their cars at home. Far more
pervasive charging stations – for example, all over the streets of New York
City – would be needed to make electric cars practical for everyone.
The plan aims for industries to bear most of the financial burden, but
supporters say that the costs of not acting on climate will be vastly greater
for businesses. The plan’s deadlines for
major emissions reductions are a decade away but there will be much to do quite
soon.
**********
Web Links
New York to Approve One of the World’s Most Ambitious Climate Plans
Photo, posted September 17, 2009, courtesy of Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
July 23, 2019 Desalination On The Rise
Desalination has been regarded for decades as a solution for providing fresh water to places where it is scarce. With drought becoming more common around the world – sometimes even in places where water supplies were thought to be ample – there is increasing pressure to bring new desalination plants online.
San Diego gets only 12 inches of rain a year and has no
groundwater. It gets half its water from
the distant Colorado River, and that source is becoming increasingly
unreliable. Thus, it is no surprise that
America’s largest desalination plant is in Carlsbad, about 30 miles north of
San Diego. That plant provides about 10%
of the fresh water needs of the region’s 3.1 million people.
There are 11 desalination plants in California, and 10 more are
proposed. Desalination is huge in Saudi Arabia, Australia and Israel. Globally, more than 300 million people get
their water from desalination.
But there are problems.
Desalination is expensive and energy-intensive. If the process is powered by fossil fuels, it
contributes to global warming. There are
ecological impacts as well since it takes two gallons of sea water to make a
gallon of fresh water, and the gallon left behind is extremely briny and
potentially harmful to dump back into the sea.
The intake systems of desalination plants are also harmful to fish and
other aquatic creatures.
The cost of desalination has dropped by more than half over the last 30 years but water from it still costs about twice as much as that from other main sources. The technology is getting better and cheaper, but the industry must confront and solve serious environmental and economic problems in order for desalination to be able to meet the needs of an increasingly thirsty world.
**********
Web Links
As Water Scarcity Increases, Desalination Plants Are on the Rise
Photo, posted January 12, 2011, courtesy of Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
July 22, 2019 Why Choose Chicken Over Beef?
Food production is a major driver of climate change. It’s responsible for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions. But the environmental impact of different foods varies greatly, and making seemingly insignificant changes can actually have significant impacts.
According to a first-ever national study of U.S. eating habits and their carbon footprints, choosing chicken over beef will cut your dietary carbon footprint in half.
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey asked more than
16,000 participating Americans to name all the foods they consumed in the past
24 hours. The research team then calculated the carbon footprint of what people
said they ate. If a respondent consumed
broiled beef steak, for example, researchers calculated what the carbon
footprint would have been had broiled chicken been consumed instead.
The study’s findings illustrate how making one simple substitution can
significantly reduce a person’s dietary carbon footprint. A diet’s carbon footprint is the amount of
greenhouse gas emissions that result from the energy, fertilizer, land use, and
other inputs necessary to produce food.
In general, animal-based foods have a bigger carbon footprint than
plant-based foods. For example,
producing beef uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as
growing beans (per gram of protein), and requires 10 times more resources than
producing chicken.
According to the World Resources Institute, keeping the increase in global warming below 2°C will be impossible without limiting the global rise in meat consumption.
Last year, the EAT-Lancet Commission report found that a radical transformation of the global food system was needed because it’s threatening the stability of the climate.
Make a change – big or small – today.
**********
Web Links
Choosing chicken over beef cuts our carbon footprints a surprising amount
Photo, posted August 30, 2011, courtesy of Ken Hawkins via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min

About Earth Wise

From the publisher's feed

From green business and new environmental legislation to how nature impacts our environment in ways never before considered, Earth Wise offers a look at our changing environment.