Connect with us

Science

There’s a Messaging Battle Right Now Over America’s Energy Future

Published

on

There’s a Messaging Battle Right Now Over America’s Energy Future

Local weather scientists, oil executives, progressives and conservatives all agree on one factor today: The vitality transition is upon us.

The uninhibited burning of fossil fuels for greater than a century has already warmed the planet considerably, and cleaner and extra sustainable sources of energy are urgently wanted with the intention to keep away from additional catastrophic adjustments to the atmosphere.

However whilst longtime adversaries use the identical terminology, calling in unison for an “vitality transition,” they’re usually speaking about starkly totally different situations.

In line with the scientific consensus, the vitality transition requires a fast phasing out of fossil fuels and the rapid scaling up of cleaner vitality sources like wind, photo voltaic and nuclear.

However many within the oil and fuel enterprise say the vitality transition merely means a continued use of fossil fuels, with a larger reliance on pure fuel slightly than coal, and a hope that new applied sciences reminiscent of carbon seize and sequestration can include or cut back the quantity of greenhouse gasses they produce.

Advertisement

“The time period vitality transition is interpreted a method by the local weather hawks, and in a very totally different means by these within the oil and fuel business,” stated Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Program on Local weather Change Communication. “It’s a very ambiguous time period. Like, what does that even imply?”

The phrase has turn into what is thought in linguistics circles as an “floating signifier,” Dr. Leiserowitz stated. He known as it “a clean time period you could fill with your personal most popular definition.”

Efforts to maneuver the world away from fossil fuels have been continuing in sluggish movement for years, as nations and companies advance scattershot efforts to cut back emissions. However the transformation is reaching an inflection level at the moment, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine prompting local weather advocates and the oil and fuel business to advance dueling narratives about what the vitality transition is and the way it needs to be carried out.

Local weather researchers level out that there’s little room for ambiguity. With growing urgency, a sequence of main scientific reviews has underlined the necessity to section out fossil fuels and the damaging results of planet warming emissions.

Final 12 months, a landmark report from the Worldwide Vitality Company stated nations all over the world would want to instantly cease approving new coal-fired energy crops and new oil and fuel fields and swiftly section out gasoline powered autos to keep away from the worst results of local weather change.

Advertisement

And final month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Local weather Change, a physique of specialists convened by the United Nations, stated the variety of folks struggling irreparable loss or dislocation due to excessive climate would soar with out a fast shift away from fossil fuels.

These in favor of a quick pivot to scrub vitality contend that the warfare in Ukraine, which has put a highlight on Europe’s heavy reliance on Russian oil and fuel, has solely pushed house the pressing have to transition away from fossil fuels.

“There’s a well-understood path that all of us have to observe right here,” stated Mark Brownstein, senior vp of vitality on the Environmental Protection Fund, a nonprofit group that advocates for swift motion to handle local weather change. “It’s a basic shift away from manufacturing and use of oil and fuel and towards renewable sources.”

Most of the people can also be broadly supportive of a decided transfer away from fossil fuels, with 69 p.c of People saying that creating sources of fresh vitality needs to be a excessive precedence for leaders in Washington, and the identical share supporting a transition of the U.S. economic system to one hundred pc clear vitality by 2050, in line with current polling by the Pew Analysis Heart. On the similar time, although, simply 31 p.c of these polled thought the USA ought to section out fossil fuels totally.

“Public assist for quickly accelerating the transition to scrub vitality is pushed largely by the view that burning fossil gasoline is dangerous for peoples’ well being and the planet’s well being, and that transitioning to scrub vitality will produce extra jobs and strengthen our economic system greater than continued reliance on fossil fuels,” Edward Maibach, director of the George Mason College’s Heart for Local weather Change Communication, stated in an electronic mail. “Public notion is nicely aligned with the views of well being specialists and economists on these factors.”

Advertisement

Oil and fuel executives, nevertheless, have a really totally different view of how the vitality transition ought to play out.

At CERAWeek, a serious vitality business convention in Houston final week, there have been greater than 100 panel discussions and shows concerning the “vitality transition,” and the time period was used to explain applications articulating a broad vary of visions from nearly eliminating using coal, fuel and oil, to utilizing all types of vitality, together with fossil fuels, for the foreseeable future, however capturing the emissions which are damaging the planet.

“All vitality sources might be wanted to assist a profitable transition,” Amin Nasser, chief government of Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil firm, stated on the convention. “Our business should play its half, too.”

Mr. Nasser lamented the dearth of a cohesive intergovernmental plan for an vitality transition and stated that politicians have been discouraging oil and fuel manufacturing with out allocating ample sources to develop renewable vitality sources that would rapidly exchange fossil fuels. Mr. Nasser didn’t point out that oil firms have lobbied to weaken and block laws that will deal with local weather change, reminiscent of President Biden’s Construct Again Higher invoice, which might dedicate $550 billion in tax incentives to scrub vitality.

“We don’t actually have a transition plan,” he stated. “We have now a chaotic transition plan.”

Advertisement

Fossil gasoline executives cited the warfare in Ukraine as proof that their business stays indispensable. Many main oil and fuel firms have pledged to ramp up manufacturing within the quick time period in an effort to stabilize world vitality markets, whilst they speak up their half within the vitality transition.

Darren Woods, the chief government of Exxon Mobil, stated in a speech that his firm was growing oil manufacturing whereas on the similar time utilizing its know-how to assist deal with the problem of “lowering greenhouse fuel emissions and supporting the transition to a web zero future.” Exxon is amongst a number of large oil and fuel firms to put money into efforts to seize and retailer carbon, and to provide vitality with hydrogen, which is derived from fossil fuels however produces fewer greenhouse fuel emissions.

And in an interview in Washington this week, Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Vitality Alliance, which represents oil and fuel firms, dismissed the concept the “vitality transition” meant a major drop in using fossil fuels. She famous that the Vitality Info Company final 12 months predicted that demand for oil and fuel will proceed to rise steadily by way of 2050.

“We will discuss this idealistic supposed future the place there’s no oil, pure fuel and coal,” Ms. Sgamma stated. “However that’s not the truth.”

She argued that whereas renewable vitality sources like wind and photo voltaic are getting cheaper, they’ve been tough to scale and are unreliable.

Advertisement

“So if we’re going to speak a couple of transition, let’s discover one thing that we will transition to, as a result of proper now we don’t have a know-how that may present all of our wants 24-7. Flat out we don’t,” she stated. “So simply realistically, we’re going to be right here by way of 2050 and a few years after.”

Critics of the oil and fuel business view their insistence on the enduring worth of fossil fuels as a stall tactic at finest, and misleading at worst.

“It is a cowl for ‘We don’t need an actual transition,’” stated David Victor, a local weather coverage knowledgeable on the College of California, San Diego.

Murky terminology additionally leaves the door open for greenwashing.

“Any firm, even an oil firm, can say, ‘Oh, we’re behind the vitality transition,’” Dr. Leiserowitz stated, pointing to examples reminiscent of Exxon’s advertising of its algae biofuels and BP’s try to rebrand itself “Past Petroleum.”

Advertisement

“That’s a intelligent means of tapping into this broader narrative of transitioning,” he stated.

But even when the time period means various things to totally different constituents, the truth that fierce adversaries share a typical language could possibly be a helpful improvement.

Teenie Matlock, a professor of cognitive science on the College of California Merced who had studied the semantics of local weather change, stated that having a shared set of phrases was an vital step in efforts to search out widespread trigger, even when not everybody agreed on the particulars immediately.

“With the phrase ‘transition’ and the best way it’s getting used, it opens the window for a number of stakeholders,” she stated. “It invitations everybody to participate in a dialogue.”

Dr. Leiserowitz agreed, including that the truth that the oil and fuel business was acknowledging the necessity for change in any respect was a serious breakthrough.

Advertisement

“The optimistic aspect is that it’s a versatile sufficient time period that it will get all people shifting in the identical course, and it can’t be underestimated how vital that’s,” he stated. “Simply utilizing the time period ‘vitality transition’ signifies that we’re going from the place we’re at the moment. So that you’ve already established the elemental course of progress, and that’s large.”

Semantics alone are unlikely to dictate the tempo at which fossil fuels are changed with cleaner vitality sources. Economics will decide simply how a lot the world “transitions” to scrub vitality and leaves fossil gasoline behind, stated John Podesta, a former senior counselor to President Barack Obama and founding father of the Heart for American Progress, a left-leaning suppose tank.

Will fossil gasoline crops that use know-how to seize and retailer harmful carbon dioxide emissions be aggressive with wind and photo voltaic together with battery storage? Will paying to fill the tank of a gas-powered automotive nonetheless be the only option when electrical automobile charging stations are extra plentiful?

“We’ll let {the marketplace} resolve that,” Mr. Podesta stated. “I’m going to make my wager on renewables plus storage, however you realize, different folks make totally different bets.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

How to protect yourself from the smoke caused by L.A. wildfires

Published

on

How to protect yourself from the smoke caused by L.A. wildfires

You don’t have to live close to a wildfire to be affected by its smoke. With severe winds fanning the fires in and around Pacific Palisades, the Pasadena foothills and Simi Valley, huge swaths of the Southland are contending with dangerous air quality.

Wildfire smoke can irritate your eyes, nose, throat and lungs. The soot may contain all kinds of dangerous pollutants, including some that may cause cancer. The tiniest particles in smoke can travel deep into your lungs or even enter your bloodstream.

Conditions like these aren’t good for anyone, but they’re particularly bad for people in vulnerable groups, including children, those with asthma or other respiratory conditions, people with heart disease and those who are pregnant.

Here’s what you should know to keep yourself safe.

Advertisement

Stay indoors

Minimize your exposure to unhealthy air by staying inside and keeping your doors and windows shut.

If you have a central heating and air conditioning system, you can keep your indoor air clean by turning it on and keeping it running. Make sure the fresh-air intake is closed so that you’re not drawing in outdoor air.

Keep your pets inside

They shouldn’t breathe the unhealthy air either.

Check your air filters

Clean filters work better than dirty ones, and high-efficiency filters work better than regular ones. The California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District recommend filters with a MERV rating of 13 or higher.

You might consider using portable high-efficiency air cleaner in a room where you spend the most time. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has information about them here, and CARB has a list of certified cleaning devices here.

Advertisement

Don’t pollute your indoor air

That means no burning candles or incense. If your power is out and you need to see in the dark, you’re much better off with a flashlight or headlamp.

If you’re cold, bundle up. This is not the time to start a cozy fire in the fireplace. Don’t use a gas stove or wood-fired appliances, since these will make your indoor air quality worse, not better, the AQMD says.

The CDC also advises against vacuuming, since it can stir up dust and release fine particles into the air.

Take care when cleaning up

You don’t want your skin to come into contact with wildfire ash. That means you should wear long sleeves, pants, gloves, socks and shoes. The AQMD even wants you to wear goggles.

If you’re sweeping up ash outdoors, get a hose and mist it with water first. That will keep it from flying up in the air as you move it around. Once the ash is wet, sweep it up gently with a broom or mop. Bag it up in a plastic bag and throw it away.

Advertisement

It’s a good idea to wash your vehicles and outdoor toys if they’re covered in ash. Try not to send ashy water into storm drains. Direct the dirty water into ground areas instead, the AQMD advises.

Those with lung or heart problems should avoid clean-up activities.

Discard spoiled food…

If you lost power for a significant length of time, the food in your refrigerator or freezer may be spoiled.

Food kept in a fridge should stay safe for up to four hours if you’ve kept the door closed. If you’ve been without power for longer than that, you’ll need to toss all perishable items, including meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk and cut fruits and vegetables. Anything with “an unusual smell, color, or texture” should be thrown out as well, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease and Control Prevention.

Refrigerated medicines should be OK unless the power was out for more than a day. Check the label to make sure.

Advertisement

…even if it was in the freezer

Your freezer may be in better shape, especially if it’s well-stocked. Items in a full freezer may be safe for up to 48 hours if it’s been kept shut, and a half-full freezer may be OK for up to 24 hours. (The frozen items help keep each other cold, so the more the better.)

If items have remained below 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) or you can still see ice crystals in them, they may be OK to use or refreeze, according to the federal government’s food safety website.

Ice cream and frozen yogurt should be thrown out if the power goes out for any amount of time. Meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, milk and most other dairy products need to go if they were exposed to temperatures above 40 degrees F for two hours or longer. The same goes for frozen meals, casseroles, soups, stews and cakes, pies and pastries with custard or cheese fillings.

Fruit and fruit juices that have started to thaw can be refrozen unless they’ve started to get moldy, slimy or smell like yeast. Vegetables and vegetable juices should be discarded if they’ve been above 40 degrees F for six hours or more, even if they look and smell fine.

Breakfast items like waffles and bagels can be refrozen, as can breads, rolls, muffins and other baked goods without custard fillings.

Advertisement

Consider alternative shelter

If you’ve done everything you can but your eyes are still watering, you can’t stop coughing, or you just don’t feel well, seek alternative shelter where the air quality is better.

Hold off on vigorous exercise

Doing anything that would cause you to breathe in more deeply is a bad idea right now.

Mask up outdoors

If you need to be outside for an extended time, be sure to wear a high-quality mask. A surgical mask or cloth mask won’t cut it — health authorities agree that you should reach for an N95 or P-100 respirator with a tight seal.

Are young children at greater risk of wildfire smoke?

Very young children are especially vulnerable to the effects of wildfire smoke because their lungs are still rapidly developing. And because they breathe much faster than adults, they are taking in more toxic particulate matter relative to their tiny bodies, which can trigger inflammation, coughing and wheezing.

Any kind of air pollution can be dangerous to young children, but wildfire smoke is about 10 times as toxic for children compared to air pollution from burning fossil fuels, said Dr. Lisa Patel, clinical associate professor of pediatrics at Stanford Children’s Health. Young children with preexisting respiratory problems like asthma are at even greater risk.

Advertisement

Patel advises parents to keep their young children indoors as much as possible, create a safe room in their home with an air purifier, and try to avoid using gas stoves to avoid polluting the indoor air.

Children over the age of 2 should also wear a well-fitting KN95 mask if they will be outdoors for a long period of time. Infants and toddlers younger than that don’t need to mask up because it can be a suffocation risk, Patel said.

What are the risks for pregnant people?

Pregnant people should also take extra precautions around wildfire smoke, which can cross the placenta and affect a developing fetus. Studies have found that exposure to wildfire smoke during pregnancy can increase the risk of premature birth and low birth weight. Researchers have also linked the toxic chemicals in smoke with maternal health complications including hypertension and preeclampsia.

What about other high-risk populations?

Certain chronic diseases including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other respiratory conditions can also make you particularly vulnerable to wildfire smoke. People with heart disease, diabetes and chronic kidney disease should take extra care to breathe clean air, the CDC says. The tiny particles in wildfire smoke can aggravate existing health problems, and may make heart attacks or strokes more likely, CARB warns.

Get ready for the next emergency

Living in Southern California means another wildfire is coming sooner or later. To prepare for the bad air, you can:

Advertisement
  • Stock up on disposable respirators, like N95 or P-100s.
  • Have clean filters ready for your A/C system and change them out when things get smoky.
  • Know how to check the air quality where you live and work. The AQMD has an interactive map that’s updated hourly. Just type in an address and it will zoom in on the location. You can also sign up to get air quality alerts by email or on your smartphone.
  • Know where your fire extinguisher is and keep it handy.
  • If you have a heart or lung condition, keep at least five days’ worth of medication on hand.

Times staff writer Karen Garcia contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Science

Punk and Emo Fossils Are a Hot Topic in Paleontology

Published

on

Punk and Emo Fossils Are a Hot Topic in Paleontology

Mark Sutton, an Imperial College London paleontologist, is not a punk.

“I’m more of a folk and country person,” he said.

But when Dr. Sutton pieced together 3-D renderings of a tiny fossil mollusk, he was struck by the spikes that covered its wormlike body. “This is like a classic punk hairstyle, the way it’s sticking up,” he thought. He called the fossil “Punk.” Then he found a similar fossil with downward-tipped spines reminiscent of long, side-swept “emo” bangs. He nicknamed that specimen after the emotional alt-rock genre.

On Wednesday, Dr. Sutton and his colleagues published a paper in the journal Nature formally naming the creatures as the species Punk ferox and Emo vorticaudum. True to their names, these worm-mollusks are behind something of an upset (if not quite “anarchy in the U.K.”) over scientists’ understanding of the origins of one of the biggest groups of animals on Earth.

In terms of sheer number of species, mollusks are second only to arthropods (the group that contains insects, spiders and crustaceans). The better-known half of the mollusk family tree, conchiferans, contains animals like snails, clams and octopuses. “The other half is this weird and wacky group of spiny things,” Dr. Sutton said. Some animals in this branch, the aculiferans, resemble armored marine slugs, while others are “obscure, weird molluscan worms,” he said.

Advertisement

Punk and Emo, the forerunners of today’s worm-mollusks, lived on the dark seafloor amid gardens of sponges, nearly 200 million years before the first dinosaurs emerged on land. Today, their ancient seafloor is a fossil site at the border between England and Wales.

The site is littered with rounded rocky nodules that “look a bit like potatoes,” Dr. Sutton said. “And then you crack them open, and some of them have got these fossils inside. But the thing is, they don’t really look like much at first.”

While the nodules can preserve an entire animal’s body in 3-D, the cross-section that becomes visible when a nodule is cracked open can be difficult to interpret “because you’re not seeing the full anatomy,” Dr. Sutton said.

Paleontologists can use CT scans to see parts of fossils still hidden in rock, essentially taking thousands of X-rays of the fossil and then stitching those X-ray slices together into one digital 3-D image. But in these nodules, the fossilized creatures and the rock surrounding them are too similar in density to be easily differentiated by X-rays. Instead, Dr. Sutton essentially recreated this process of slicing and imaging by hand.

“We grind away a slice at a time, take a photo, repeat at 20-micron intervals or so, and basically destroy but digitize the fossil as we go,” Dr. Sutton said. At the end of the process, the original fossil nodule is “a sad-looking pile of dust,” but the thousands of images, when painstakingly digitally combined, provide a remarkable picture of the fossil animal.

Advertisement

Punk and Emo’s Hot Topic-worthy spikes set them apart from other fossils from the aculiferan branch of the mollusk family. “We don’t know much about aculiferans, and it’s unusual to find out we’ve suddenly got two,” Dr. Sutton said.

Stewart Edie, the curator of fossil bivalves at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, said that Punk and Emo’s bizarre appearances shook up a long-held understanding of how mollusks evolved. Traditionally, scientists thought that the group of mollusks containing snails, clams and cephalopods “saw all of the evolutionary action,” said Dr. Edie, who was not involved with the new discovery. “And the other major group, the aculiferans, were considerably less adventurous.” But Punk and Emo “buck that trend,” he said.

The new alt-rock aculiferans reveal the hidden diversity of their group in the distant past and raise questions about why their descendants make up such a small part of the mollusk class today. “This is really giving us an almost unprecedented window into the sorts of things that were actually around when mollusks were getting going,” Dr. Sutton said. “It’s just this little weird, unexpected, really clear view of what was going on in the early history of one of the most important groups of animals.”

Continue Reading

Science

FDA sets limits for lead in many baby foods as California disclosure law takes effect

Published

on

FDA sets limits for lead in many baby foods as California disclosure law takes effect

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week set maximum levels for lead in baby foods such as jarred fruits and vegetables, yogurts and dry cereal, part of an effort to cut young kids’ exposure to the toxic metal that causes developmental and neurological problems.

The agency issued final guidance that it estimated could reduce lead exposure from processed baby foods by about 20% to 30%. The limits are voluntary, not mandatory, for food manufacturers, but they allow the FDA to take enforcement action if foods exceed the levels.

It’s part of the FDA’s ongoing effort to “reduce dietary exposure to contaminants, including lead, in foods to as low as possible over time, while maintaining access to nutritious foods,” the agency said in a statement.

Consumer advocates, who have long sought limits on lead in children’s foods, welcomed the guidance first proposed two years ago, but said it didn’t go far enough.

“FDA’s actions today are a step forward and will help protect children,” said Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “However, the agency took too long to act and ignored important public input that could have strengthened these standards.”

Advertisement

The new limits on lead for children younger than 2 don’t cover grain-based snacks such as puffs and teething biscuits, which some research has shown contain higher levels of lead. And they don’t limit other metals such as cadmium that have been detected in baby foods.

The FDA’s announcement comes just one week after a new California law took effect that requires baby food makers selling products in California to provide a QR code on their packaging to take consumers to monthly test results for the presence in their product of four heavy metals: lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium.

The change, required under a law passed by the California Legislature in 2023, will affect consumers nationwide. Because companies are unlikely to create separate packaging for the California market, QR codes are likely to appear on products sold across the country, and consumers everywhere will be able to view the heavy metal concentrations.

Although companies are required to start printing new packaging and publishing test results of products manufactured beginning in January, it may take time for the products to hit grocery shelves.

The law was inspired by a 2021 congressional investigation that found dangerously high levels of heavy metals in packaged foods marketed for babies and toddlers. Baby foods and their ingredients had up to 91 times the arsenic level, up to 177 times the lead level, up to 69 times the cadmium level, and up to five times the mercury level that the U.S. allows to be present in bottled or drinking water, the investigation found.

Advertisement

There’s no safe level of lead exposure for children, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The metal causes “well-documented health effects,” including brain and nervous system damage and slowed growth and development. However, lead occurs naturally in some foods and comes from pollutants in air, water and soil, which can make it impossible to eliminate entirely.

The FDA guidance sets a lead limit of 10 parts per billion for fruits, most vegetables, grain and meat mixtures, yogurts, custards and puddings and single-ingredient meats. It sets a limit of 20 parts per billion for single-ingredient root vegetables and for dry infant cereals. The guidance covers packaged processed foods sold in jars, pouches, tubs or boxes.

Jaclyn Bowen, executive director of the Clean Label Project, an organization that certifies baby foods as having low levels of toxic substances, said consumers can use the new FDA guidance in tandem with the new California law: The FDA, she said, has provided parents a “hard and fast number” to consider a benchmark when looking at the new monthly test results.

But Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports, called the FDA limits “virtually meaningless because they’re based more on industry feasibility and not on what would best protect public health.” A product with a lead level of 10 parts per billion is “still too high for baby food. What we’ve heard from a lot of these manufacturers is they are testing well below that number.”

The new FDA guidance comes more than a year after lead-tainted pouches of apple cinnamon puree sickened more than 560 children in the U.S. between October 2023 and April 2024, according to the CDC.

Advertisement

The levels of lead detected in those products were more than 2,000 times higher than the FDA’s maximum. Officials stressed that the agency doesn’t need guidance to take action on foods that violate the law.

Aleccia writes for the Associated Press. Gold reports for The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Continue Reading

Trending