Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Cutbacks to U.S. Antarctic Science Risk Geopolitical Shifts at the South Pole

News Feed
Wednesday, September 4, 2024

Antarctica may be remote, but it hasn’t escaped the scans of Google Street View. If you digitally drop into McMurdo Station, the U.S.’s busiest Antarctic installation, and slide along the volcanic rock of Ross Island, you’ll find muddy, tire-tracked roads. Along their edges are cargo containers marked “USAP,” the U.S. Antarctic Program, run by the National Science Foundation (NSF); you may also see Ivan the Terra Bus, a substantial people mover with burly tires that are nearly six feet tall.But McMurdo—normally a humming hub of research—has gotten quieter. Amid budget concerns and delayed upgrades to the station’s aging infrastructure, the NSF has pulled back on the number of scientific projects and associated people it sends to the globe’s deepest south.As the U.S. presence has decreased, though, other countries have been pouring more resources into the Antarctic. And although it’s not a contest, some experts are sounding alarms about that disparity. Security researchers say that “presence equals influence” in Antarctica, and they’re worried that the U.S. may slip in both categories while setting its scientific work back. Adrop inU.S. influence could affect geopolitics in the region and potentially endanger the safeguards ensuring the peaceful use of the Antarctic.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Antarctica, as a continent and an idea, isn’t just some icy backwater: it’s an important place environmentally, scientifically and politically. “People just think of Antarctica as really far away and that it doesn’t have any impact on them,” says Deneb Karentz, vice president for science at the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). The Southern Ocean’s circulation redistributes heat globally, and deep ocean currents also carry nutrients toward the equator. “It’s a really vital part of the whole ocean system and the way that the ocean interacts with the atmosphere,” Karentz says.Antarctica is also a prime place for space research. With its stable atmosphere and lack of electromagnetic interference from civilization, astronomers and physicists can seek faint signals from long-ago, faraway, mysterious parts of the universe—signals that may be hidden from instruments on busier continents. People come from all over the world to study the ice itself, which contains 90 percent of the world’s surface fresh water. And then there’s the geology, the sea life, the extremophiles and the changing climate.Karentz’s organization, SCAR, helps countries share scientific results of all sorts and collaborate on projects. In August the organization will bring the global community together in Chile for the SCAR Open Science Conference—the first in-person meeting since 2018. Carolina Merino, a biologist at the University of La Frontera in Chile, plans to be at the meeting. She’s a member of SCAR and studies how microbes survive Antarctica’s harsh conditions. “Understanding these processes can have significant implications for climate change science and environmental conservation,” she says. At the SCAR meeting, she’s hoping to bolster international collaboration on research.In addition, the group serves as science adviser to the Antarctic Treaty system—a treaty and related documents that govern existence on the continent. SCAR shares expertise about topics such as which areas should be protected or what’s going on with climate change lately.The Antarctic Treaty isn’t complicated. “There are two things in the treaty,” Karentz says: one, Antarctica is to be used only for science, and two, “it has to be peaceful,” she says. Militaries are allowed to provide logistical support; the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security do so for the U.S. The treaty also has an Environmental Protection Protocol that lays out conservation measures and environmental management policies.The treaty was originally signed in 1959 and entered force in 1961, with the conflicted superpowers of the U.S. and the Soviet Union both coming onboard. “They agreed at that time that expanding the cold war into the coldest continent was not a useful activity,” says William Muntean, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.Even with that enforced peace, though, Antarctica is geopolitically important: it contains, for instance, resources such as fisheries, minerals and natural gas that, because of the treaty, no one can exploit. It’s also geopolitically strange. “It’s not divvied up into countries or ownership in the way the rest of the world is,” says Muntean, who served as senior adviser for Antarctica at the U.S. Department of State and, in that role, led the nation’s delegation to Antarctic Treaty meetings. Before the treaty, seven countries had already made claims on the continent, but when they signed the agreement, they barred themselves from legally acting on those claims.That’s a sovereignty situation unlike any other on Earth—and one that many researchers don’t think about when they’re preparing neutrino detectors and ice corers for the South Pole. Few people in the United States focus on the politics of Antarctica, Muntean says. “You could find a lot of scientists who can talk about penguins and ice cubes and all that sort of stuff, but very few talk about the politics of it,” he adds.The science that they do, however, is twined with the politics. Research projects—and infrastructure such as McMurdo or the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station—exist not just for the sake of knowledge gathering but also for the sake of influence. “If you want to be influential in any capacity—be it diplomatically, economically, militarily, doesn’t matter—you need to be present in a region,” says Ryan Burke, a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the University of Alaska Fairbanks’s Center for Arctic Security and Resilience. That’s especially true in a place where military flexes, traditional ways for nations to establish both presence and influence, are prohibited. Muntean cites China and South Korea as countries that are increasing their Antarctic footprint and therefore their own influence.Burke and Muntean are both concerned that the U.S., meanwhile, has decreased its presence in Antarctica. In 2023 NSF announced that it was canceling more than half of the USAP projects and activities that had been funded for the 2023–2024 research season. In the two summers to follow, the announcement said, the agency would focus on already-funded projects. It did not solicit any new USAP proposals in 2024.Those changes came in part because McMurdo Station needed to be modernized for the 21st century and is in the midst of upgrades.The initial renovation was interrupted by the COVID pandemic, as were Antarctic trips in general. The disease and its disruptions delayed the work—a new dorm, for instance, is off schedule by three years—meaning there aren’t enough beds available for the typical number of scientists who would visit. Plus, as grocery stores on the mainland show, costs of all sorts have increased, meaning a given amount of money results in less renovation.Not taking new proposals in 2024 “allows NSF to focus resources on reducing the lingering backlog of projects affected by the pandemic and major upgrade work at McMurdo Station,” an NSF spokesperson says.The science agency also stated last year that it would only operate one research ship in the coming decades, rather than the two it has in the past, partially because of budgetary concerns. The Coast Guard, meanwhile, is experiencing problems with its Polar Security Cutter program, and acquisitions of new ships are delayed.All of that together, despite the logistical and financial constraints that make it seemingly necessary, has the effect of decreasing American presence in Antarctica and backing up the scientific pipeline. “It is an issue,” Karentz says, “and I think there’s legitimate concern about what it's doing to the future of the U.S. Antarctic Program.”Muntean worries about early-career researchers, whose research path might be more affected by delays due to the Antarctic slowdown and who could also face more competition because of the backup. “Right now it’s a little bit tough, I think, to say South Pole or Antarctic research has got a bright future,” he says.In Muntean’s view, U.S. planners aren’t thinking enough about pipelines in general, such as replacement plans for aging ships and planes that can move in that harsh environment. As with the on-land infrastructure, if you wait until vehicles face obsolescence, you often face a gap in capability. “The icebreaker that is currently operational—Polar Star—is almost as old as I am,” Muntean says, describing the ship that creates a channel through the ice to clear the way to McMurdo Sound. “This is not good for us.”An NSF spokesperson points to President Biden’s May 2024 National Security Memorandum on U.S. Policy on the Antarctic Region, “which reaffirms the importance of the Antarctic Treaty System ... [and] reiterates the long-standing mandate to maintain an ‘active and influential presence.’”But if the U.S. loses influence in Antarctica, there could be negative consequences for the dynamics of the region. “We have a nice, neutral, calming effect, usually, on the politics of Antarctica,” Muntean says.Burke agrees. “The U.S. is largely interested in maintaining the continent as a zone of peace and research,” he says—upholding the original tenets of the treaty, in other words.The current American pullback has led some to worry that, as Muntean put it in a recent commentary, other countries may be more likely to “pursue their individual interests rather than their collective interest.”The collective interest involves those “peace and science” ideals in the treaty, and individual interests perhaps include putting dual-use capabilities at Antarctic installations—instrumentation that’s useful both to scientists and to the military—or looking into using resources that have been set aside for conservation.Worries about countries pursuing individual interests are why treaties have enforcement mechanisms. The Antarctic Treaty has two. Countries can do unannounced inspections of other nations’ stations. “Countries show up and check out what’s happening to see whether countries are doing what they’re saying they’re doing,” Muntean says. Every state present in Antarctica also has to document their planned activities, equipment and in-person presence.A U.S. team slid in just before the pandemic in 2020 to perform recent inspections. It was led by Muntean, and members included officials from the Department of State, the Coast Guard, NSF and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “We were welcomed with open arms by all stations,” Muntean says.Over the entire lifetime of the treaty, however, only around 60 inspections have occurred—not exactly enough to keep a sharp eye on the goings-on. And in 2023 just 10 of 29 parties had done their required documentation every year for the past decade.Given all those fuzzy variables, Muntean believes that scientists who study the Antarctic shouldn’t just pay attention to their own projects and care about their own results. They also need to be part of the policy and the politics, especially if they want to ensure they get to continue to do their science at the levels they have in the past. “The U.S. needs to be thinking about how to make the platforms, and maintain the platforms, for decades to come in a manner that keeps us in the forefront of science [and] environmental protection,” Muntean says, “as well as the politics.”

Reductions to American research at the South Pole could affect the politics of the southernmost continent

Antarctica may be remote, but it hasn’t escaped the scans of Google Street View. If you digitally drop into McMurdo Station, the U.S.’s busiest Antarctic installation, and slide along the volcanic rock of Ross Island, you’ll find muddy, tire-tracked roads. Along their edges are cargo containers marked “USAP,” the U.S. Antarctic Program, run by the National Science Foundation (NSF); you may also see Ivan the Terra Bus, a substantial people mover with burly tires that are nearly six feet tall.

But McMurdo—normally a humming hub of research—has gotten quieter. Amid budget concerns and delayed upgrades to the station’s aging infrastructure, the NSF has pulled back on the number of scientific projects and associated people it sends to the globe’s deepest south.

As the U.S. presence has decreased, though, other countries have been pouring more resources into the Antarctic. And although it’s not a contest, some experts are sounding alarms about that disparity. Security researchers say that “presence equals influence” in Antarctica, and they’re worried that the U.S. may slip in both categories while setting its scientific work back. Adrop inU.S. influence could affect geopolitics in the region and potentially endanger the safeguards ensuring the peaceful use of the Antarctic.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Antarctica, as a continent and an idea, isn’t just some icy backwater: it’s an important place environmentally, scientifically and politically. “People just think of Antarctica as really far away and that it doesn’t have any impact on them,” says Deneb Karentz, vice president for science at the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). The Southern Ocean’s circulation redistributes heat globally, and deep ocean currents also carry nutrients toward the equator. “It’s a really vital part of the whole ocean system and the way that the ocean interacts with the atmosphere,” Karentz says.

Antarctica is also a prime place for space research. With its stable atmosphere and lack of electromagnetic interference from civilization, astronomers and physicists can seek faint signals from long-ago, faraway, mysterious parts of the universe—signals that may be hidden from instruments on busier continents. People come from all over the world to study the ice itself, which contains 90 percent of the world’s surface fresh water. And then there’s the geology, the sea life, the extremophiles and the changing climate.

Karentz’s organization, SCAR, helps countries share scientific results of all sorts and collaborate on projects. In August the organization will bring the global community together in Chile for the SCAR Open Science Conference—the first in-person meeting since 2018. Carolina Merino, a biologist at the University of La Frontera in Chile, plans to be at the meeting. She’s a member of SCAR and studies how microbes survive Antarctica’s harsh conditions. “Understanding these processes can have significant implications for climate change science and environmental conservation,” she says. At the SCAR meeting, she’s hoping to bolster international collaboration on research.

In addition, the group serves as science adviser to the Antarctic Treaty system—a treaty and related documents that govern existence on the continent. SCAR shares expertise about topics such as which areas should be protected or what’s going on with climate change lately.

The Antarctic Treaty isn’t complicated. “There are two things in the treaty,” Karentz says: one, Antarctica is to be used only for science, and two, “it has to be peaceful,” she says. Militaries are allowed to provide logistical support; the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security do so for the U.S. The treaty also has an Environmental Protection Protocol that lays out conservation measures and environmental management policies.

The treaty was originally signed in 1959 and entered force in 1961, with the conflicted superpowers of the U.S. and the Soviet Union both coming onboard. “They agreed at that time that expanding the cold war into the coldest continent was not a useful activity,” says William Muntean, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Even with that enforced peace, though, Antarctica is geopolitically important: it contains, for instance, resources such as fisheries, minerals and natural gas that, because of the treaty, no one can exploit. It’s also geopolitically strange. “It’s not divvied up into countries or ownership in the way the rest of the world is,” says Muntean, who served as senior adviser for Antarctica at the U.S. Department of State and, in that role, led the nation’s delegation to Antarctic Treaty meetings. Before the treaty, seven countries had already made claims on the continent, but when they signed the agreement, they barred themselves from legally acting on those claims.

That’s a sovereignty situation unlike any other on Earth—and one that many researchers don’t think about when they’re preparing neutrino detectors and ice corers for the South Pole. Few people in the United States focus on the politics of Antarctica, Muntean says. “You could find a lot of scientists who can talk about penguins and ice cubes and all that sort of stuff, but very few talk about the politics of it,” he adds.

The science that they do, however, is twined with the politics. Research projects—and infrastructure such as McMurdo or the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station—exist not just for the sake of knowledge gathering but also for the sake of influence. “If you want to be influential in any capacity—be it diplomatically, economically, militarily, doesn’t matter—you need to be present in a region,” says Ryan Burke, a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the University of Alaska Fairbanks’s Center for Arctic Security and Resilience. That’s especially true in a place where military flexes, traditional ways for nations to establish both presence and influence, are prohibited. Muntean cites China and South Korea as countries that are increasing their Antarctic footprint and therefore their own influence.

Burke and Muntean are both concerned that the U.S., meanwhile, has decreased its presence in Antarctica. In 2023 NSF announced that it was canceling more than half of the USAP projects and activities that had been funded for the 2023–2024 research season. In the two summers to follow, the announcement said, the agency would focus on already-funded projects. It did not solicit any new USAP proposals in 2024.

Those changes came in part because McMurdo Station needed to be modernized for the 21st century and is in the midst of upgrades.

The initial renovation was interrupted by the COVID pandemic, as were Antarctic trips in general. The disease and its disruptions delayed the work—a new dorm, for instance, is off schedule by three years—meaning there aren’t enough beds available for the typical number of scientists who would visit. Plus, as grocery stores on the mainland show, costs of all sorts have increased, meaning a given amount of money results in less renovation.

Not taking new proposals in 2024 “allows NSF to focus resources on reducing the lingering backlog of projects affected by the pandemic and major upgrade work at McMurdo Station,” an NSF spokesperson says.

The science agency also stated last year that it would only operate one research ship in the coming decades, rather than the two it has in the past, partially because of budgetary concerns. The Coast Guard, meanwhile, is experiencing problems with its Polar Security Cutter program, and acquisitions of new ships are delayed.

All of that together, despite the logistical and financial constraints that make it seemingly necessary, has the effect of decreasing American presence in Antarctica and backing up the scientific pipeline. “It is an issue,” Karentz says, “and I think there’s legitimate concern about what it's doing to the future of the U.S. Antarctic Program.”

Muntean worries about early-career researchers, whose research path might be more affected by delays due to the Antarctic slowdown and who could also face more competition because of the backup. “Right now it’s a little bit tough, I think, to say South Pole or Antarctic research has got a bright future,” he says.

In Muntean’s view, U.S. planners aren’t thinking enough about pipelines in general, such as replacement plans for aging ships and planes that can move in that harsh environment. As with the on-land infrastructure, if you wait until vehicles face obsolescence, you often face a gap in capability. “The icebreaker that is currently operational—Polar Star—is almost as old as I am,” Muntean says, describing the ship that creates a channel through the ice to clear the way to McMurdo Sound. “This is not good for us.”

An NSF spokesperson points to President Biden’s May 2024 National Security Memorandum on U.S. Policy on the Antarctic Region, “which reaffirms the importance of the Antarctic Treaty System ... [and] reiterates the long-standing mandate to maintain an ‘active and influential presence.’”

But if the U.S. loses influence in Antarctica, there could be negative consequences for the dynamics of the region. “We have a nice, neutral, calming effect, usually, on the politics of Antarctica,” Muntean says.

Burke agrees. “The U.S. is largely interested in maintaining the continent as a zone of peace and research,” he says—upholding the original tenets of the treaty, in other words.

The current American pullback has led some to worry that, as Muntean put it in a recent commentary, other countries may be more likely to “pursue their individual interests rather than their collective interest.”

The collective interest involves those “peace and science” ideals in the treaty, and individual interests perhaps include putting dual-use capabilities at Antarctic installations—instrumentation that’s useful both to scientists and to the military—or looking into using resources that have been set aside for conservation.

Worries about countries pursuing individual interests are why treaties have enforcement mechanisms. The Antarctic Treaty has two. Countries can do unannounced inspections of other nations’ stations. “Countries show up and check out what’s happening to see whether countries are doing what they’re saying they’re doing,” Muntean says. Every state present in Antarctica also has to document their planned activities, equipment and in-person presence.

A U.S. team slid in just before the pandemic in 2020 to perform recent inspections. It was led by Muntean, and members included officials from the Department of State, the Coast Guard, NSF and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “We were welcomed with open arms by all stations,” Muntean says.

Over the entire lifetime of the treaty, however, only around 60 inspections have occurred—not exactly enough to keep a sharp eye on the goings-on. And in 2023 just 10 of 29 parties had done their required documentation every year for the past decade.

Given all those fuzzy variables, Muntean believes that scientists who study the Antarctic shouldn’t just pay attention to their own projects and care about their own results. They also need to be part of the policy and the politics, especially if they want to ensure they get to continue to do their science at the levels they have in the past. “The U.S. needs to be thinking about how to make the platforms, and maintain the platforms, for decades to come in a manner that keeps us in the forefront of science [and] environmental protection,” Muntean says, “as well as the politics.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Here's What a SpaceX Starship Rocket Launch Sounds Like, According to New, Detailed Data

Just six miles away from the mega-rocket's fifth test flight, the noise level was equivalent to a rock concert, researchers found

The BYU research team at Boca Chica Beach, Texas. Logan Mathews On October 13th, SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft and its reusable booster Super Heavy launched from Boca Chica, Texas. In a world first, Super Heavy returned to the launch tower after separating from Starship and was caught by a pair of chopstick-like arms in a daring maneuver. That was Starship’s fifth test flight—and during the launch, researchers from Brigham Young University (BYU) were there to measure the event’s noise from start to finish. The results of their study were published in JASA Express Letters last week. “It was the loudest thing I’ve ever heard, for sure. You can feel the sound whipping over your body; it feels like it’s almost pushing you back sometimes,” study co-author Noah Pulsipher, a student in BYU’s Physics and Aerospace Student-Centered Acoustics Laboratory, says in a statement. “And then, all around me, car alarms are going off and dogs barking—things like that. It’s a powerful experience.” The study presents the most comprehensive sonic data on Starship ever released to the public, per the New York Times’ Eric Lipton. The team recorded measurements at eight locations, all within 6 to 22 miles of the launch site, including a hotel roof and national wildlife refuges. Starship is currently the world’s most powerful rocket, and its sound levels show it. One launch of this behemoth produces as much noise as at least ten of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launches, per the statement. From just over six miles away, the noise was equivalent to a rock concert. At 12.4 miles, it was similar to a table saw or snow blower. Even at 18.6 to 21.7 miles away, it was still as loud as a vacuum cleaner. But the liftoff, when all 33 of Super Heavy’s engines fired, wasn’t even the loudest moment—sound peaked about 6.5 minutes after launch, when the booster returned to its launch tower and caused a sonic boom. The peak level of noise, measured at roughly six miles away, was as loud as a gunshot at close range, per the New York Times. The communities of South Padre Island and Port Isabel, which are around six miles from Starship’s launch site, are particularly impacted by the noise. A separate study conducted by Terracon Consultants analyzed the impact of sound waves on Port Isabel homes within five miles from Starship’s launch site from July to mid-October, per KRGV’s Christian von Preysing. The study shows that during that time, air pressure increased during the launches, and the sound pressure peaked at 144 decibels, though it specifies that the readings exceeded the sound meter’s limit. For comparison, windows can break at 150 decibels, and they begin rattling at 120 decibels, per KRGV. “What it shows is that, number one, that the impacts are real, that they are being felt by these structures,” Port Isabel City Manager Jared Hockema tells KRGV. He adds to the New York Times that some residents reported minor damage to their homes after Starship launches. BYU researchers set up acoustic instruments around the launch site to analyze sound levels from the rocket. Logan Mathews There are currently no regulations on rocket noise levels, per the statement, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and SpaceX did not respond to the New York Times’ requests for comment. The results of the BYU study “show that some sound metrics agree with those presented in the FAA’s most recent Environmental Assessment (EA) from 2024, while some predictions made by the EA are off,” writes Haygen Warren in a post for NASASpaceflight.com, which is not affiliated with NASA. Nevertheless, the researchers stress the importance of understanding how the launch noise impacts surrounding communities and environment, especially in light of SpaceX’s plans to increase its Starship launches to 100 per year. But the BYU team isn’t finished yet—they were also on site this week, analyzing acoustic data from Starship’s launch on Tuesday. During that test—the rocket’s sixth flight—Starship fired an engine in space in a key step forward and splashed down in the Indian Ocean. SpaceX chose to abort an attempt to catch the Super Heavy booster, however, which it had achieved last month on the first try. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Science

The best space heaters in 2024

Get the best space heaters to keep you warm in any room of your home! Don't go another moment without these portable, personal heaters. The post The best space heaters in 2024 appeared first on Popular Science.

If you’re tired of stockpiling blankets, extra socks, and heated slippers to keep you warm, it might be time to consider getting a space heater. These powerful appliances are a great way to get cozy without installing a complicated heating system or commandeering the thermostat. If your radiator just isn’t cutting it or someone insists on keeping a window open to freshen the room up, a space heater could be the perfect solution. These hot machines are designed specifically to warm up spaces of all sizes and should be portable, effective, and fast-acting. Our best overall pick, the Lasko 5586 Electric 1500W Ceramic Space Heater Tower, ticks all these boxes. Buying a space heater is a worthwhile investment, but you want to look at all the information available about each product to determine which will be right for you and your space. To get you started, we’ve created this brief guide to help you learn more about these lean, mean, cold-fighting machines. Get ready to cozy up with your favorite books without reaching for your hat and gloves with the best space heaters. Best overall: Lasko 5586 Electric 1500W Ceramic Space Heater Tower Best portable: Dreo Atom One Best for large rooms: Dr. Infrared Portable Space Heater Best energy saving: De’Longhi Oil-Filled Radiator Space Heater Best electric: Dyson Pure Hot + Cool HP07 Best wall heater: Dreo Smart Wall Heater Best value: Lasko 1500W Ceramic Tower Space Heater How we chose the best space heaters To select the best space heaters that will stave off even the worst winter chills and frigid breezes, we compared over 50 products—looking at reviews, wattage, heat type, bonus features, and brands. From high-tech options like the Dyson Pure Hot + Cool to an energy-efficient oil-filled radiator, these space heaters can suit a variety of needs and spaces. Whether you have a massive room that needs high-wattage heating or are trying to warm up your apartment on a budget, we compared reviews and specs to choose only reliable and quality heaters. The best space heaters: Reviews & Recommendations The best space heaters can help you stay warm while you wait for your landlord to turn the radiators on. If you’re always cold, they provide an extra layer of warmth and comfort to your office, living room, bedroom, or garage. We’ve narrowed down some of the cozy space heaters on the market—at least one should melt your winter blues. Best overall: Lasko 5586 Electric 1500W Ceramic Space Heater Tower Lasko Why it made the cut: If you’re looking for a high-quality space heater on a budget, look no further than this tower heater from Lasko. Specs Watts: 1500 watts Dimensions: 10.5 x 8.8 x 29.5 inches Heating type: Convection Pros Easy to use Degree increments Remote control Cons Noisy compared to other heaters Space heaters can get pricey. Get something that’s budget-friendly—and high-quality—with this Lasko 5586 Electric 1500W Ceramic Space Heater Tower. Like more expensive options, this one is 1500W with low, high, and thermostat-controlled settings. Built-in safety precautions include cool-touch housing and overheat protection. Plus, an auto-off timer gives you peace of mind if you forget to turn this appliance off. It includes an easy-to-read selection pad, carry handle, and six-foot cord for easy transport from room to room. Even better, it comes with a remote control so you can turn up the heat without leaving your spot on the couch. Best portable: Dreo Atom One Why it made the cut: The lightweight design with a built-in handle makes it easy to move this space heater from room to room as needed.  Specs Watts: 900-1500 watts Dimensions: 6.7 x 5.5 x 10.3 inches Heating type: Convection Pros Heats very quickly Extremely quiet operation Automatic shut-off works well when knocked over Built-in handle makes it easier to move Cons Not efficient for large rooms The Dreo Atom One is a compact space heater with a handle that weighs only 3.8 pounds. It’s very easy to move around, which is ideal if you don’t want to buy a space heater for each room in your home but could use a little extra heat everywhere. It also offers some key safety features, such as tip-over protection. I accidentally knocked mine over and discovered this works brilliantly, instantly shutting off to prevent fires. The Atom One is very fast when it comes to warming up a room. It uses a ceramic heating element to heat up rapidly, making it very efficient for toasting up my small home office. It doesn’t emit any strange odors either, which can happen with some other space heaters I’ve used in the past. The digital thermostat, four modes (including a fan-only setting), and LED panel give you more control over the temperature so you can dial in your comfort level. It also comes with a remote control, meaning I can control the heat without having to get up from my desk chair. This portable space heater also operates quietly, and I almost forget it’s on. I can barely hear it with my headphones off and can’t hear it at all when I have them on—making it a best bedroom heater pick. Plus, a washable and reusable dust filter helps to reduce dust, pollens, and airborne particles to provide cleaner air in case your air purifier needs some backup. All in all, there’s not much to dislike about this little heater. Best for large rooms: Dr. Infrared Portable Space Heater With this heater, you should go big AND go home to stay nice and warm this winter. Why it made the cut: This pick is well-equipped to heat larger spaces like living rooms, large bedrooms, studios, or garages with its high wattage and high temp settings. Specs Wattage: 1,500 watts Dimensions: 13 x 12.5 x 17 inches Heating type: Radiant Pros 12-hour automatic shut-off 50 to 85-degree heat range Heats large spaces Cons Heavier and less portable This radiant, infrared heater (its big brother is our best overall pick in this category) heats up big spaces easily and efficiently. With 1,500 watts of power and a heat output temperature of up to 85 degrees, perfect for large rooms, you can stay warm without needing to get up close. It has a 12-hour automatic shut-off timer, remote control, tip-over protection, a 72-inch electric cord, and caster wheels for maximum mobility. Best energy saving: De’Longhi Oil-Filled Radiator Space Heater Raise the temperature, not your electricity bill. Why it made the cut: Unlike the other space heaters on this list, the De’Longhi pick uses oil to maintain its heat for an energy-efficient and quiet-running design. Specs Wattage: 1,500 watts Dimensions: 27.76 x 18.5 x 7.1 inches Heating type: Radiant Pros Portable design with wheels Energy-efficient Quiet heating Cons Pricier than some other models This energy-efficient space heater will stay hot even after turning it off, extending its heating power without sucking up electricity. Additionally, you can select eco-mode, optimizing power usage with a built-in thermostat for additional energy saving. It has 1,500 watts of power, automatic shutoff to prevent overheating, and thermal slots that funnel hot air while maintaining a low surface temperature so you won’t be at risk of burning yourself. Best electric: Dyson Pure Hot + Cool HP07 Winter, spring, summer, or fall, all you gotta do is plug in this tower. Why it made the cut: For those who want a multifunction device that can be used year-round, the Dyson Pure Hot + Cool does just that. It filters your air for allergens and dust with a HEPA-certified filter, heats in cooler months, and can act as a fan once the temperatures rise back up. Specs Watts: 1500 watts Dimensions: 9.76 x 8.07 x 30.08 inches Heating type: Convection Pros HEPA Filter Captures allergens Sleek and aesthetic design Cons Expensive for a “space heater” May be less effective than other models The Dyson Pure Hot + Cool Air Purifier is a dream with all the high-tech, special features needed to heat and purify an entire room simultaneously (that’s why another one of their models is our top overall pick for home air purifiers). This multifunction feat of engineering treats and projects air, cooling or heating it as needed. It offers 350-degree oscillation, a sealed HEPA filter to trap 99.7 percent of allergens, and voice-control compatibility with Alexa. Equipped with three intelligent sensors, this air purifier, cooling fan, and space heater will also monitor pollution events in real time, alerting you to any problematic airborne particles or gases via the Dyson app—one of the reasons it’s also one of our picks for best garage heaters. The heater/fan has 10 speed settings, Bluetooth connectivity, quiet operation, and multiple additional settings. Best wall heater: Dreo Smart Wall Heater Why it made the cut: DIY your own home heating system with this easy-to-install wall-mounted heater that can be controlled via a smart assistant or app. Specs Wattage: 1,500 watts Dimensions: 4 x 20 x 13 inches Heating type: Radiant Pros App and smart assistant connectivity Easy to install Quiet Cons Might not be the best at heating enclosed outdoor spaces If your current heating system isn’t cutting it, consider adding this heater, which looks just like an AC unit but is mounted to your wall instead of a window. 120-degree wide oscillation heating distributes warm air evenly from ceiling to floor to quickly heat the room. You can schedule room heating hours to match when you leave for work or return from walking the dog. Access heater settings via the Dreo app (for iOS and Android) or via your Alexa or Google Home device. Its LED panel automatically adjusts, so you don’t have to worry about the light messing with your sleep. Mounting the wall heater is just as easy as using it. Simply follow the included drilling guide and simple instructions, and you’re done. No more chilly nights worrying about causing a fire hazard. Best value: Lasko 1500W Ceramic Tower Space Heater Features a built-in carry handle for easy transport between rooms. Why it made the cut: This classic-design tower heater can fit in just about any space—and with an oscillating function and impressive wattage, it can heat up a room quickly and efficiently. Specs Wattage: 1,500 watts Dimensions: 21.63 x 7.1 x 7.9 inches Heating type: Convection Pros 8-hour auto-off timer Slim design High wattage Cons Only two heat settings This Lasko ceramic tower heater has a footprint of less than eight square inches but boasts 1,500 watts of heating power, making it ideal for warming up cold rooms in a hurry without taking up too much space. It includes a number of safety features like an 8-hour auto-shutoff timer, overheat protection, and a cool-touch exterior. Its widespread oscillation and adjustable thermostat make it a flexible choice that allows users to custom-tailor their heating experience. The heater’s cable is 72 inches in length, making this model a good choice for rooms with few outlets; plus, the unit includes a multifunction remote control for added convenience. What to consider when buying the best space heaters There are six things you should consider to find the best space heater for your needs. Think about what type of personal heater you want, how much space you’re trying to warm, how much power your heater will need, what the safety features are, and finally, what special features might be available. If you can get specific about your requirements, you won’t have any trouble finding a reliable, long-lasting unit you’re happy with. What type of space heater best fits your needs? There are three main types of heating, with a few subcategories you should know about. Convection heating is the most common and efficient type for single-room use. These space heaters work by circulating currents across an element, such as an electric coil or oil, which are often blown out and drawn back in using a fan. Some models don’t include a fan, relying on natural airflow; this method is quieter but takes longer to heat an entire room. Ceramic heaters borrow from this method, using an internal, self-regulating ceramic element and fan to heat a room quickly. Radiant heating is excellent for warming a targeted area like your bed or desk chair. They heat up almost instantaneously using quartz or other metals and a reflector to direct heat, though some will implement a fan. Infrared heaters are very similar, using infrared quartz bulbs to generate radiating heat. Unlike convection heating, this method will not warm up the air, making it better for targeted warmth. That said, it will heat a room if left on for a long time. Micathermic heating is an efficient combination of convection and radiant processes. A micathermic heater radiates warmth off of a panel that is then circulated naturally throughout the room. To do this, these space heaters need to be reasonably large, but most models can be mounted on the wall to save space if necessary. Because micathermic heaters don’t use a fan, they are quiet and clean; they don’t circulate dust or pet dander, which makes them great for those who are allergy-prone or have asthma. Portable radiator heaters use micathermic methods to generate heat via oil encased inside. How big of a room are you trying to heat? While it’s clear that radiant heaters are best for targeted use and convection or micathermic models might be best for larger areas, there’s more to understand when it comes to room size and heater specs. When it comes to heating, wattage is king. For space heaters, you want to have 10 watts of power per square foot; this is especially true if your portable heater is the primary source of warmth. If you have super tall ceilings, over 8 feet high, you’ll want to multiply your space’s total square footage by the ceiling height and 1.25. For rooms lacking insulation, add an extra 2 watts to the equation. If you just need a little extra blast of heat here and there, you can relax on the wattage rule, but only slightly. If you have a lot of ground to cover, it can be hard to find a supplementary heater that will keep you and any guests cozy for hours at a time. Infrared heaters are a bit more flexible because they warm up people and objects; while small models won’t do much, a large infrared heater can cover a larger room because it will target objects as well as people. Below you can find our favorite model. How much energy will your space heater use? Using a space heater regularly can suck up a lot of power, so it’s essential to look for energy-efficient models that won’t cause your electric bill to skyrocket. If you want to figure out how much your heater will cost you look up how much you currently pay for electricity per kilowatt-hour (this info is often listed on your monthly bill), determine the amount of time your space heater will be on, and calculate the kilowatts used per hour by dividing the maximum wattage by 1,000. Finally, multiply all three together, and that’s your average cost per day. Unfortunately, at this time, the United States Environmental Protection Agency hasn’t given any existing space heater an Energy Star rating, but that doesn’t mean you can’t look for models with energy-efficient features. First things first: Don’t buy a space heater that has more wattage than you need. Just because it’s powerful doesn’t mean it’s the best space heater for you. Oil-filled radiator heaters are a great option for energy-efficient heating in a tinier area because they remain hot for a time, even after they are turned off. Secondly, consider investing in a model that includes a built-in thermostat and multiple output settings. This will conserve energy over time because the heater won’t be overcompensating when the temperature in the room changes. Timed heat settings and automatic shutoff can also aid efficiency, especially if you tend to forget to shut off appliances. Some heaters will come with an auto-eco setting designed to monitor room temperature and suggest a lower output temperature to heat the room, keeping it warm but not hot. What extra features make the best space heater? Once you’ve figured out the size, specs, and safety settings you need to narrow down your selection, you can focus on the fun bonuses that make the best space heater. We’ve already mentioned a few helpful features, including a thermostat function, auto-eco mode, and timer settings. Another popular bonus feature is the inclusion of a remote for easy control. This is going to be a lifesaver for those times you get perfectly comfortable, all snuggled up in bed before remembering to turn the heater on. It gets better: Some space heaters are considered “smart,” which means they can connect via WiFi to your phone, providing a stream of information regarding your space’s air quality, humidity, and more. Some smart models come with a night-time mode to quiet noisy fans, HEPA filters for air purification, and dual-cooling systems that utilize the fan function, bypassing the heat generator. Of course, the more special features you tack on, the higher the price but depending on the frequency of use and overall efficiency of various models, you could end up saving money over time. Higher-quality products experience fewer breakdowns and don’t need to be replaced as often, plus who wouldn’t want to control their space heater using a voice assistant like Alexa? One step closer to building your fully equipped smart house. What safety features should you keep in mind? We cannot overstate how important safety features are when it comes to space heaters. These powerful appliances are one of the leading causes of house fires in America, and while we want you to be warm, we certainly don’t want you to be that warm. Luckily, newer models are frequently equipped with safety features that will keep you and your loved ones out of harm’s way. You need to select a model with a shutoff sensor triggered if the unit starts to overheat or tip over. This small but significant add-on is imperative to keep things safe. You should also consider purchasing a model with a long extension cord, even if you don’t think you’ll need it. Why? Space heaters need to be directly plugged into the wall; a long cord means you can easily resist the temptation to plug it into existing power strips or extension cords for “just a minute.” Consider a model that has a cool-to-the-touch outer layer or handle so you can avoid any accidental burns. Finally, look for certifications from the Underwriters Laboratory and Intertek Group for added reassurance that your model meets safety standards. While built-in features are important, there are also a few rules you’ll have to follow: as stated, never use power/extension cords to plug in your heater; never put one on a rug or elevated surface; unless specified otherwise, you won’t want to put a space heater near the kitchen or bathroom; and keep them out of reach/away from young kids or pets. What brand best suits your needs? There are some great brands out there dedicated to supplying safe space heaters worldwide, and we certainly have a few favorites. Vornado, Dyson, and De’Longhi are staples in the space heater game. Vornado has been around since 1930 and manufactures top-of-the-line space heaters, air purifiers, fans, humidifiers, and more. Likewise, Dyson was founded in 1991 by James Dyson and, today, not only manufactures high-end home staples—such as space heaters, washing machines, robot vacuums, and blowdryers—but also invests in research projects to improve medical equipment—such as ventilators, digital monitors, and electric vehicles. The Italian company De’Longhi was incorporated in 1950 and is known for excellence in design when it comes to small home appliances such as espresso machines, portable air conditioners, dehumidifiers, space heaters, and more. De’Longhi has been the recipient of multiple awards and certifications for its dedication to high-end engineering, design, and production. FAQs Q: How much do space heaters cost? Depending on size, wattage, type of heating, and various features, space heaters can start at $30 and go as high as $600. Q: What space heater gives off the most heat? The space heater that gives off the most heat is the Dr. Infrared Portable Space Heater, which has 1,500 watts to heat larger spaces and can crank up to 85 degrees for maximum power. Q: What is the safest type of space heater? The safest type of space heater is one with tip-over protection, a cool-touch case, and an automatic safety shut-off. Our safest pick is the Dreo Atom One—it has those features, and they really work, as our reviewer found out. Q: What kind of room heater is best? An oscillating, adjustable, remote-controlled option can suit a wide variety of spaces, so the best space heater overall is the Lasko 1500W Ceramic Tower Space Heater, which has a classic shape, over 500 rave reviews, and an affordable price tag. Final thoughts on the best space heaters Best overall: Lasko 5586 Electric 1500W Ceramic Space Heater Tower Best portable: Dreo Atom One Best for large rooms: Dr. Infrared Portable Space Heater Best energy saving: De’Longhi Oil-Filled Radiator Space Heater Best electric: Dyson Pure Hot + Cool HP07 Best wall heater: Dreo Smart Wall Heater Best value: Lasko 1500W Ceramic Tower Space Heater Space heaters are a great way to save space, stay warm, and snuggle up safely during cold times. Choose the best space heater for you by examining safety settings, power specs, heater type, and any additional features you find exciting. As long as you know what your space needs, we’re confident you can find the right tiny furnace to keep you from constantly re-wearing your favorite heated socks or heated slippers around the house. Give your puffy coat a break by taking it off indoors as you slowly sink into the warmth of your new space heater. The post The best space heaters in 2024 appeared first on Popular Science.

Science
Energy
Pollution

Graph-based AI model maps the future of innovation

An AI method developed by Professor Markus Buehler finds hidden links between science and art to suggest novel materials.

Imagine using artificial intelligence to compare two seemingly unrelated creations — biological tissue and Beethoven’s “Symphony No. 9.” At first glance, a living system and a musical masterpiece might appear to have no connection. However, a novel AI method developed by Markus J. Buehler, the McAfee Professor of Engineering and professor of civil and environmental engineering and mechanical engineering at MIT, bridges this gap, uncovering shared patterns of complexity and order.“By blending generative AI with graph-based computational tools, this approach reveals entirely new ideas, concepts, and designs that were previously unimaginable. We can accelerate scientific discovery by teaching generative AI to make novel predictions about never-before-seen ideas, concepts, and designs,” says Buehler.The open-access research, recently published in Machine Learning: Science and Technology, demonstrates an advanced AI method that integrates generative knowledge extraction, graph-based representation, and multimodal intelligent graph reasoning.The work uses graphs developed using methods inspired by category theory as a central mechanism to teach the model to understand symbolic relationships in science. Category theory, a branch of mathematics that deals with abstract structures and relationships between them, provides a framework for understanding and unifying diverse systems through a focus on objects and their interactions, rather than their specific content. In category theory, systems are viewed in terms of objects (which could be anything, from numbers to more abstract entities like structures or processes) and morphisms (arrows or functions that define the relationships between these objects). By using this approach, Buehler was able to teach the AI model to systematically reason over complex scientific concepts and behaviors. The symbolic relationships introduced through morphisms make it clear that the AI isn't simply drawing analogies, but is engaging in deeper reasoning that maps abstract structures across different domains.Buehler used this new method to analyze a collection of 1,000 scientific papers about biological materials and turned them into a knowledge map in the form of a graph. The graph revealed how different pieces of information are connected and was able to find groups of related ideas and key points that link many concepts together.“What’s really interesting is that the graph follows a scale-free nature, is highly connected, and can be used effectively for graph reasoning,” says Buehler. “In other words, we teach AI systems to think about graph-based data to help them build better world representations models and to enhance the ability to think and explore new ideas to enable discovery.”Researchers can use this framework to answer complex questions, find gaps in current knowledge, suggest new designs for materials, and predict how materials might behave, and link concepts that had never been connected before.The AI model found unexpected similarities between biological materials and “Symphony No. 9,” suggesting that both follow patterns of complexity. “Similar to how cells in biological materials interact in complex but organized ways to perform a function, Beethoven's 9th symphony arranges musical notes and themes to create a complex but coherent musical experience,” says Buehler.In another experiment, the graph-based AI model recommended creating a new biological material inspired by the abstract patterns found in Wassily Kandinsky’s painting, “Composition VII.” The AI suggested a new mycelium-based composite material. “The result of this material combines an innovative set of concepts that include a balance of chaos and order, adjustable property, porosity, mechanical strength, and complex patterned chemical functionality,” Buehler notes. By drawing inspiration from an abstract painting, the AI created a material that balances being strong and functional, while also being adaptable and capable of performing different roles. The application could lead to the development of innovative sustainable building materials, biodegradable alternatives to plastics, wearable technology, and even biomedical devices.With this advanced AI model, scientists can draw insights from music, art, and technology to analyze data from these fields to identify hidden patterns that could spark a world of innovative possibilities for material design, research, and even music or visual art.“Graph-based generative AI achieves a far higher degree of novelty, explorative of capacity and technical detail than conventional approaches, and establishes a widely useful framework for innovation by revealing hidden connections,” says Buehler. “This study not only contributes to the field of bio-inspired materials and mechanics, but also sets the stage for a future where interdisciplinary research powered by AI and knowledge graphs may become a tool of scientific and philosophical inquiry as we look to other future work.” 

Science
Chemicals
Sustainable

MIT to lead expansion of regional innovation network

National Science Foundation grant expected to help New England researchers translate discoveries to commercial technology.

The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) has selected MIT to lead a new Innovation Corps (I-Corps) Hub to support a partnership of eight New England universities committed to expanding science and technology entrepreneurship across the region, accelerating the translation of discoveries into new solutions that benefit society. NSF announced the five-year cooperative agreement of up to $15 million today.The NSF I-Corps Hub: New England Region is expected to launch on Jan. 1, 2025. The seven institutions initially collaborating with MIT include Brown University, Harvard University, Northeastern University, Tufts University, University of Maine, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and the University of New Hampshire.Established by the NSF in 2011, the I-Corps program provides scientists and engineers from any discipline with hands-on educational experiences to advance their research from lab to impact.  There are more than 50,000 STEM researchers at the nearly 100 universities and medical schools in New England. Many of these institutions are located in underserved and rural areas of the region that face resource challenges in supporting deep-tech translational efforts. The eight institutions in the hub will offer I-Corps training while bringing unique strengths and resources to enhance a regional innovation ecosystem that broadens participation in deep-tech innovation.“Now more than ever we need the innovative solutions that emerge from this type of collaboration to solve society’s greatest and most intractable challenges. Our collective sights are set on bolstering our regional and national innovation networks to accelerate the translation of fundamental research into commercialized technologies. MIT is eager to build on our ongoing work with NSF to further cultivate New England’s innovation hub,” says MIT Provost Cynthia Barnhart, the Abraham J. Siegel Professor of Management Science and professor of operations research, who is the principal investigator on the award.The hub builds on 10 years of collaboration with other I-Corps Sites at institutions across the region and prior work from the MIT I-Corps Site program launched in 2014 and the I-Corps Node based at MIT established in 2018. More than 3,000 engineers and scientists in New England have participated in regional I-Corps programs. They have formed over 200 companies, which have raised $3.5 billion in grants and investments. “The goal of the I-Corps program is to deploy experiential education to help researchers reduce the time necessary to translate promising ideas from laboratory benches to widespread implementation that in turn impacts economic growth regionally and nationally,” said Erwin Gianchandani, NSF assistant director for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships, in NSF’s announcement. “Each regional NSF I-Corps Hub provides training essential in entrepreneurship and customer discovery, leading to new products, startups, and jobs. In effect, we are investing in the next generation of entrepreneurs for our nation.”One I-Corps success story comes from Shreya Dave PhD ’16, who participated in I-Corps training in 2016 with her colleagues to explore potential applications for a new graphene oxide filter technology developed through her research. Based on their learnings from the program and the evidence collected, they shifted from filters for desalination to applications in chemical processing and gained the confidence to launch Via Separations in 2017, focused on the tough tech challenge of industrial decarbonization. Via Separations, which was co-founded by Morton and Claire Goulder and Family Professor in Environmental Systems Professor of Materials Science and Engineering Jeffrey Grossman and Chief Technical Officer Brent Keller, has reached commercialization and is now delivering products to the pulp and paper industry.“NSF I-Corps helped us refine our vision, figure out if our technology could be used for different applications, and helped us figure out if we can manufacture our technology in a scalable fashion — taking it from an academic project to a real–scale commercial project,” says Dave, who is the CEO and co-founder of Via Separations. New England boasts a “highly developed ecosystem of startup resources, funders, founders, and talent,” says Roman Lubynsky, executive director of MIT’s current NSF I-Corps Node, who will serve as the director of the new hub. “However, innovation and entrepreneurship support has been unevenly distributed across the region. This new hub offers an exciting opportunity to collaborate with seven partner institutions to extend and further scale up this important work throughout the region.”The I-Corps Hubs across the country form the backbone of the NSF National Innovation Network. This network connects universities, NSF researchers, entrepreneurs, regional communities, and federal agencies to help researchers bring their discoveries to the marketplace. Together, the hubs work to create a more inclusive and diverse innovation ecosystem, supporting researchers nationwide in transforming their ideas into real-world solutions.

Science
Technology
Education

3 Questions: The past, present, and future of sustainability science

Professor Ronald Prinn reflects on how far sustainability has come as a discipline, and where it all began at MIT.

It was 1978, over a decade before the word “sustainable” would infiltrate environmental nomenclature, and Ronald Prinn, MIT professor of atmospheric science, had just founded the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE). Today, AGAGE provides real-time measurements for well over 50 environmentally harmful trace gases, enabling us to determine emissions at the country level, a key element in verifying national adherence to the Montreal Protocol and the Paris Accord. This, Prinn says, started him thinking about doing science that informed decision making.Much like global interest in sustainability, Prinn’s interest and involvement continued to grow into what would become three decades worth of achievements in sustainability science. The Center for Global Change Science (CGCS) and Joint Program on the Science and Policy Global Change, respectively founded and co-founded by Prinn, have recently joined forces to create the MIT School of Science’s new Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3), lead by former CGCS postdoc turned MIT professor, Noelle Selin.As he prepares to pass the torch, Prinn reflects on how far sustainability has come, and where it all began.Q: Tell us about the motivation for the MIT centers you helped to found around sustainability.A: In 1990 after I founded the Center for Global Change Science, I also co-founded the Joint Program on the Science and Policy Global Change with a very important partner, [Henry] “Jake” Jacoby. He’s now retired, but at that point he was a professor in the MIT Sloan School of Management. Together, we determined that in order to answer questions related to what we now call sustainability of human activities, you need to combine the natural and social sciences involved in these processes. Based on this, we decided to make a joint program between the CGCS and a center that he directed, the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR).It was called the “joint program” and was joint for two reasons — not only were two centers joining, but two disciplines were joining. It was not about simply doing the same science. It was about bringing a team of people together that could tackle these coupled issues of environment, human development and economy. We were the first group in the world to fully integrate these elements together.Q: What has been your most impactful contribution and what effect did it have on the greater public’s overall understanding?A: Our biggest contribution is the development, and more importantly, the application of the Integrated Global System Model [IGSM] framework, looking at human development in both developing countries and developed countries that had a significant impact on the way people thought about climate issues. With IGSM, we were able to look at the interactions among human and natural components, studying the feedbacks and impacts that climate change had on human systems; like how it would alter agriculture and other land activities, how it would alter things we derive from the ocean, and so on.Policies were being developed largely by economists or climate scientists working independently, and we started showing how the real answers and analysis required a coupling of all of these components. We showed, and I think convincingly, that what people used to study independently, must be coupled together, because the impacts of climate change and air pollution affected so many things.To address the value of policy, despite the uncertainty in climate projections, we ran multiple runs of the IGSM with and without policy, with different choices for uncertain IGSM variables. For public communication, around 2005, we introduced our signature Greenhouse Gamble interactive visualization tools; these have been renewed over time as science and policies evolved.Q: What can MIT provide now at this critical juncture in understanding climate change and its impact?A: We need to further push the boundaries of integrated global system modeling to ensure full sustainability of human activity and all of its beneficial dimensions, which is the exciting focus that the CS3 is designed to address. We need to focus on sustainability as a central core element and use it to not just analyze existing policies but to propose new ones. Sustainability is not just climate or air pollution, it's got to do with human impacts in general. Human health is central to sustainability, and equally important to equity. We need to expand the capability for credibly assessing what the impact policies have not just on developed countries, but on developing countries, taking into account that many places around the world are at artisanal levels of their economies. They cannot be blamed for anything that is changing climate and causing air pollution and other detrimental things that are currently going on. They need our help. That's what sustainability is in its full dimensions.Our capabilities are evolving toward a modeling system so detailed that we can find out detrimental things about policies even at local levels before investing in changing infrastructure. This is going to require collaboration among even more disciplines and creating a seamless connection between research and decision making; not just for policies enacted in the public sector, but also for decisions that are made in the private sector. 

Science
Agriculture
Energy

Suggested Viewing

Salted Earth

"Salted Earth" plunges us into the heart of an invisible and creeping crisis that's transforming the Mid-Atlantic – the inexorable rise of sea levels. This hard-hitting, yet tenderly woven 20-minute documentary paints a vivid picture of an escalating environmental catastrophe, where the threat is not just the swelling sea, but the encroaching salt that kills forests and decimates arable land, but could also signal a return to the natural order of the Atlantic Coast. Our journey navigates the brackish waters of climate change alongside an intrepid team of scientists. Through their tireless work, they seek to unravel the intricacies of how salty water infiltrates groundwater and soils, with consequences as far-reaching as they are devastating. Their research is more than academic; it's a desperate quest for solutions that may help vulnerable communities adapt and even survive. "Salted Earth" is not only a saga of scientific discovery. It's also a story of human resilience and ingenuity. We venture into the heart of communities, the lifeblood of the Mid-Atlantic, whose existence is at stake. We see firsthand the farmers struggling to preserve their livelihoods, community leaders forging ahead with audacious resilience strategies, and everyday individuals battling the rising tide. Through intimate interviews with scientists, farmers, and community leaders, "Salted Earth" provides a sobering, yet inspiring look at the very real and present challenge of sea-level rise. It asks a question that affects us all: Can our strategy against the rising sea succeed, or are we fighting an unwinnable war? The answer may unsettle you, but the journey is one you cannot afford to miss. Watch "Salted Earth" and see the future of our world through a salt-streaked lens.

Water
Land Use
Science

Mauna: A Portal to the Universe

Plans to build the Thirty Meter Telescope on the summit of the sacred Mauna Kea sparks another battle in a decades-long struggle between Indigenous Hawaiians and astronomers.

Science
Indigenous
Cosmos

The Connection Between Bats and Coronavirus: Wildlife is not to blame

What exactly is the connection between bats and coronavirus? And how has sheltering-in-place disrupted field research in California and beyond? State and local governments have set restrictions on bat research and rescue in an effort to curtail the spread of the coronavirus. Dr. Winifred Frick, chief scientist of Bat Conservation International, describes how the new restrictions have affected conservation efforts.

Animals
Science
Health

One Day We Will Dance With You

One Day We Will Dance with You tells the story of two women creating a dance to celebrate water. They imagine dance moves, and argue about science and whether a celebration can still be sad. As the community around them comes together to dance, they begin to imagine a future where the Water Molecule Dance and the celebration of water becomes a part of all our lives.

Dance
Science
Water

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Unacceptable Risk tells the story of a prominent cancer researcher who rethinks her assumptions about the causes of cancer and the true burden of environmentally-induced cancers.

Chemicals
Science
Health

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.