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.

How heat pumps can maintain their momentum in 2025 and beyond

News Feed
Wednesday, December 18, 2024

Heat pumps are the single biggest tool for U.S. households to cut carbon emissions and curb unhealthy air pollution. They’re also far more efficient than the fossil-fueled or electric resistance heating appliances found in most homes, meaning most households can save on utility bills by purchasing one. But making it as cheap and simple as possible for households to replace their fossil-fueled boilers, furnaces, and water heaters with electric heat pumps involves a lot of hard work — and not a little bit of extra money. Heat pumps, which are reversible air conditioners, can come with significant up-front costs. Over the past four years, numerous local, state, and federal policies have been signed into law to lower heat pump costs and spur adoption of the appliances. Now, advocates are assessing how to keep that momentum going under an incoming Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress likely to reverse or at least water down federal support. That’s not an ideal political turn for a technology that faces an uphill climb, even with its many benefits and the recent policy support. Fewer than one in five U.S. households have heat pumps today. Far more must install them to eliminate the roughly 10 percent of U.S. carbon emissions that come from burning fossil fuels in homes. To also replace the inefficient electric resistance heaters that tax the power grid and cost consumers, every U.S. household with heating would need to get a heat pump. Heat pumps have outsold fossil-gas furnaces for the past two years, but adoption is still not growing anywhere near fast enough. Heat pump sales need to triple over the next three years to hit the Biden administration’s goal of halving U.S. carbon emissions by 2030, according to advocacy group Rewiring America. So, where does the U.S. stand now? In a December report, the Building Decarbonization Coalition, a nonprofit that promotes heat pumps and is part of public-private partnerships in nine states, laid out how far the country has come, how much more must be done, and what the change in federal government will mean. “We’re talking about what we’ve learned, what we’re hopeful for, and yes, what’s making us perhaps bite our nails a bit as we’re looking ahead to the post-2024 election landscape,” said Rose Stephens-Booker, BDC’s managing director of programs and partnerships. The good news — growing markets, supportive incentives, aggressive goals  The first positive news comes from the marketplace, where heat pumps continue to outsell fossil gas furnaces. That trend began in 2022 and accelerated in 2023. And as per data from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute through September of this year, ​“once again, we’ve seen heat pumps outpace their fossil-fuel counterparts,” said Kristin George Bagdanov, BDC senior policy research manager. In fact, heat pump sales widened their lead over the past 12 months, exceeding furnace sales by 27 percent, up 2.4 percent compared with the previous 12 months.  BDC tracked similarly favorable market data for water heating, which makes up about 18 percent of residential energy use. Electric water heaters expanded their lead over fossil-gas water heaters in 2024, surpassing sales of their gas counterparts by 23 percent, according to BDC.  Most of the electric water heaters in homes today are electric resistance models, which are far less efficient than heat pump water heaters. But data from the Environmental Protection Agency shows that in 2023, heat pump water heaters outsold gas-fueled water-tank-storage water heaters for the first time. Still, the technology was installed in only about 4 percent of U.S. homes as of late last year. The primary barriers to expanding these markets remain up-front cost and complexity. Most households replace heating systems when existing equipment breaks down. It’s harder to cheaply and quickly replace fossil-fuel units with heat pumps, which can require extra work like electrical upgrades or installing new pipes. And many contractors are leery of heat pumps, since longer and more complicated jobs mean less money, along with concerns that a novel system won’t be as reliable as fossil gas. Technology advances like 120-volt heat pump water heaters and window-mounted heat pumps are starting to ease some of these constraints, particularly for renters and households that lack central air systems. But to make pumps the preferred option for households and contractors alike will take a concerted effort, said Matt Casale, BDC’s director of state mobilization — particularly to ensure that lower-income households aren’t left behind. “Cost of living is and will continue to be a major issue in the years to come,” he said. ​“States that are leading on building decarbonization are going to be digging into this issue to ensure that the transition is affordable, accessible, and equitable.” Getting costs down Heat pumps are more expensive up front than fossil-gas heating equipment, although just how much more expensive depends on a wide and sometimes unpredictable set of variables. Regional climate conditions make a big difference in installation prices, as do the vagaries of individual home construction, insulation, and preexisting heating systems. The availability of equipment and skilled labor to install it also influences up-front costs, as does contractor education and willingness to take on the extra work that’s likely to be involved. As for long-term costs, the price of electricity versus fossil gas plays a major factor on whether swapping your furnace for a heat pump will save you money over its lifetime. So does the appliance you’re switching from. If you’re ditching an old, inefficient gas or oil heating system, chances are the heat pump financials work out for you. If you have a newer, more efficient gas furnace, they might not. Overcoming these obstacles will require more policy support, Casale said.

Heat pumps are the single biggest tool for U.S. households to cut carbon emissions and curb unhealthy air pollution . They’re also far more efficient than the fossil-fueled or electric resistance heating appliances found in most homes, meaning most households can save on utility bills by purchasing one. But making…

Heat pumps are the single biggest tool for U.S. households to cut carbon emissions and curb unhealthy air pollution. They’re also far more efficient than the fossil-fueled or electric resistance heating appliances found in most homes, meaning most households can save on utility bills by purchasing one.

But making it as cheap and simple as possible for households to replace their fossil-fueled boilers, furnaces, and water heaters with electric heat pumps involves a lot of hard work — and not a little bit of extra money. Heat pumps, which are reversible air conditioners, can come with significant up-front costs.

Over the past four years, numerous local, state, and federal policies have been signed into law to lower heat pump costs and spur adoption of the appliances. Now, advocates are assessing how to keep that momentum going under an incoming Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress likely to reverse or at least water down federal support.

That’s not an ideal political turn for a technology that faces an uphill climb, even with its many benefits and the recent policy support.

Fewer than one in five U.S. households have heat pumps today. Far more must install them to eliminate the roughly 10 percent of U.S. carbon emissions that come from burning fossil fuels in homes. To also replace the inefficient electric resistance heaters that tax the power grid and cost consumers, every U.S. household with heating would need to get a heat pump.

Heat pumps have outsold fossil-gas furnaces for the past two years, but adoption is still not growing anywhere near fast enough. Heat pump sales need to triple over the next three years to hit the Biden administration’s goal of halving U.S. carbon emissions by 2030, according to advocacy group Rewiring America.

So, where does the U.S. stand now? In a December report, the Building Decarbonization Coalition, a nonprofit that promotes heat pumps and is part of public-private partnerships in nine states, laid out how far the country has come, how much more must be done, and what the change in federal government will mean.

We’re talking about what we’ve learned, what we’re hopeful for, and yes, what’s making us perhaps bite our nails a bit as we’re looking ahead to the post-2024 election landscape,” said Rose Stephens-Booker, BDC’s managing director of programs and partnerships.

The good news — growing markets, supportive incentives, aggressive goals 

The first positive news comes from the marketplace, where heat pumps continue to outsell fossil gas furnaces. That trend began in 2022 and accelerated in 2023.

And as per data from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute through September of this year, once again, we’ve seen heat pumps outpace their fossil-fuel counterparts,” said Kristin George Bagdanov, BDC senior policy research manager.

In fact, heat pump sales widened their lead over the past 12 months, exceeding furnace sales by 27 percent, up 2.4 percent compared with the previous 12 months. 

BDC tracked similarly favorable market data for water heating, which makes up about 18 percent of residential energy use. Electric water heaters expanded their lead over fossil-gas water heaters in 2024, surpassing sales of their gas counterparts by 23 percent, according to BDC

Most of the electric water heaters in homes today are electric resistance models, which are far less efficient than heat pump water heaters. But data from the Environmental Protection Agency shows that in 2023, heat pump water heaters outsold gas-fueled water-tank-storage water heaters for the first time. Still, the technology was installed in only about 4 percent of U.S. homes as of late last year.

The primary barriers to expanding these markets remain up-front cost and complexity.

Most households replace heating systems when existing equipment breaks down. It’s harder to cheaply and quickly replace fossil-fuel units with heat pumps, which can require extra work like electrical upgrades or installing new pipes. And many contractors are leery of heat pumps, since longer and more complicated jobs mean less money, along with concerns that a novel system won’t be as reliable as fossil gas.

Technology advances like 120-volt heat pump water heaters and window-mounted heat pumps are starting to ease some of these constraints, particularly for renters and households that lack central air systems. But to make pumps the preferred option for households and contractors alike will take a concerted effort, said Matt Casale, BDC’s director of state mobilization — particularly to ensure that lower-income households aren’t left behind.

Cost of living is and will continue to be a major issue in the years to come,” he said. States that are leading on building decarbonization are going to be digging into this issue to ensure that the transition is affordable, accessible, and equitable.”

Getting costs down

Heat pumps are more expensive up front than fossil-gas heating equipment, although just how much more expensive depends on a wide and sometimes unpredictable set of variables. Regional climate conditions make a big difference in installation prices, as do the vagaries of individual home construction, insulation, and preexisting heating systems. The availability of equipment and skilled labor to install it also influences up-front costs, as does contractor education and willingness to take on the extra work that’s likely to be involved.

As for long-term costs, the price of electricity versus fossil gas plays a major factor on whether swapping your furnace for a heat pump will save you money over its lifetime. So does the appliance you’re switching from. If you’re ditching an old, inefficient gas or oil heating system, chances are the heat pump financials work out for you. If you have a newer, more efficient gas furnace, they might not.

Overcoming these obstacles will require more policy support, Casale said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Microplastics Linked To High Blood Pressure, Diabetes, Stroke

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, April 1, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Microplastics appear to be contributing to chronic diseases in...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, April 1, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Microplastics appear to be contributing to chronic diseases in shoreline areas of the United States, a new study suggests.High blood pressure, diabetes and stroke rates are higher in coastal or lakefront areas with greater concentrations of microplastics in the environment, researchers reported at a meeting of the American College of Cardiology (ACC).The results also suggested a dose relationship, where higher concentrations of microplastics pollution are associated with more chronic disease, researchers said.“This study provides initial evidence that microplastics exposure has an impact on cardiovascular health, especially chronic, noncommunicable conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes and stroke," lead investigator Sai Rahul Ponnana, a research data scientist at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine in Cleveland, said in a news release.Microplastics are tiny plastic particles as small as 1 nanometer; by comparison, a strand of human hair is about 80,000 nanometers wide.These particles are released as larger pieces of plastic break down, and can come from food and beverage packaging, consumer products and building materials, researchers said in background notes.People can be exposed to microplastics in the water they drink, the food they eat and the air they breathe.For this study, researchers linked U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data on chronic illness rates with federal data on microplastics concentrations in the sediment along coastal and lakeshore areas in 555 census tracts. The data ran from 2015 to 2019.Microplastics ranked among the top risk factors associated with chronic illness, researchers found. They considered 154 factors, including income, employment rate and air pollution."When we included 154 different socioeconomic and environmental features in our analysis, we didn't expect microplastics to rank in the top 10 for predicting chronic noncommunicable disease prevalence,” Ponnana said.However, researchers noted that the study does not prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship between microplastics and chronic illness. More studies are needed to prove a concrete link and rule out other possible explanations.More research is also needed to determine the amount of exposure to microplastics that would have an impact on a person’s health, researchers added.In the meantime, people can help minimize microplastics exposure by reducing how much plastic they throw away."The environment plays a very important role in our health, especially cardiovascular health," Ponnana said. "As a result, taking care of our environment means taking care of ourselves."The findings were presented Monday at the ACC’s meeting in Chicago. Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has more on microplastics.SOURCE: American College of Cardiology, news release, March 25, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Why the health risks from air pollution could be worse than we thought

A new study found elevated and previously overlooked health risks for communities living near industrial polluters.

Many people who live near heavy industry are routinely exposed to dozens of different pollutants, which can result in a multitude of health problems.Traditionally, environmental regulators have assessed the risks of chemical exposure on an individual basis. But that approach has led to underestimates of the total health risks faced by vulnerable populations, according to a new study.Now researchers at Johns Hopkins University have developed a new method for measuring the cumulative effects on human health of multiple toxic air pollutants. Their findings were published last week in Environmental Health Perspectives.Regulators typically measure community risk by looking at the primary health effects of individual chemicals, an approach that often fails to address their combined risks, said Keeve Nachman, the study’s senior author.Residents in disadvantaged communities are exposed to a toxic stew of chemicals daily, and they “don’t just breathe one at a time, [they] breathe all the chemicals in the air at once,” said Peter DeCarlo, another of the study’s authors.Follow Climate & environment“Very little has happened to protect these people. And one of the major reasons for that is that current approaches have not done a good job showing they’re in harm’s way,” Nachman said.“When we regulate chemicals, we pretend that we’re only exposed to one chemical at a time,” Nachman continued. “If we have each chemical and we only think about the most sensitive effect, but we ignore the fact that it could potentially cause all these other effects to different parts of the body, we are missing protecting people from the collective mixture of chemicals that act together.”Nachman, DeCarlo and their colleagues set out to more accurately account for the total burden of breathing multiple toxic air pollutants.The study assessed the risks faced by communities in southeastern Pennsylvania living near petrochemical facilities using a mobile laboratory to measure 32 hazardous air pollutants, including vinyl chloride, formaldehyde and benzene. The researchers developed real-time profiles of the pollution concentrations in the air and translated them into estimates of what people are actually breathing.Using these estimates and a database of the chemicals’ toxic effects on various organs, the researchers created projections of the long-term cumulative health impacts of the pollution.By looking past the immediate health effects of chemicals and measuring what happens as concentrations increase, negative health outcomes can be detected in other parts of the body, Nachman said.For example, while EPA risk assessments consider only the respiratory effects of formaldehyde, the study found potential health impacts in 10 other organ systems, including neurological, developmental and reproductive harms.The cumulative risk study appears at a fraught moment for environmental regulation. Although the Biden administration in November released a draft framework for monitoring the cumulative impact of chemical exposure, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back dozens of Biden administration environmental rules and is considering shutting down the EPA’s Office of Research and Development.A spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said in an email that the Johns Hopkins research “may provide some useful information” but that “further assessment, replication and validation will be needed” of the methods and substances assessed in the study.“ACC continues to support the development of scientifically robust data, methods and approaches to underpin cumulative risk assessments,” the spokesperson added.The EPA did not provide an immediate comment while it reviewed the study.Jen Duggan, the executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said communities often face higher health impacts than the EPA estimates due to their exposure to dangerous chemicals from multiple sources.“The authors of this paper powerfully demonstrate how EPA has repeatedly underestimated the true health risks for people living in the shadow of industrial polluters,” Duggan said.

Utah Bans Fluoride In Public Drinking Water

Republican Gov. Spencer Cox signed the legislation despite widespread opposition from dentists and national health organizations.

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah has become the first state to ban fluoride in public drinking water, despite widespread opposition from dentists and national health organizations.Republican Gov. Spencer Cox signed legislation late Thursday that bars cities and communities from deciding whether to add the mineral to their water systems.Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Utah lawmakers who pushed for a ban said putting fluoride in water was too expensive. Cox, who grew up and raised his own children in a community without fluoridated water, compared it recently to being “medicated” by the government.The ban comes weeks after U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has expressed skepticism about water fluoridation, was sworn into office.More than 200 million people in the U.S., or almost two-thirds of the population, receive fluoridated water through community water. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.But some cities across the country have gotten rid of fluoride from their water, and other municipalities are considering doing the same. A few months ago, a federal judge ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate fluoride in drinking water because high levels could pose a risk to the intellectual development of children.We Don't Work For Billionaires. We Work For You.Big money interests are running the government — and influencing the news you read. While other outlets are retreating behind paywalls and bending the knee to political pressure, HuffPost is proud to be unbought and unfiltered. Will you help us keep it that way? You can even access our stories ad-free.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.The president of the American Dental Association, Brett Kessler, has said the amounts of fluoride added to drinking water are below levels considered problematic.Opponents warn the ban will disproportionately affect low-income residents who may rely on public drinking water having fluoride as their only source of preventative dental care. Low-income families may not be able to afford regular dentist visits or the fluoride tablets some people buy as a supplement in cities without fluoridation.The sponsor of the Utah legislation, Republican Rep. Stephanie Gricius, acknowledged fluoride has benefits, but said it was an issue of “individual choice” to not have it in the water.

Dozens of House Democrats push back on planned EPA research and development cuts

Dozens of House Democrats pushed back on planned Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cuts in a Thursday letter to the agency. “We are particularly concerned by the proposal to eliminate up to 75 percent of employees within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD),” the letter, from Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) and addressed to EPA Administrator...

Dozens of House Democrats pushed back on planned Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cuts in a Thursday letter to the agency. “We are particularly concerned by the proposal to eliminate up to 75 percent of employees within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD),” the letter, from Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) and addressed to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, reads. “Firing nearly 1,200 dedicated ORD public servants across the country would decimate the scientific backbone of EPA which provides independent, objective, and unparallelled research that informs Agency assessments and decision-making,” they added. The letter featured the signatures of over 60 House Democrats including Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Don Beyer (Va.), Joe Neguse (Colo.), Jamie Raskin (Md.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.). The Hill reported last week that the EPA was considering the cutting of its science arm and dropping most of the employees of the branch, per documents reviewed by Democratic staff for the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. The termination of the Office of Research and Development as an EPA National Program Office is called for in a plan reviewed by committee staffers. Fifty percent to 70 percent of the 1,540 staffers in the office would be cut under the plan. “While no decisions have been made yet, we are actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to better fulfill agency statutory obligations, increase efficiency, and ensure the EPA is as up-to-date and effective as ever,” EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said in a previous statement. In his letter, Landsman said dropping “the majority of ORD employees would be particularly harmful to EPA’s work to address industrial pollution, contaminated air and drinking water, environmental health, and worsening natural disasters.” The Ohio Democrat also questioned the EPA about the reasoning behind the staff cuts in the plan and the way the agency is prepping “to mitigate the loss of scientific expertise, institutional knowledge, and subject matter capacity resulting from this proposed action.” The Hill has reached out to the EPA for comment.

When a 1-in-100 year flood washed through the Coorong, it made the vital microbiome of this lagoon healthier

The 2022 floods triggered shifts in the Coorong’s microbiome—similar to our gut bacteria on new diets—revealing why freshwater flows are vital to wetland health.

Darcy Whittaker, CC BYYou might know South Australia’s iconic Coorong from the famous Australian children’s book, Storm Boy, set around this coastal lagoon. This internationally important wetland is sacred to the Ngarrindjeri people and a haven for migratory birds. The lagoon is the final stop for the Murray River’s waters before they reach the sea. Tens of thousands of migratory waterbirds visit annually. Pelicans, plovers, terns and ibises nest, while orange-bellied parrots visit and Murray Cod swim. But there are other important inhabitants – trillions of microscopic organisms. You might not give much thought to the sedimentary microbes of a lagoon. But these tiny microbes in the mud are vital to river ecosystems, quietly cycling nutrients and supporting the food web. Healthy microbes make for a healthy Coorong – and this unassuming lagoon is a key indicator for the health of the entire Murray-Darling Basin. For decades, the Coorong has been in poor health. Low water flows have concentrated salt and an excess of nutrients. But in 2022, torrential rains on the east coast turned into a once-in-a-century flood, which swept down the Murray into the Coorong. In our new research, we took the pulse of the Coorong’s microbiome after this huge flood and found the surging fresh water corrected microbial imbalances. The numbers of methane producing microbes fell while beneficial nutrient-eating bacteria grew. Populations of plants, animals and invertebrates boomed. We can’t just wait for irregular floods – we have to find ways to ensure enough water is left in the river to cleanse the Coorong naturally. Under a scanning electron micrograph, the mixed community of microbes in water is visible. This image shows a seawater sample. Sophie Leterme/Flinders University, CC BY Rivers have microbiomes, just like us Our gut microbes can change after a heavy meal or in response to dietary changes. In humans, a sudden shift in diet can encourage either helpful or harmful microbes. In the same way, aquatic microbes respond to changes in salinity and freshwater flows. Depending on what changes are happening, some species boom and others bust. As water gets saltier in brackish lagoons, communities of microbes have to adapt or die. High salinity often favours microbes with anaerobic metabolisms, meaning they don’t need oxygen. But these tiny lifeforms often produce the highly potent greenhouse gas methane. The microbes in wetlands are a large natural source of the gas. While we know pulses of freshwater are vital for river health, they don’t happen often enough. The waters of the Murray-Darling Basin support most of Australia’s irrigated farming. Negotiations over how to ensure adequate environmental flows have been fraught – and long-running. Water buybacks have improved matters somewhat, but researchers have found the river basin’s ecosystems are not in good condition. Wetlands such as the Coorong are a natural source of methane. The saltier the water gets, the more environmentally harmful microbes flourish – potentially producing more methane. Vincent_Nguyen The Coorong is out of balance A century ago, regular pulses of fresh water from the Murray flushed nutrients and sediment out of the Coorong, helping maintain habitat for fish, waterbirds and the plants and invertebrates they eat. While other catchments discharge into the Coorong, the Murray is by far the major water source. Over the next decades, growth in water use for farming meant less water in the river. In the 1930s, barrages were built near the river’s mouth to control nearby lake levels and prevent high salinity moving upstream in the face of reduced river flows. Major droughts have added further stress. Under these low-flow conditions, salt and nutrients get more and more concentrated, reaching extreme levels due to South Australia’s high rate of evaporation. In response, microbial communities can trigger harmful algae blooms or create low-oxygen “dead zones”, suffocating river life. The big flush of 2022 In 2022, torrential rain fell in many parts of eastern Australia. Rainfall on the inland side of the Great Dividing Range filled rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin. That year became the largest flood since 1956. We set about recording the changes. As the salinity fell in ultra-salty areas, local microbial communities in the sediment were reshuffled. The numbers of methane-producing microbes fell sharply. This means the floods would have temporarily reduced the Coorong’s greenhouse footprint. Christopher Keneally sampling for microbes in the Coorong in 2022. Tyler Dornan, CC BY When we talk about harmful bacteria, we’re referring to microbes that emit greenhouse gases such as methane, drive the accumulation of toxic sulfide (such as Desulfobacteraceae), or cause algae blooms (Cyanobacteria) that can sicken people, fish and wildlife. During the flood, beneficial microbes from groups such as Halanaerobiaceae and Beggiatoaceae grew rapidly, consuming nutrients such as nitrogen, which is extremely high in the Coorong. This is very useful to prevent algae blooms. Beggiatoaceae bacteria also remove toxic sulfide compounds. The floods also let plants and invertebrates bounce back, flushed out salt and supported a healthier food web. On balance, we found the 2022 flood was positive for the Coorong. It’s as if the Coorong switched packets of chips for carrot sticks – the flood pulse reduced harmful bacteria and encouraged beneficial ones. While the variety of microbes shrank in some areas, those remaining performed key functions helping keep the ecosystem in balance. From 2022 to 2023, consistent high flows let native fish and aquatic plants bounce back, in turn improving feeding grounds for birds and allowing black swans to thrive. A group of black swans cruise the Coorong’s waters. Darcy Whittaker, CC BY Floods aren’t enough When enough water is allowed to flow down the Murray to the Coorong, ecosystems get healthier. But the Coorong has been in poor health for decades. It can’t just rely on rare flood events. Next year, policymakers will review the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which sets the rules for sharing water in Australia’s largest and most economically important river system. Balancing our needs with those of other species is tricky. But if we neglect the environment, we risk more degradation and biodiversity loss in the Coorong. As the climate changes and rising water demands squeeze the basin, decision-makers must keep the water flowing for wildlife. Christopher Keneally receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. His research is affiliated with The University of Adelaide and the Goyder Institute for Water Research. Chris is also a committee member and former president of the Biology Society of South Australia, and a member of the Australian Freshwater Sciences Society.Matt Gibbs receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Sophie Leterme receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). Her research is affiliated with Flinders University, with the ARC Training Centre for Biofilm Research & Innovation, and with the Goyder Institute for Water Research.Justin Brookes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Suggested Viewing

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.