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

Reality check on technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the air

News Feed
Wednesday, November 20, 2024

In 2015, 195 nations plus the European Union signed the Paris Agreement and pledged to undertake plans designed to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Yet in 2023, the world exceeded that target for most, if not all of, the year — calling into question the long-term feasibility of achieving that target.To do so, the world must reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and strategies for achieving levels that will “stabilize the climate” have been both proposed and adopted. Many of those strategies combine dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with the use of direct air capture (DAC), a technology that removes CO2 from the ambient air. As a reality check, a team of researchers in the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) examined those strategies, and what they found was alarming: The strategies rely on overly optimistic — indeed, unrealistic — assumptions about how much CO2 could be removed by DAC. As a result, the strategies won’t perform as predicted. Nevertheless, the MITEI team recommends that work to develop the DAC technology continue so that it’s ready to help with the energy transition — even if it’s not the silver bullet that solves the world’s decarbonization challenge.DAC: The promise and the realityIncluding DAC in plans to stabilize the climate makes sense. Much work is now under way to develop DAC systems, and the technology looks promising. While companies may never run their own DAC systems, they can already buy “carbon credits” based on DAC. Today, a multibillion-dollar market exists on which entities or individuals that face high costs or excessive disruptions to reduce their own carbon emissions can pay others to take emissions-reducing actions on their behalf. Those actions can involve undertaking new renewable energy projects or “carbon-removal” initiatives such as DAC or afforestation/reforestation (planting trees in areas that have never been forested or that were forested in the past). DAC-based credits are especially appealing for several reasons, explains Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at MITEI. With DAC, measuring and verifying the amount of carbon removed is straightforward; the removal is immediate, unlike with planting forests, which may take decades to have an impact; and when DAC is coupled with CO2 storage in geologic formations, the CO2 is kept out of the atmosphere essentially permanently — in contrast to, for example, sequestering it in trees, which may one day burn and release the stored CO2.Will current plans that rely on DAC be effective in stabilizing the climate in the coming years? To find out, Herzog and his colleagues Jennifer Morris and Angelo Gurgel, both MITEI principal research scientists, and Sergey Paltsev, a MITEI senior research scientist — all affiliated with the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3) — took a close look at the modeling studies on which those plans are based.Their investigation identified three unavoidable engineering challenges that together lead to a fourth challenge — high costs for removing a single ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. The details of their findings are reported in a paper published in the journal One Earth on Sept. 20.Challenge 1: Scaling upWhen it comes to removing CO2 from the air, nature presents “a major, non-negotiable challenge,” notes the MITEI team: The concentration of CO2 in the air is extremely low — just 420 parts per million, or roughly 0.04 percent. In contrast, the CO2 concentration in flue gases emitted by power plants and industrial processes ranges from 3 percent to 20 percent. Companies now use various carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies to capture CO2 from their flue gases, but capturing CO2 from the air is much more difficult. To explain, the researchers offer the following analogy: “The difference is akin to needing to find 10 red marbles in a jar of 25,000 marbles of which 24,990 are blue [the task representing DAC] versus needing to find about 10 red marbles in a jar of 100 marbles of which 90 are blue [the task for CCS].”Given that low concentration, removing a single metric ton (tonne) of CO2 from air requires processing about 1.8 million cubic meters of air, which is roughly equivalent to the volume of 720 Olympic-sized swimming pools. And all that air must be moved across a CO2-capturing sorbent — a feat requiring large equipment. For example, one recently proposed design for capturing 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year would require an “air contactor” equivalent in size to a structure about three stories high and three miles long.Recent modeling studies project DAC deployment on the scale of 5 to 40 gigatonnes of CO2 removed per year. (A gigatonne equals 1 billion metric tonnes.) But in their paper, the researchers conclude that the likelihood of deploying DAC at the gigatonne scale is “highly uncertain.”Challenge 2: Energy requirementGiven the low concentration of CO2 in the air and the need to move large quantities of air to capture it, it’s no surprise that even the best DAC processes proposed today would consume large amounts of energy — energy that’s generally supplied by a combination of electricity and heat. Including the energy needed to compress the captured CO2 for transportation and storage, most proposed processes require an equivalent of at least 1.2 megawatt-hours of electricity for each tonne of CO2 removed.The source of that electricity is critical. For example, using coal-based electricity to drive an all-electric DAC process would generate 1.2 tonnes of CO2 for each tonne of CO2 captured. The result would be a net increase in emissions, defeating the whole purpose of the DAC. So clearly, the energy requirement must be satisfied using either low-carbon electricity or electricity generated using fossil fuels with CCS. All-electric DAC deployed at large scale — say, 10 gigatonnes of CO2 removed annually — would require 12,000 terawatt-hours of electricity, which is more than 40 percent of total global electricity generation today.Electricity consumption is expected to grow due to increasing overall electrification of the world economy, so low-carbon electricity will be in high demand for many competing uses — for example, in power generation, transportation, industry, and building operations. Using clean electricity for DAC instead of for reducing CO2 emissions in other critical areas raises concerns about the best uses of clean electricity.Many studies assume that a DAC unit could also get energy from “waste heat” generated by some industrial process or facility nearby. In the MITEI researchers’ opinion, “that may be more wishful thinking than reality.” The heat source would need to be within a few miles of the DAC plant for transporting the heat to be economical; given its high capital cost, the DAC plant would need to run nonstop, requiring constant heat delivery; and heat at the temperature required by the DAC plant would have competing uses, for example, for heating buildings. Finally, if DAC is deployed at the gigatonne per year scale, waste heat will likely be able to provide only a small fraction of the needed energy.Challenge 3: SitingSome analysts have asserted that, because air is everywhere, DAC units can be located anywhere. But in reality, siting a DAC plant involves many complex issues. As noted above, DAC plants require significant amounts of energy, so having access to enough low-carbon energy is critical. Likewise, having nearby options for storing the removed CO2 is also critical. If storage sites or pipelines to such sites don’t exist, major new infrastructure will need to be built, and building new infrastructure of any kind is expensive and complicated, involving issues related to permitting, environmental justice, and public acceptability — issues that are, in the words of the researchers, “commonly underestimated in the real world and neglected in models.”Two more siting needs must be considered. First, meteorological conditions must be acceptable. By definition, any DAC unit will be exposed to the elements, and factors like temperature and humidity will affect process performance and process availability. And second, a DAC plant will require some dedicated land — though how much is unclear, as the optimal spacing of units is as yet unresolved. Like wind turbines, DAC units need to be properly spaced to ensure maximum performance such that one unit is not sucking in CO2-depleted air from another unit.Challenge 4: CostConsidering the first three challenges, the final challenge is clear: the cost per tonne of CO2 removed is inevitably high. Recent modeling studies assume DAC costs as low as $100 to $200 per ton of CO2 removed. But the researchers found evidence suggesting far higher costs.To start, they cite typical costs for power plants and industrial sites that now use CCS to remove CO2 from their flue gases. The cost of CCS in such applications is estimated to be in the range of $50 to $150 per ton of CO2 removed. As explained above, the far lower concentration of CO2 in the air will lead to substantially higher costs.As explained under Challenge 1, the DAC units needed to capture the required amount of air are massive. The capital cost of building them will be high, given labor, materials, permitting costs, and so on. Some estimates in the literature exceed $5,000 per tonne captured per year.Then there are the ongoing costs of energy. As noted under Challenge 2, removing 1 tonne of CO2 requires the equivalent of 1.2 megawatt-hours of electricity. If that electricity costs $0.10 per kilowatt-hour, the cost of just the electricity needed to remove 1 tonne of CO2 is $120. The researchers point out that assuming such a low price is “questionable,” given the expected increase in electricity demand, future competition for clean energy, and higher costs on a system dominated by renewable — but intermittent — energy sources.Then there’s the cost of storage, which is ignored in many DAC cost estimates.Clearly, many considerations show that prices of $100 to $200 per tonne are unrealistic, and assuming such low prices will distort assessments of strategies, leading them to underperform going forward.The bottom lineIn their paper, the MITEI team calls DAC a “very seductive concept.” Using DAC to suck CO2 out of the air and generate high-quality carbon-removal credits can offset reduction requirements for industries that have hard-to-abate emissions. By doing so, DAC would minimize disruptions to key parts of the world’s economy, including air travel, certain carbon-intensive industries, and agriculture. However, the world would need to generate billions of tonnes of CO2 credits at an affordable price. That prospect doesn’t look likely. The largest DAC plant in operation today removes just 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, and the price to buy the company’s carbon-removal credits on the market today is $1,500 per tonne.The researchers recognize that there is room for energy efficiency improvements in the future, but DAC units will always be subject to higher work requirements than CCS applied to power plant or industrial flue gases, and there is not a clear pathway to reducing work requirements much below the levels of current DAC technologies.Nevertheless, the researchers recommend that work to develop DAC continue “because it may be needed for meeting net-zero emissions goals, especially given the current pace of emissions.” But their paper concludes with this warning: “Given the high stakes of climate change, it is foolhardy to rely on DAC to be the hero that comes to our rescue.”

Study finds many climate-stabilization plans are based on questionable assumptions about the future cost and deployment of “direct air capture” and therefore may not bring about promised reductions.

In 2015, 195 nations plus the European Union signed the Paris Agreement and pledged to undertake plans designed to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Yet in 2023, the world exceeded that target for most, if not all of, the year — calling into question the long-term feasibility of achieving that target.

To do so, the world must reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and strategies for achieving levels that will “stabilize the climate” have been both proposed and adopted. Many of those strategies combine dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with the use of direct air capture (DAC), a technology that removes CO2 from the ambient air. As a reality check, a team of researchers in the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) examined those strategies, and what they found was alarming: The strategies rely on overly optimistic — indeed, unrealistic — assumptions about how much CO2 could be removed by DAC. As a result, the strategies won’t perform as predicted. Nevertheless, the MITEI team recommends that work to develop the DAC technology continue so that it’s ready to help with the energy transition — even if it’s not the silver bullet that solves the world’s decarbonization challenge.

DAC: The promise and the reality

Including DAC in plans to stabilize the climate makes sense. Much work is now under way to develop DAC systems, and the technology looks promising. While companies may never run their own DAC systems, they can already buy “carbon credits” based on DAC. Today, a multibillion-dollar market exists on which entities or individuals that face high costs or excessive disruptions to reduce their own carbon emissions can pay others to take emissions-reducing actions on their behalf. Those actions can involve undertaking new renewable energy projects or “carbon-removal” initiatives such as DAC or afforestation/reforestation (planting trees in areas that have never been forested or that were forested in the past). 

DAC-based credits are especially appealing for several reasons, explains Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at MITEI. With DAC, measuring and verifying the amount of carbon removed is straightforward; the removal is immediate, unlike with planting forests, which may take decades to have an impact; and when DAC is coupled with CO2 storage in geologic formations, the CO2 is kept out of the atmosphere essentially permanently — in contrast to, for example, sequestering it in trees, which may one day burn and release the stored CO2.

Will current plans that rely on DAC be effective in stabilizing the climate in the coming years? To find out, Herzog and his colleagues Jennifer Morris and Angelo Gurgel, both MITEI principal research scientists, and Sergey Paltsev, a MITEI senior research scientist — all affiliated with the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3) — took a close look at the modeling studies on which those plans are based.

Their investigation identified three unavoidable engineering challenges that together lead to a fourth challenge — high costs for removing a single ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. The details of their findings are reported in a paper published in the journal One Earth on Sept. 20.

Challenge 1: Scaling up

When it comes to removing CO2 from the air, nature presents “a major, non-negotiable challenge,” notes the MITEI team: The concentration of CO2 in the air is extremely low — just 420 parts per million, or roughly 0.04 percent. In contrast, the CO2 concentration in flue gases emitted by power plants and industrial processes ranges from 3 percent to 20 percent. Companies now use various carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies to capture CO2 from their flue gases, but capturing CO2 from the air is much more difficult. To explain, the researchers offer the following analogy: “The difference is akin to needing to find 10 red marbles in a jar of 25,000 marbles of which 24,990 are blue [the task representing DAC] versus needing to find about 10 red marbles in a jar of 100 marbles of which 90 are blue [the task for CCS].”

Given that low concentration, removing a single metric ton (tonne) of CO2 from air requires processing about 1.8 million cubic meters of air, which is roughly equivalent to the volume of 720 Olympic-sized swimming pools. And all that air must be moved across a CO2-capturing sorbent — a feat requiring large equipment. For example, one recently proposed design for capturing 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year would require an “air contactor” equivalent in size to a structure about three stories high and three miles long.

Recent modeling studies project DAC deployment on the scale of 5 to 40 gigatonnes of CO2 removed per year. (A gigatonne equals 1 billion metric tonnes.) But in their paper, the researchers conclude that the likelihood of deploying DAC at the gigatonne scale is “highly uncertain.”

Challenge 2: Energy requirement

Given the low concentration of CO2 in the air and the need to move large quantities of air to capture it, it’s no surprise that even the best DAC processes proposed today would consume large amounts of energy — energy that’s generally supplied by a combination of electricity and heat. Including the energy needed to compress the captured CO2 for transportation and storage, most proposed processes require an equivalent of at least 1.2 megawatt-hours of electricity for each tonne of CO2 removed.

The source of that electricity is critical. For example, using coal-based electricity to drive an all-electric DAC process would generate 1.2 tonnes of CO2 for each tonne of CO2 captured. The result would be a net increase in emissions, defeating the whole purpose of the DAC. So clearly, the energy requirement must be satisfied using either low-carbon electricity or electricity generated using fossil fuels with CCS. All-electric DAC deployed at large scale — say, 10 gigatonnes of CO2 removed annually — would require 12,000 terawatt-hours of electricity, which is more than 40 percent of total global electricity generation today.

Electricity consumption is expected to grow due to increasing overall electrification of the world economy, so low-carbon electricity will be in high demand for many competing uses — for example, in power generation, transportation, industry, and building operations. Using clean electricity for DAC instead of for reducing CO2 emissions in other critical areas raises concerns about the best uses of clean electricity.

Many studies assume that a DAC unit could also get energy from “waste heat” generated by some industrial process or facility nearby. In the MITEI researchers’ opinion, “that may be more wishful thinking than reality.” The heat source would need to be within a few miles of the DAC plant for transporting the heat to be economical; given its high capital cost, the DAC plant would need to run nonstop, requiring constant heat delivery; and heat at the temperature required by the DAC plant would have competing uses, for example, for heating buildings. Finally, if DAC is deployed at the gigatonne per year scale, waste heat will likely be able to provide only a small fraction of the needed energy.

Challenge 3: Siting

Some analysts have asserted that, because air is everywhere, DAC units can be located anywhere. But in reality, siting a DAC plant involves many complex issues. As noted above, DAC plants require significant amounts of energy, so having access to enough low-carbon energy is critical. Likewise, having nearby options for storing the removed CO2 is also critical. If storage sites or pipelines to such sites don’t exist, major new infrastructure will need to be built, and building new infrastructure of any kind is expensive and complicated, involving issues related to permitting, environmental justice, and public acceptability — issues that are, in the words of the researchers, “commonly underestimated in the real world and neglected in models.”

Two more siting needs must be considered. First, meteorological conditions must be acceptable. By definition, any DAC unit will be exposed to the elements, and factors like temperature and humidity will affect process performance and process availability. And second, a DAC plant will require some dedicated land — though how much is unclear, as the optimal spacing of units is as yet unresolved. Like wind turbines, DAC units need to be properly spaced to ensure maximum performance such that one unit is not sucking in CO2-depleted air from another unit.

Challenge 4: Cost

Considering the first three challenges, the final challenge is clear: the cost per tonne of CO2 removed is inevitably high. Recent modeling studies assume DAC costs as low as $100 to $200 per ton of CO2 removed. But the researchers found evidence suggesting far higher costs.

To start, they cite typical costs for power plants and industrial sites that now use CCS to remove CO2 from their flue gases. The cost of CCS in such applications is estimated to be in the range of $50 to $150 per ton of CO2 removed. As explained above, the far lower concentration of CO2 in the air will lead to substantially higher costs.

As explained under Challenge 1, the DAC units needed to capture the required amount of air are massive. The capital cost of building them will be high, given labor, materials, permitting costs, and so on. Some estimates in the literature exceed $5,000 per tonne captured per year.

Then there are the ongoing costs of energy. As noted under Challenge 2, removing 1 tonne of CO2 requires the equivalent of 1.2 megawatt-hours of electricity. If that electricity costs $0.10 per kilowatt-hour, the cost of just the electricity needed to remove 1 tonne of CO2 is $120. The researchers point out that assuming such a low price is “questionable,” given the expected increase in electricity demand, future competition for clean energy, and higher costs on a system dominated by renewable — but intermittent — energy sources.

Then there’s the cost of storage, which is ignored in many DAC cost estimates.

Clearly, many considerations show that prices of $100 to $200 per tonne are unrealistic, and assuming such low prices will distort assessments of strategies, leading them to underperform going forward.

The bottom line

In their paper, the MITEI team calls DAC a “very seductive concept.” Using DAC to suck CO2 out of the air and generate high-quality carbon-removal credits can offset reduction requirements for industries that have hard-to-abate emissions. By doing so, DAC would minimize disruptions to key parts of the world’s economy, including air travel, certain carbon-intensive industries, and agriculture. However, the world would need to generate billions of tonnes of CO2 credits at an affordable price. That prospect doesn’t look likely. The largest DAC plant in operation today removes just 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, and the price to buy the company’s carbon-removal credits on the market today is $1,500 per tonne.

The researchers recognize that there is room for energy efficiency improvements in the future, but DAC units will always be subject to higher work requirements than CCS applied to power plant or industrial flue gases, and there is not a clear pathway to reducing work requirements much below the levels of current DAC technologies.

Nevertheless, the researchers recommend that work to develop DAC continue “because it may be needed for meeting net-zero emissions goals, especially given the current pace of emissions.” But their paper concludes with this warning: “Given the high stakes of climate change, it is foolhardy to rely on DAC to be the hero that comes to our rescue.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

2024 was the hottest year on record, NASA and NOAA confirm

Weather organizations from around the world agree that the planet's average global surface temperature in 2024 could well have passed a crucial threshold meant to limit the worst effects of climate change.

Amid a week of horrifying wildfires in Los Angeles, government agencies in the U.S. and around the world confirmed Friday that 2024 was the planet’s hottest year since recordkeeping began in 1880.It’s the 11th consecutive year in which a new heat record has been set, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said. “Between record-breaking temperatures and wildfires currently threatening our centers and workforce in California, it has never been more important to understand our changing planet,” Nelson said.Firefighters on Friday were battling to protect NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge from the Eaton fire, which has burned 13,690 acres and roughly 5,000 buildings thus far.Research has shown that global warming is contributing significantly to larger and more intense wildfires in the western U.S. in recent years, and to longer fire seasons.The devastating fires in Southern California erupted after an abrupt shift from wet weather to extremely dry weather, a bout of climate “whiplash” that scientists say increased wildfire risks. Research has shown that these rapid wet-to-dry and dry-to-wet swings, which can worsen wildfires, flooding and other hazards, are growing more frequent and intense because of rising global temperatures.Extreme weather events in 2024 included Hurricane Helene in the southeastern U.S., devastating floods in Valencia, Spain, and a deadly heat wave in Mexico so intense that monkeys dropped dead from the trees, noted Russell Vose, chief of the monitoring and assessment branch of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.“We aren’t saying any of these things were caused by changes in Earth’s climate,” Vose said. But since warmer air holds more moisture, the higher temperatures “could have exacerbated some events this year.”Last year’s data also notes a step toward a major climate threshold. Keeping the average global surface temperature from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels has long been seen as necessary to avoid many of the most harrowing climate impacts.NOAA pegged 2024’s global average surface temperature at 1.46 degrees C above its preindustrial baseline, and NASA’s measurements put the increase at 1.47 degrees C. In 2023, NASA said the temperature was 1.36 degrees C higher than the baseline. Considering the margin of error in their measurements, “that puts the NOAA and NASA models comfortably within the possibility that the real number is 1.5 degrees,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.Calculations from other organizations passed the 1.5-degree mark more clearly.Berkeley Earth and the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service both said the planet warmed to slightly more than 1.6 degrees C above pre-industrial times in 2024. The United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization said the increase was 1.55 degrees C and the U.K. Met Office, the country’s weather service, measured an increase of 1.53 degrees C.Although 2024 probably marks the first calendar year in which the average temperature exceeded the 1.5-degree threshold, it doesn’t mean Earth has passed the crucial target set in the Paris Agreement, Vose said.That describes “a sustained, multi-decade increase of 1.5 degrees,” something that’s not expected to occur until the 2030s or 2040s, the scientists noted.“For a long time, the global mean temperature changes were a bit of an esoteric thing — nobody lives in the global mean,” Schmidt said. “But the signal is now so large that you’re not only seeing it at the global scale … you’re seeing it at the local level.”“This is now quite personal,” he said.The oceans, which store 90% of the planet’s excess heat, also recorded their highest average temperature since records began in 1955.The Arctic has seen the most warming, which is concerning because the region is home to vast quantities of ice that stands to melt and raise sea levels, Schmidt said. Temperatures there are rising 3 to 3.5 times faster than the overall global average, he added.The only place where average surface temperatures have cooled is the area immediately around Antarctica, and that’s probably due to meltwater from shrinking ice sheets, Schmidt said.A year ago, NOAA predicted there was only a 1 in 3 chance that 2024 would break the record set in 2023, Vose said. Then every month from January to July set a new high, and August was a tie. As a result, Friday’s declaration came as little surprise.The longer-term trends are no better.“We anticipate future global warming as long as we are emitting greenhouse gases,” Schmidt said. “That’s something that brings us no joy to tell people, but unfortunately that’s the case.”Times staff writer Ian James contributed to this report.

Climate
Government
Water

How Climate Change Fueled Deadly Los Angeles Fires

A whipsaw swing from very wet to very dry weather exposed millions to flames, smoke and pollutants. The post How Climate Change Fueled Deadly Los Angeles Fires appeared first on .

As unusually strong winds swept across a parched Los Angeles, spreading more than half a dozen firestorms that have now burned an area nearly the size of San Francisco, the fingerprints of climate change were all over the unfolding disaster. The underlying dynamic feeding the flames was a wet-and-dry whiplash in which vegetation, supercharged by heavy rain, dried out and became fuel for fires that left the city all but encircled in flames. It was not difficult for climate experts to connect the dots. Greenhouse gases, mostly from burning fossil fuels, linger in the atmosphere where they heat up the planet, leading to more to extreme weather. A hotter atmosphere holds more moisture, causing rain to fall in intense bursts. The hotter air also increases extreme temperatures and makes dry seasons drier by increasing evaporation.   In Pasadena, a California city on the edge of a major fire burning through Eaton Canyon, where researchers have collected data on precipitation since 1893, they recorded that half of its 20 rainiest days ever occurred since 2000. That includes one day last February when nearly 5 inches of rain fell.  Yet not a single drop has fallen in Pasadena and much of Los Angeles County since early May, according to data from the National Centers for Environmental Information. All the vegetation that grew during the rains in the first half of the year dried out when the rains stopped, transforming Southern California into a vast landscape of tinder that exploded this week.  The intensity of extreme precipitation will continue rising through the century, according to Cal-Adapt, a data analysis initiative sponsored by the California Energy Commission. The state also forecast longer periods of drought exacerbated by rising heat, according to its Fourth Climate Assessment summary report, released in 2018 and currently being updated. These two factors will likely increase the wet-dry cycle, fueling more intense and erratic wildfires, say climate experts. In 2021, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that drier air due to climate change was the “dominant” cause of variations in wildfire behavior in the West. The effect of the current fires on Los Angeles’ massive population will present researchers with a grim opportunity to study how wildfires can affect large numbers of people in a short period of time. Among the effects is the release of fine particles, called PM2.5, a pollutant that is found in wildfire smoke and that can find its way  into the lungs and bloodstream of those exposed to the smoke. Exposure can lead to decreased lung function, nonfatal heart attacks and death in people with heart or lung disease, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Shahir Masri, associate specialist in air pollution exposure assessment and epidemiology in the University of California, Irvine’s Department of Environmental & Occupational Health, studies climate change modeling and air pollution exposure. He published a study in 2022 that linked rising PM2.5 levels in California to wildfires and, to a lesser extent, heat waves. His previous work found that the number of census tracts in California that experienced major wildfires nearly doubled from 2000 to 2020. Capital & Main spoke to Masri about his work as the fires in L.A. County continued to burn. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. Capital & Main: Could you describe how climate change is making wildfires worse? Shahir Masri: It’s a variety of factors linked with climate change. Increasing temperatures and aridity in places like the Western U.S, and in more mountainous areas, you can have earlier snowmelt, which leaves downstream riparian areas desiccated and more fire-prone.  But you also have these earlier spring onsets, which generally speaking means an earlier arrival of spring and warm temperatures. You basically get longer warm summer windows, which has ultimately become a longer wildfire season. Landscapes are drying out more quickly, and the wildfire season begins more quickly and ends later. [The Southern California fires] remind me of 2017-’18, the Thomas fire, which burned from December through Jan. 8.  Shahir Fouad Masri. Photo courtesy Dr. Masri. So these later-burning fires are becoming more frequent. And when you add unprecedented heat waves on top of it, you get yet another scenario where you’re setting the stage for a major wildfire. In 2018, we saw a major wildfire season. The following year, we saw a major rainy season. Then in 2020, we saw the biggest wildfire season in the state’s history. That was a combination of huge growth in 2019 of shrubs and plants and a lot of things in the wet seasons, then the following year we got slammed with aggressively oppressive summer heat.  I fear some of this may have been at play in these fires. The last few years we’ve had really wet winters, and this is now the driest winter we’ve seen in a while. We didn’t get our holiday rain. This area burning now would have been much more resistant to a fire breaking out if we had that rain. So those are some of the factors at play and linked with climate change. In your study, you concluded that higher levels of PM2.5 were strongly associated with nearby wildfires. Why did you study PM2.5? PM2.5 is arguably the most robustly associated pollutant associated with adverse health effects. There have been nearly countless studies looking at the effects of PM2.5 and the increase of asthma, hospital admissions, exacerbated [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and short life expectancy.  It’s not entirely clear what causes PM2.5 to be more toxic than PM10 [a type of pollutant in the form of relatively larger particulates], and it’s not clear which forms of PM2.5 are most toxic. Is it because of a higher heavy metal content, or is it worse if it has a higher organic composition or sulfur content? The verdict is still out on that. But setting those composition differences aside, PM2.5 is the main characteristic of this particular type of air pollution that is most associated with adverse health effects. What would you expect the health effects to be from these fires, particularly for poorer communities that you found were most vulnerable to PM2.5 from wildfires? About 7% to 8% of Californians are asthmatics. Asthma attacks are exacerbated by things like air pollution — about 38% to 39% of asthmatic individuals will have an attack at least once a year. Therefore, these wildfires will likely result in quite a few asthma attacks. We will probably also see increased hospital admissions for the exacerbation of chronic conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There’s a whole separate series of health impacts we’re actually looking at through a survey of people exposed to the Tustin [north] hangar fire in 2023. There were a whole host of impacts, including mental stress. In an upcoming paper, we’re talking about mental stress as it relates to wildfires and environmental catastrophes. And I don’t think that should be overlooked, even though it’s less studied.  That, I would presume, will play a role here as well, especially given people abandoning their cars, losing their homes. It’s clearly a lot of trauma inflicted on this population. Post-traumatic stress disorders, anxiety disorders, those are things we see after major wildfire events, especially [in] people close to the fire. These impacts can be quite prevalent and can take quite a long time to dissipate, up to 10 years.  So I think smoke-related impacts are one thing. I think direct injuries from the fire, thermal injuries, are another. Property loss is another as well. But those mental impacts are also a major factor. The volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is at record levels. Do you expect more events like the current Los Angeles fire outbreak? Warming trends in the atmosphere don’t bode well. In addition to wildfire smoke, we also see higher energy demands [to run air conditioners] concurrent with heat waves. And that, depending on which state you live in, translates to greenhouse gas emissions from people using more electricity. Wildfires can wipe out the gains we’ve made from lowering emissions by reducing the prevalence of coal, [for example]. I think there’s a lot of work to be done on climate change in the United States. We have an incoming [presidential] administration notorious for disregarding climate change. And even though President [Joe] Biden acknowledged the importance of climate change and did a lot with the Inflation Reduction Act, we see a reluctance to shift away from fossil fuels even as we see more investments in renewable energy.  Biden broke his promise to end offshore drilling, so we’re seeing this fossil fuel addiction play out and remain, regardless of what political party is in office. In one case, it’s “drill baby drill”; in another, it’s “drill baby drill,” but we’ll also use the sun and wind.  So we’re so far off from where we need to be from policies to get us on the right track. And to highlight extensiveness needed for targets, the COVID-19 pandemic provided clear examples of just how dramatic a shift we’re talking about. We saw an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions during the first year of the pandemic, which is what is needed to comply with the U.N.’s target of an 8% reduction year-over-year for 10 years. That’s hard to fathom, given that our economy is globally grinding to a complete halt. That was an important lesson, and unfortunately we’re not taking steps to get on that track; we’re just ramping up emissions globally.  What gives you hope? What gives me hope is the youth community. My generation was basically much quieter on this issue than the current college generation. With every generation moving forward, the situation becomes all the more dire. It’s been quite inspirational to see them almost single-handedly get major attention and support and popularity around the Green New Deal; those are really youth-driven policy agendas. I think they’ve played a big role in popularizing those ideas.  I think those are major steps that cannot be overstated, and that generation now will be moving into politics, and that’s the most encouraging thing for me as I grapple with these issues.

Climate
Energy
Mountains

College Athletics: Game Day for Climate Action

As teams travel thousands of miles to compete, the cost to the planet rises. But sports offer a unique opportunity to advocate for sustainable experiences. The post College Athletics: Game Day for Climate Action appeared first on The Revelator.

Imagine gazing through an airplane window as you pass over Appalachia and, later, the Grand Canyon before touching down just outside of San Francisco. Or grabbing a peek at the Berkshires before feeling the hard ground of Logan airport under thin wheels. This has been the journey of athletes, coaches, staff, and fans of California’s Stanford University and Boston College this past year as the two teams began competing directly in the Atlantic Coast Conference — yes, despite the fact that they’re on different coasts. Located about 3,100 miles apart, they are the farthest-separated competitors in a Power 5 conference and potentially all of college athletics. It’s unclear if this matchup will truly have financial benefits for either school or the conference, but it will have environmental consequences. I’ve always appreciated the amateur aspect of college sports and I continued to appreciate it at a distance from my work in climate activism. But my more formal work in emissions accounting and climate risk have allowed me to see it through a new lens. My preliminary analysis indicates that just one football and two basketball games per season between the Stanford Cardinals and the Boston College Eagles over 10 years will produce equivalent emissions to driving more than 1,000 passenger vehicles for one year. That’s just the result of team member and staff travel and doesn’t even include fan travel, let alone other operations and moving equipment, as well as the many other sports at each school. Air travel is the only real alternative for schools competing at these great distances. High speed rail in this country is years away (though I remain optimistic). Although traditional rail and other nonaviation means are used by an increasing number of professional and college teams, the average cross-country train trip takes three days each way — a difficult burden for athletes who also need to attend classes. But even the most sustainable means of travel have incremental costs and emissions — the greater the distance, the greater the climate cost. Meanwhile many of those travel alternatives are also likely to cost more and, contrary to mainstream narratives, most college athletics, football included, are not “profitable” for universities. Stanford and Boston College are not alone and their matchup is just one of the more egregious examples of this emerging athletic phenomenon. But as a BC alum I feel particularly empowered to call out this piece of their lack of commitment to sustainability. Universities seek to attract students from all over, and BC ranks high for the distance students travel simply to attend. That is not inherently “bad,” but should be understood in the context of transportation emissions and universities’ role, including and beyond athletics. When it comes to sports, hope does exist. The Green Sports Alliance, which I’ve worked with, aims to put into action sustainable events and experiences, especially by our leading universities. Programs like this have great potential. Sports sit at an intersection of health, academia, economy, national and regional identities, international unity, youth, climate, and myriad other cultural issues. While a lot of media coverage highlights negative or outlandish examples, sports have served positively in the fight for racial equity and basic LGBTQ+ inclusion time and again. While they have their issues and can showcase perturbed nationalism or violence, there is a movement toward sports better reflecting positive developments in society. Sports are also beyond bipartisan. Democrat Marty Walsh, a former Boston mayor and labor secretary — as well as a BC alum, I might add — leads the NHL Players Association, while former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, currently leads the NCAA. Both have demonstrated a certain level of leadership on climate, sustainability, and transportation in their political careers, although we have yet to see that translate into their work in the sports world. Sports can be a beautiful and unifying force, especially for climate. In 2020 the leaders of student governments at all Big Ten schools came together to call for specific climate actions from their universities. The Atlantic Coast Conference Climate Justice Coalition launched a similar call later that same year, and student activists in the Ivy League followed in 2021. And of course who would forget the disruption of the Harvard-Yale football game by climate activists? These calls represent 52 universities, 950,000 active students, more than 12 million alumni, and $306 billion in endowment funds. While their impact on emissions is important, we must also take note of the impact of climate change on sports themselves. General travel and athletic events are often disrupted by weather, with climate change making things more volatile every year. This increases the likelihood of games being cancelled, attendance dropping due to poor weather, fans experiencing accidents on the road, or athletes being injured due to poor field conditions. Even the athletes’ travel itself has become more dangerous: Airlines have already measured an increase in turbulence on flights, and it’s anticipated to get worse. Despite that young athletes face increasing pressure to travel for sports. This pressure is tied into larger, and likely problematic, pressure on youth to perform and over-perform in sports and other aspects of their lives. I’ll let others take on that issue in more detail, but let’s be real — travel is, simply, exhausting. There’s another big threat: Some sports we enjoy in colder months — like skiing — could vanish. A study published this November found that without emission cuts, the Winter Olympics may no longer be possible. Protect Our Winters, another organization I’ve worked with, anticipates that threat and seeks to address climate change in defense of winter sports. It’s not just the Olympics: In the future, perhaps that flight from BC will take place over snowless Berkshires or never take off at all due to a flooded Logan Airport. Already built at sea level and on landfill never meant to be habitable, Logan — like many airports, infrastructure, homes, and other buildings — faces the risk of repeated flooding and damage, making it nearly inoperable as it faces its own contributions to the crisis. It is quite difficult to face this conundrum as both contributor and victim. Wherever you stand politically, in your view of how to raise children in the context of sports, or what your position is on whether college athletes should be paid, we can agree that sports affect emissions, emissions affect sports, and both are powerful aspects of much larger systems. This offers an area of intersection that many in the world not often moved by mainstream climate actions might find interesting or action-provoking, and it’s worthy of further analysis. Individual sports still involve a team at the highest level, and we all are or have been athletes or fans. Climate change is the same — our individual actions count, but our collective work is what affects the system. Scroll down to find our “Republish” button Previously in The Revelator: No Wave Is Insurmountable The post College Athletics: Game Day for Climate Action appeared first on The Revelator.

Climate
Sustainable
Crisis

The flames from wildfires aren’t always the most dangerous part

Climate change is making wildfires more common and more severe. The pollution is killing us

The spate of devastating fires hitting the Los Angeles area has dominated headlines and understandably so. At least 10 people have died and upwards of 180,000 people have been evacuated with more than 10,000 structures destroyed. One of these fires, the Palisades Fire, began burning on Tuesday and continues at the time of this writing, has destroyed at least 17,000 acres, the most in Los Angeles history. But there's also the Eaton Fire, the Hurst Fire, the Kenneth Fire and other fires in the area, many with little to no containment. While hundreds of thousands of Californians are fleeing from flames, there are other risks aside from the immediate damage: air pollution and the charred toxins that are left behind.  To give one example, a recent study in the journal JAMA Neurology has looked at the effects of wildfire smoke on  dementia. Previous research has established that tiny particles in the air (2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, known as PM2.5) are linked to dementia, but the researchers found that long-term exposure to wildfire smoke specifically “was associated with dementia diagnoses.” They added that as climate change worsens, “interventions focused on reducing wildfire PM2.5 exposure may reduce dementia diagnoses and related inequities.” To conduct their research, the scientists looked at health data from more than 1.2 million people from between 2008 and 2019 among members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Within this cohort, they discovered “people with higher exposure to wildfire fine particulate matter (PM2.5) had elevated risk of developing dementia,” explained Dr. Joan Casey, the study’s corresponding author and a professor of public health at the University of Washington. Because this study only examined existing patient data, Casey told Salon that scientists will need to do more research on the precise relationship between wildfire exposure and dementia. “We looked at the umbrella of all dementia diagnoses, but certain sub-types like Alzheimer’s or frontotemporal dementia might have stronger links with wildfire PM2.5,” Casey said. “We also want to understand the relevant time window of exposure. Here, we looked at exposure in the prior three years, but a longer window is likely important (up to 20 years.)” "As temperatures and humidity increase, conditions such as stroke, migraines, meningitis, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease may worsen." The researchers’ work is unfortunately relevant to human beings because climate change is making wildfires more frequent and more intense. From California and Hawaii to Greece and Spain, more and more of Earth’s wooded areas are bursting into flame as humanity overheats the planet with heat-trapping fossil fuel emissions. While these conflagrations engulf millions of acres of lands, they belch fine particulate matter into the air, which humans inevitably inhale. But more and more research is making it clear how devastating to our health this toxic air can be. Although this study focuses specifically on wildfire PM2.5, other research firmly establishes that PM2.5 in general is bad for human health. A report from the National Bureau of Economic Research released last April found that wildfire smoke contributes to the deaths of around 16,000 Americans per year, with that number expected to rise to 30,000 by mid century. A systematic review published in the journal Neurotoxicology found a link between air pollution and increased depressive and anxiety symptoms and behaviors, as well as physical alterations in brain regions believed to be associated with those conditions. A 2024 study in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety likewise found links between various types of common air pollution and diseases including PTSD and multiple sclerosis, while a 2021 study in the journal Neurology found a link between urban air pollution and central nervous system diseases. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. "The results of our studies on the effects of nanoparticles in the air show a link between exposure to air pollutants and neurological diseases and neuropsychiatric disorders," 2021 study lead author Mojtaba Ehsanifar, an assistant professor of environmental neurotoxicology at Kashan University of Medical Sciences' Anatomical Sciences Research Center, told Salon by email. Although Ehsanifar has not specifically worked on the effects of pollutants from fires, he noted that pollutants produced by both gases tend to be similar. He blames climate change for this problem. “A recent investigation establishes a connection between climate change and the exacerbation of certain neurological disorders,” Ehsanifar said. “As temperatures and humidity increase, conditions such as stroke, migraines, meningitis, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease may worsen.” He added that as temperatures continue to rise, the heat will combine with the smoke to hurt our brains. "This is yet another example of the profound, yet grossly understated negative health consequences of human-caused climate change." “Currently, brains are already operating toward the upper thresholds of these ranges, and as climate change elevates temperature and humidity, our brains might struggle to maintain temperature regulation, even malfunctioning,” Ehsanifar said. “A high internal body temperature, especially above 104 degrees Fahrenheit, with cognitive impairment such as confusion, defines heat stroke.” This research underscores how global heating is intrinsically linked to our health. University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann said it is fair to directly attribute diseases like dementia to climate change when they are demonstrably caused by wildfire exposure. “The connection is epidemiological, much like the negative health consequences of smoking are epidemiological, i.e. statistical in nature,” Mann said. “So in other words, while it’s always possible that a victim could have suffered neurological diseases for other reasons, we can say that exposure to wildfire smoke substantially increases the likelihood of e.g. developing dementia, enough so that there is effectively a causal connection there.” Mann added, “This is yet another example of the profound, yet grossly understated negative health consequences of human-caused climate change.” Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Salon that he is not surprised the study found adverse effects of wildfire pollution. The revelation that PM2.5 may indirectly increase dementia risk, however, was new to him. “But there is no question that air pollution is bad for health in many ways,” Trenberth said. “On bad pollution days, either one should not exercise or should do it indoors. So this affects exercise, which should help health. With wildfires around, one should not breathe the foul air. So this can be partially controlled from industry although mainly for larger particles. It is harder to see the smaller particles.” Nor are humans alone in suffering, Trenberth noted. “Think of all the poor animals exposed.” Scientists writing in 2022 for the journal Environmental Research described air pollution broadly as an underrecognized public health risk, arguing that “policy needs to be matched by scientific evidence and appropriate guidelines, including bespoke strategies to optimise impact and mitigate unintended consequences.” In addition to mitigating the impacts of climate change, experts urge ordinary citizens to take measures to protect their lungs during times of intense air pollution. Whether it is caused by wildfires, urban smog or any other source, the overwhelming evidence is that breathing it in is bad for a person’s respiratory health. What remains after a wildfire can also be dangerous. The charred ruins of houses and burnt out cars contain countless pollutants from melted plastics, paints, electronics and household waste. Until the environment is adequately cleaned up, the likelihood is that those who struggle with disease because of exposure to wildfires both during and after may continue to risk their health. “Seeing the magnitude of the relationship between wildfire PM2.5 and dementia was quite striking,” Casey said. “I was especially struck by how much stronger this relationship was for people living in communities with higher levels of poverty, suggesting that climate change is again increasing health disparities.” Read more about climate change

Climate
Pollution
Health

The climate benefits of NYC’s hard-won congestion pricing plan

Driving into lower Manhattan is now more expensive, but the toll promises cleaner air, safer streets, and improved subways.

After months — and, for some, years — of anticipation, congestion pricing is live in New York City.  The controversial policy, which essentially makes it more expensive to drive into the busiest part of Manhattan, has been floated as a way to reduce traffic and raise money for the city’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs the city’s subways and buses, since the 1970s. But it wasn’t until 2017 that it seemed like it might finally catch on.  Still, getting it implemented has been an uphill battle. Last summer, New York Governor Kathy Hochul abruptly paused a carefully crafted plan that would have implemented $15 tolls on drivers heading into Manhattan below 60th Street, a mere 25 days before the plan would have gone into effect. Months later, in November, she said she would unpause the plan with lower tolls: $9 for passenger vehicles during peak hours and $2.25 during off-peak. After all the hubbub, New York City made history just after midnight on Sunday, January 5, when the cameras used to enforce the tolls turned on.  With this move, New York City becomes the first U.S. city to experiment with congestion pricing tolls, and joins a small cohort of other major cities — London, Stockholm, and Singapore — trying to disincentivize driving in order to unlock safer streets and a host of other environmental benefits. Environmental and public transit advocates praise congestion pricing because it pushes drivers to reconsider whether getting behind the wheel is really the easiest way to get around the city. With fewer cars on the road, congestion pricing promises shorter commute times for those who do drive — and better public transit options, since the money raised by congestion pricing will fund capital improvements by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or MTA.  But the policy has not been without its naysayers. One New York City councilmember — Republican Vickie Paladino — appeared to encourage her followers on X (formerly Twitter) to damage the tolling cameras with lasers. Congestion pricing detractors say that tolls are burdensome. Of course, in some way, this is the point: to make driving slightly less appealing and incentivize alternative modes of transportation.  Proponents say these are worthwhile costs to fund meaningful improvements to New Yorkers’ lives — like safer streets and cleaner air.  “At this point, across much of the country, cars are so ingrained into American culture that we don’t always think of them as environmental hazards, but of course they are,” said Alexa Sledge, director of communications for Transportation Alternatives, an advocacy group focused on street safety in New York City. “So a major goal of our climate policy has to be getting people out of cars and on public transit, onto buses, onto bikes, onto trips on foot.” These less carbon-intensive modes of transit, she says, are “always going to be substantially more environmentally friendly.” Cars pass under E-ZPass readers and license plate-scanning cameras on 5th Avenue in Manhattan as congestion pricing takes effect in New York City. Kena Betancur / AFP via Getty Images One of the main selling points of congestion pricing, besides reducing traffic, is improving air quality. Fewer cars on the road means fewer cars emitting exhaust in the nation’s most densely populated city — and less traffic also means that less time spent idling.  An environmental assessment of congestion pricing published in 2023 estimated the impact tolls would have on a number of air pollutants, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and benzene. These chemicals have been linked to health problems including heart disease, respiratory issues, cognitive impairment, and increased risk of cancer. The assessment also looked at the impact tolls would have on greenhouse gases. It analyzed these impacts at a regional level, looking at 12 different counties across New York and New Jersey, and projected how big or small the change in pollutants would be by 2045.  The report found that, with congestion pricing, Manhattan would see a 4.36 percent reduction in daily vehicle-miles traveled by 2045. This would lead to sizable reductions in air pollutants in Manhattan, especially in the central business district (the area drivers must pay a toll to enter). For example, per the environmental assessment’s modeling, the central business district would see a 10.72 percent drop in carbon dioxide equivalents by 2045, as well as a similar drop in fine particular matter, and slightly lower drops in nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide (5.89 percent and 6.55 percent, respectively).  When you zoom out, the benefits become sparser, but are still meaningful: The assessment found that, across the 12 New York and New Jersey counties included in its analysis, carbon dioxide equivalents would fall by 0.8 percent by 2045. Those 12 counties have a collective population of roughly 14 million. It’s worth noting that real-life impacts will likely differ from these estimates — and it will take robust data collection to see exactly how. The environmental assessment based these projections off a congestion pricing scenario that’s actually slightly more ambitious than the one in place today, with peak tolls for passenger vehicles priced at $9 and off-peak tolls at $7. But the tolls for drivers that Hochul signed off on will ramp up over time. By 2028, peak tolls will be $12, and by 2031, they’ll reach $15. “The most important thing is to start,” said Andy Darrell, regional director of New York at the Environmental Defense Fund, who was optimistic that real-life benefits may surpass these projections over time. “And it’s important to monitor the effects going forward and then be able to adjust the program as we go. And I think that’s exactly what’s happening now.” A congestion pricing warning sign on 5th Avenue in Manhattan. Kena Betancur / AFP via Getty Images Eric Goldstein, the New York City environmental director at the National Resources Defense Council, was similarly confident about congestion pricing’s benefits. Over email, he said, “Even if the reduction in traditional air pollutants and global warming emissions are modest from implementation of congestion pricing, the indirect air quality benefits will be substantial over the long term,” adding that congestion pricing will “provide a jolt of adrenaline to the region’s subway, bus, and commuter rail system that moves the overwhelming majority of people into and out of Manhattan.” The environmental assessment also found that, as a result of congestion pricing, traffic may increase in other parts of the city, like the Bronx, where neighborhoods like the South Bronx already suffer from disproportionately high rates of asthma. To offset this, the MTA has promised to fund several mitigation efforts, such as replacing diesel-fueled trucks around Hunts Point, a bustling food distribution facility, with cleaner models. It will also install air filtration systems at schools located near highways, plant more trees near roads, and establish a Bronx asthma center.  These efforts, however, have done little to reassure local community members. In November, South Bronx Unite, a coalition centered on social and environmental justice, called New York City’s revived congestion pricing plan a “death blow” for the South Bronx and said the mitigation efforts do not go far enough to address the root causes of pollution in the area. “We welcome all pollution mitigation measures for the South Bronx and for any pollution-burdened community, but they should not be dangled in front of us as a bargaining chip for adding more pollution to the area,” Arif Ullah, the group’s executive director, told reporters.     Beyond cleaner air for most of the region, congestion pricing is likely to have other environmental and climate benefits. For example, the money raised by congestion pricing tolls will allow the MTA to access $15 billion in financing for capital improvements, such as making subway stations more accessible. These sorts of upgrades, while not technically designed with climate change in mind, make the subway safer and more efficient to use — and that matters when extreme weather strikes. Sledge, from Transportation Alternatives, said: “People really do rely on our subway system to get them where they need to go, and if there is a mass weather event, then that’s really scary and really difficult.” In September 2023, rainstorms caused flash flooding in New York City, overwhelming the subway system in many places. After Hochul declared a state of emergency due to the extreme rainfall, the MTA warned of disruptions “across our network” and advised people to stay home if they could. Climate change makes extreme rainfall more likely because rising ocean temperatures lead to more water evaporating into the air. As Sledge notes, these weather events are “obviously only getting more and more common” as global temperatures keep rising. “So anything we can do to mitigate this is going to be extremely important as we move forward.” Technically speaking, the funds raised by congestion pricing will only be spent on capital improvements included in the MTA’s 2020-2024 capital plan; the agency will likely need to raise another $6 billion to fund its climate resilience roadmap, which includes things like elevating subway vents to prevent storm surges from flooding subway stations.  But experts agreed that improving the public transit system is critical to achieving New York City’s climate goals. “For a very densely populated region like the New York metropolitan region, that investment in transit is fundamental to achieving our climate goals and our air quality goals,” said Darrell from the Environmental Defense Fund.  The National Resources Defense Council’s Goldstein agreed: “Ultimately, if we can’t adequately fund this public transit system so that it provides safe, reliable and efficient service, the region’s environment, as well as its economy, is certain to decline.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The climate benefits of NYC’s hard-won congestion pricing plan on Jan 10, 2025.

Climate
Business
CO2

Suggested Viewing

Sounding the Alarm ~ America's Climate Crisis

"It's really hard being a fire family. Every day it's getting worse." -Brett, wife of Marin County Battalion Chief in California.Every day, Americans who live close to the land and sea face the dangers of climate change—from a firefighter in California, to a beekeeper in Arizona, to a climate refugee losing her home in Florida. The changing climate affects our food systems, water and way of life. These American families are in the trenches sacrificing everything while facing depression, PTSD, and suicide—collateral damage of a crisis unchecked. Award-winning filmmaker, Peter Goetz, captures America's faces and voices, shot in 2020 leading up to the presidential election. Goetz and the Biden campaign made history, producing the first national climate spot to run during a presidential election. But this film dives deeper into the American climate crisis to explore the lives of the people who are sounding the alarm, worried about their grandchildren’s future, asking, "If not us, then who?" This is a story of the resilience, perseverance, and ingenuity of the American people. Ever hopeful, they collectively take on a common enemy. As the young, Navajo solar visionary Brett Issac insists, "We've got to turn this train around before it's too late."

Climate
Crisis
Government

Sustainable Living with Patrick Lang

A day in the life of Patrick Lang living a sustainable life in Malibu… filmed before his home and community were consumed by fire in the fall of 2018.

Sustainable
Land Use
Solutions

Inside The Grand Canyon

This guerrilla style documentary film captures a Colorado River rafting expedition through the Grand Canyon. Exhilarating and sometimes dangerous expeditions like this are not often considered when discussing global climate change but could be helpful to enlighten more folks about the changes to our planet. This rafting trip will soon be a thing of the past with record draughts continuing due to ongoing global climate change caused largely by humans. This is just a tiny slice of natures many warning signs of things to come. We find ourselves in a world of ongoing disbelief and hesitation in lieu of planning for the clear and present dangers from climate change. The Colorado River has already reached devastating levels for communities that depend on the water and electrical power resource. Government study in 2022 showed that Lake Powell could reach ""dead pool"" by 2023. There is no plan to mitigate the catastrophe that will leave over a million and a half people with no electricity.

Water
Climate
Sustainable

A Low Carbon Future for China’s Furnace Cities

China’s economic development and rapid urbanization has led to a dramatic rise in energy consumption due to excessive heating and air-conditioning causing carbon emissions of immense proportions. China’s government has set the ambitious target of reducing CO2 emissions by 40–45% by 2020 against the 2005 baseline. A UK/China-funded team working on how to solve the problem in some of the most extreme climate regions in China. The team discovers groundbreaking solutions using computational-fluid-dynamics simulations.

CO2
Energy
Climate

Can Hydroponic Farming Help Reduce the Effects of Climate Change?

"Can Hydroponic Farming Help Reduce the Effects of Climate Change?" is an entertaining and educational short film. Rachel and her remarkable robot companion, Rex, witness the dire consequences of climate change through news reports of devastating natural disasters. When Rex encounters an alien emissary, he embarks on a journey to a ruined world where pollution and climate change led to the collapse of an entire civilization. Returning to Earth the three main causes of global warming are reveal—electricity production, transportation, and wasteful agriculture—and stress the importance of transitioning to clean energy sources, electric transport, and hydroponic farming. Rex takes on the mission of educating robots and humans alike about combating climate change. The film ends with a global commitment to address the crisis and a poignant celebration of Rex's role in this vital endeavor, reminding us of the urgency to protect our planet from climate catastrophe.

Conservation
Education
Climate

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.