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.

Will a diet that's good for the planet also help you live longer? Here's the evidence

News Feed
Monday, June 10, 2024

A new study finds that the more people followed environmentally sustainable diets that emphasized nutrients from plants, the lower their risk of death from cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and a variety of other causes. (J.M. Hirsch / Associated Press) Every time you scoop up a spoonful of overnight oats or sink your teeth into a cheeseburger, you’re eating for two — for the sake of your own health and the health of the planet.Researchers estimate that about 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, 40% of land use and 70% of freshwater use is tied to the production of food. The strain will only grow as Earth’s population climbs toward the 10 billion mark by 2050.Will it be possible to provide all those people with a nutritious diet in a way that’s environmentally sustainable? That question prompted an international group of scientists to create a “planetary health diet” that’s heavy on plants — including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, legumes and unsaturated oils from sources like olives and canola — along with with modest amounts of dairy, poultry, fish and other foods derived from animals. It also allows for a little bit of red meat, refined grains and sugar. (You can even have a burger about once a week.) If the whole world were to embrace a diet like this — along with adopting better agricultural practices and reducing food waste — greenhouse gas emissions would be cut roughly in half, the scientists calculated when they introduced their eating plan in 2019. They also projected that the number of premature deaths around the world would fall by up to 24%. “That amounts to about 11 million deaths per year” that wouldn’t happen, said Dr. Walter Willett, a co-chair of the group known as the EAT-Lancet Commission.Now Willett and his colleagues at Harvard University have checked their work against real-world data. The Harvard team created a Planetary Health Diet Index, which quantifies the degree to which a person’s diet adheres to the goals put forth by the commission. There are 15 food groups, and people were scored on a 5-point or 10-point scale for each one. The maximum possible score was 140, which would signify perfect alignment with the ideal eating plan.The researchers assigned PDHI scores to more than 200,000 people enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. All of the participants gave detailed information about their diets when they joined the studies in the 1970s and 80s, and they updated that information at least once every four years for more than two decades. The women in the two Nurses’ Health Studies improved their diets over time: The average index score for participants in NHS1 increased from 75.7 in 1986 to 84.5 in 2010, while the average for women in NHS2 jumped from 70.4 in 1990 to 85.9 in 2015. However, the average score for men in HPFS held steady at around 78.By the time the tracking periods came to an end in 2019, 54,536 people in the three studies had died.The researchers hypothesized that the higher a person’s PDHI score, the lower their risk of being among the deceased. And after accounting for demographic factors such as age, race and neighborhood income as well as health issues like a family history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, that’s exactly what they found.“We did see a very strong, very clear inverse relationship,” said Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Right down the line, everything we looked at was lower for people who adhered most closely to the planetary health diet.”Compared to the 20% of people with the lowest index scores, the 20% with the highest scores were 23% less likely to die for any reason during the study period. They were also 14% less likely to die of cardiovascular disease, 10% less likely to die of cancer, 47% less likely to die of a respiratory ailment, 28% less likely to die of a neurodegenerative disease such as Alzheimer’s, and 22% less likely to die of an infectious disease.Among all the men and women, eating more whole grains, fruit, poultry, nuts, soy and unsaturated fats were each associated with a lower risk of death. On the other hand, eating more starchy vegetables like potatoes, red or processed meats, eggs, saturated fats, added sugar or sugar from fruit juices were each associated with a higher risk of death.Willett and his collaborators also consulted a database that tallied the environmental impacts of various foods to see whether healthier diets were better for the planet. Compared to the diets of people with the lowest PDHI scores, the diets of those with the highest scores required 21% less fertilizer, 51% less cropland and 13% less water and produced 29% fewer greenhouse gas emissions.Willett said he was “surprised by the strength of some of these findings,” adding that the relationship goes both ways. For instance, when fewer acres are farmed, there’s less particulate matter in the air, and when fewer animals are raised in close quarters, the risk of antibiotic resistance declines.“There are lots of very important indirect effects on health that are mediated by a better environment,” he said.The results were published Monday in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.This isn’t the first study to link planetary health diets to a reduced risk of premature death — researchers have seen the connection in the United Kingdom and in Sweden. But the new work is the first to apply a more precise diet index to a large sample of Americans and use it to assess their risk of death. That is an “important” advance, said Zach Conrad, a professor at William & Mary who specializes in nutritional epidemiology and food systems.However, he said more work is needed to show that planetary health diets are as good for the Earth as they are for Earthlings.“It has yet to be demonstrated that healthy diets are also more environmentally sustainable,” said Conrad, who was not involved in the new study. “It is important that we move away from inferring a link between diet quality and sustainability, and instead move toward measuring it.”

The more people followed environmentally sustainable diets that emphasized nutrients from plants, the lower their risk of death from cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and a variety of other causes, a new study finds.

A white and green bean vegetarian salade nicoise.

A new study finds that the more people followed environmentally sustainable diets that emphasized nutrients from plants, the lower their risk of death from cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and a variety of other causes.

(J.M. Hirsch / Associated Press)

Every time you scoop up a spoonful of overnight oats or sink your teeth into a cheeseburger, you’re eating for two — for the sake of your own health and the health of the planet.

Researchers estimate that about 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, 40% of land use and 70% of freshwater use is tied to the production of food. The strain will only grow as Earth’s population climbs toward the 10 billion mark by 2050.

Will it be possible to provide all those people with a nutritious diet in a way that’s environmentally sustainable?

That question prompted an international group of scientists to create a “planetary health diet” that’s heavy on plants — including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, legumes and unsaturated oils from sources like olives and canola — along with with modest amounts of dairy, poultry, fish and other foods derived from animals. It also allows for a little bit of red meat, refined grains and sugar. (You can even have a burger about once a week.)

If the whole world were to embrace a diet like this — along with adopting better agricultural practices and reducing food waste — greenhouse gas emissions would be cut roughly in half, the scientists calculated when they introduced their eating plan in 2019. They also projected that the number of premature deaths around the world would fall by up to 24%.

“That amounts to about 11 million deaths per year” that wouldn’t happen, said Dr. Walter Willett, a co-chair of the group known as the EAT-Lancet Commission.

Now Willett and his colleagues at Harvard University have checked their work against real-world data.

The Harvard team created a Planetary Health Diet Index, which quantifies the degree to which a person’s diet adheres to the goals put forth by the commission. There are 15 food groups, and people were scored on a 5-point or 10-point scale for each one. The maximum possible score was 140, which would signify perfect alignment with the ideal eating plan.

The researchers assigned PDHI scores to more than 200,000 people enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. All of the participants gave detailed information about their diets when they joined the studies in the 1970s and 80s, and they updated that information at least once every four years for more than two decades.

The women in the two Nurses’ Health Studies improved their diets over time: The average index score for participants in NHS1 increased from 75.7 in 1986 to 84.5 in 2010, while the average for women in NHS2 jumped from 70.4 in 1990 to 85.9 in 2015. However, the average score for men in HPFS held steady at around 78.

By the time the tracking periods came to an end in 2019, 54,536 people in the three studies had died.

The researchers hypothesized that the higher a person’s PDHI score, the lower their risk of being among the deceased. And after accounting for demographic factors such as age, race and neighborhood income as well as health issues like a family history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, that’s exactly what they found.

“We did see a very strong, very clear inverse relationship,” said Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Right down the line, everything we looked at was lower for people who adhered most closely to the planetary health diet.”

Compared to the 20% of people with the lowest index scores, the 20% with the highest scores were 23% less likely to die for any reason during the study period. They were also 14% less likely to die of cardiovascular disease, 10% less likely to die of cancer, 47% less likely to die of a respiratory ailment, 28% less likely to die of a neurodegenerative disease such as Alzheimer’s, and 22% less likely to die of an infectious disease.

Among all the men and women, eating more whole grains, fruit, poultry, nuts, soy and unsaturated fats were each associated with a lower risk of death. On the other hand, eating more starchy vegetables like potatoes, red or processed meats, eggs, saturated fats, added sugar or sugar from fruit juices were each associated with a higher risk of death.

Willett and his collaborators also consulted a database that tallied the environmental impacts of various foods to see whether healthier diets were better for the planet. Compared to the diets of people with the lowest PDHI scores, the diets of those with the highest scores required 21% less fertilizer, 51% less cropland and 13% less water and produced 29% fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Willett said he was “surprised by the strength of some of these findings,” adding that the relationship goes both ways. For instance, when fewer acres are farmed, there’s less particulate matter in the air, and when fewer animals are raised in close quarters, the risk of antibiotic resistance declines.

“There are lots of very important indirect effects on health that are mediated by a better environment,” he said.

The results were published Monday in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

This isn’t the first study to link planetary health diets to a reduced risk of premature death — researchers have seen the connection in the United Kingdom and in Sweden. But the new work is the first to apply a more precise diet index to a large sample of Americans and use it to assess their risk of death.

That is an “important” advance, said Zach Conrad, a professor at William & Mary who specializes in nutritional epidemiology and food systems.

However, he said more work is needed to show that planetary health diets are as good for the Earth as they are for Earthlings.

“It has yet to be demonstrated that healthy diets are also more environmentally sustainable,” said Conrad, who was not involved in the new study. “It is important that we move away from inferring a link between diet quality and sustainability, and instead move toward measuring it.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Environmentally harmful Christmas gifts to avoid

Our obsession with consumption and plastic is not sustainable.

It’s fun to indulge in the nostalgia of snowy Norman Rockwell Christmas scenes filled with wholesome candle-lit family joy. The happy faces in the famous paintings appear thankful and content with whatever gift they received—be it a wooden spinning top, a pair of shoes, or a bicycle. You can almost imagine a local carpenter or factory making the gifts a town or two over rather than a far-away plastic toy factory in China. Those days of sustainable, locally hand-carved furniture, wooden toys, quality clothing, homemade blankets, and quilts that could be passed down through generations seem mostly long gone. Instead, what lies beneath the warm and merry veil of today’s Christmases is an obsession with consumption that drives human and environmental tragedy. “Many people in the global north tend to think that it is their right and that it is normal to consume the amount that we consume today,” Vivian Frick, a sustainability researcher at the Institute for Ecological Economy Research in Germany, told Popular Science. “They often completely forget that the consumption level that we have depends on exploiting other countries, having cheap resources from other countries, and having cheap labor.”While burning fossil fuels for energy and transport contributes to 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions, reducing it requires systemic change at the international level to make a real, lasting difference. Although it doesn’t seem like it, given the lack of climate action at the COP29 climate conference in November, it’s far easier for 195 countries to agree on climate-friendly policy than to ask 8 billion people to carpool or stop eating cheeseburgers. That said, our personal choices can still make a difference. While some may be unable to stop driving or air-conditioning their homes–since we live in an industrialized society where fossil fuel consumption is a mostly fixed part of the current system — we can help by consuming less in our day-to-day lives. That can be as simple as being more mindful about what you gift friends and family for Christmas. Dirty SantaAlmost every Christmas gift affects the environment and humans in some way. Whether it’s a cheap single-use plastic product or metals mined using child or slave labor, it has likely caused a lot of suffering and pollution on its long manufacturing journey from the ground to your hands. For example, over 90% of children’s toys sold in the U.S. are made from plastics derived from crude oil—the same stuff that fossil fuel companies pump from the ground to keep your car running and economies ticking over. More than 80% of those toys are manufactured in China. After fossil fuel companies extract the crude oil from the ground, it travels thousands of miles via pipelines or oil tankers to a refinery. Once there, the oil is processed into materials called feedstocks and moved to petrochemical plants, where they are converted into plastic resins or pellets. Then they go to the factories to create almost everything in your home, wardrobe, and, honestly, life. Anything made in China has to be transported at least 7,200 miles across the Pacific Ocean. The effort is staggering. For example, parents report that children lose interest in new toys within hours. Most toys are forgotten within a month, and over 80% of plastic toys end up in landfills, according to a May 2022 study in the Journal of Sustainable Production and Consumption.The problem doesn’t stop there. About 70% of all clothing is made from crude oil-derived synthetics like polyester, nylon, and acrylic and manufactured in China, Vietnam, India, and other developing countries. This system is known as fast fashion. The clothing is made quickly and cheaply to keep up with the latest trends. It’s known to fall apart quickly.Around 11 million tons of clothing end up in U.S. landfills every year. The same applies to furniture and electronics. But this culture of unsustainable consumption didn’t start recently. Society’s transition from wanting very little to wanting everything began decades ago. Scientific advances during World War II led to our love-hate relationship with mass-produced plastic and our current throwaway culture. It began to take hold in the late 1940s, just as Americans entered an era free from war and economic depression. Families had more disposable income and time to watch the latest, humanity-altering invention: the television. Oh, and the baby boom. All combined, it created a new consumer market and an easy way to reach them. The U.S. toy industry’s sales skyrocketed from $84 million in 1940 to $900 million by 1953. Last year, toy sales hit $40 billion. Today, refined crude oil is used in many products: clothes, soaps, toothpaste, toilet seats, bedsheets, water pipes, food preservatives, and even aspirin. If you’re not sleeping in, wearing, sitting on, drinking, or eating a type of refined crude oil, you’re probably not reading this. Maybe you’re living in a cave. But it’s not just toys or fast fashion that make Christmas gifts unsustainable. Here are some of the most common and surprising gifts you should avoid.ElectronicsModern electronics, like smartphones and tablets, often require frequent upgrades, leading to significant e-waste. Producing these devices relies on mining rare earth minerals, which damages ecosystems, consumes massive amounts of energy, and harms local communities. Even when recycling programs exist, only a fraction of electronic components are recovered, increasing waste.Single-use beauty gift setsPre-packaged beauty sets are a popular holiday gift but often include non-recyclable plastic containers and unnecessary wrapping. Excessive packaging adds to landfill waste, and the single-use nature of products—like small lotions or disposable accessories—means they are quickly used and discarded. Opt for sustainable alternatives with minimal packaging.Subscription boxes with excess packagingWhile convenient, monthly subscription boxes generate significant waste. Each shipment typically includes single-use plastics, bubble wrap, or foam fillers, much of which cannot be recycled. The repetitive deliveries contribute to carbon emissions from shipping, and the short lifespan of box contents often adds to household clutter and waste.Candles with paraffin waxParaffin wax candles are made from petroleum byproducts, meaning they are unsustainable and release harmful toxins like benzene and toluene when burned. These emissions contribute to indoor air pollution. More sustainable alternatives, like soy or beeswax candles, burn cleaner, last longer, and have a lower environmental impact.Synthetic perfumes or fragrancesSynthetic perfumes rely heavily on petrochemicals derived from non-renewable resources like crude oil. The production process consumes high energy and generates chemical waste. Additionally, synthetic fragrance chemicals are often not biodegradable, contributing to long-term pollution when washed away or released into the environment.Mass-produced jewelryMass-produced jewelry frequently relies on unsustainable mining practices to source metals and stones. This process causes deforestation, soil erosion, and water contamination. Ethical concerns, such as poor working conditions and conflict materials, further complicate its impact. Choosing recycled metals or sustainably sourced alternatives reduces environmental harm.Chocolate from unsustainable sourcesUnsustainably sourced chocolate contributes to deforestation, as forests are cleared for cocoa plantations. Producing chocolate often involves unethical labor practices. Chocolate also uses unsustainable palm oil, harming habitats and wildlife. Opt for fair-trade or sustainably certified chocolate to minimize environmental and ethical harm.Bonus: these ain’t great either.Glitter-covered items – Microplastics that pollute waterways.Plastic-based beauty products – Microbeads also pollute our waters.Gadgets with non-recyclable batteries – Leads to e-waste.Pod coffee machines – Pods are hard to recycle effectively.Gas-powered tools – Emit greenhouse gases and harmful particulates.Gift cards to unsustainable chains – Supports factory farming and deforestation.Exotic pets – Harms wild ecosystems through poaching.Frequent flyer miles – Encourages carbon-intensive air travel.

Book Review: This Relationship Shaped Rachel Carson’s Environmental Ethos

The connection between queer love and the power to imagine a more sustainable future

December 17, 20244 min readBook Review: This Relationship Shaped Rachel Carson’s Environmental EthosThe connection between queer love and the power to imagine a more sustainable futureBy Brooke BorelNONFICTIONRachel Carson and the Power of Queer Loveby Lida Maxwell.Stanford University Press, 2025 ($25)On a summer night in the mid-1950s, two women lay side by side on Dogfish Head, a spit of land on Maine’s jagged coast where a river meets the ocean. They took in the dazzling stars, the smudged filaments of the Milky Way, the occasional flash of a meteor. One woman was Rachel Carson, who would become well known for her book Silent Spring and its galvanization of the modern environmental movement; the other, Dorothy Freeman, was Carson’s mar­­ried neighbor. The two had been drawn together from the moment they met in 1953 on Southport Island, Maine, and remained close until 1964, when Carson died of cancer. It was Freeman who scattered Carson’s ashes.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The scene on Dogfish Head may sound romantic, and Lida Maxwell’s new book, Rachel Carson and the Power of Queer Love, argues that it indeed was. Maxwell, a professor of political science and of women, gender and sexuality studies at Boston University, explores the intimate bond between Carson and Freeman by drawing, in part, from a trove of personal letters. The book’s message is that the relationship holds a lesson for our modern climate crisis, especially for those of us willing to find meaning outside our culture’s dominant narratives.The correspondence is telling. Carson professes strong feelings after just a few letters (“Because I love you! Now I could go on and tell you some of the reasons why I do, but that would take quite a while, and I think the simple fact covers everything …”). The two call each other “darling” and “sweetheart.” During the stretches they spend physically apart, they express what can easily be read as queer yearning, as when Freeman writes: “How I would love to curl up beside you on a sofa in the study with a fire to gaze into and just talk on and on.”There is also reference to the hundreds of letters we’ll never read because the two women burned them, perhaps in that same fireplace. As Martha Freeman, Dorothy’s granddaughter, told Maxwell, “Rachel and Dorothy were initially cautious about the romantic tone and terminology of their correspondence.”Was Carson a lesbian? The answer has long been the source of speculation. It’s impossible to know; she’s not known to have publicly identified as such. To Maxwell, though, this question is beside the point: “Whether or not their love was ‘homosexual,’ to use the language of the time, it was certainly queer. It drew them out of conventional forms of marriage and family and allowed them to find happiness where their society told them they weren’t supposed to: in loving each other and the world of non­­human nature.”Queer love is a rejection of what Maxwell calls “the ideology of straight love,” or the pursuit of “the good life” through marriage, buying and decorating a house, having and raising children, and participating in the treadmill of consumer culture to keep it all running. Because Carson and Freeman’s love was queer, Maxwell argues, they had no template with which to explore it. Instead they created a new language, expressed through a shared love of nature: the song of the veery, the Maine tide pools, the woods between their houses. This avenue for connection and meaning making, Maxwell argues, is what made Carson’s Silent Spring possible—it changed her from a writer who captured the wonder of nature to one advocating to save it.How does this apply to the climate crisis? “As perhaps is obvious,” Maxwell writes, “the tight connection of the ideology of straight love with consumption is also bad for our climate because it ties our intimate happiness to unsustainable ways of living.” To truly achieve meaningful climate policy, she continues, we’ll need to expand our “visceral imaginary of what a good life could be.” The queer version embraces a “vibrant multispecies world” where we seek “desire and pleasure outside of the ideologies of capitalism and straight love.” These specific points, made through­out the book, are at times repetitive and can feel didactic.Some readers, particularly straight readers, may bristle at all this. After all, plenty of people who don’t identify as queer opt out of consumerism and fight climate change. Straight people can reject the hetero­normative story; queer people are not immune to it. But the point of the book isn’t that we should take individual action—it’s about broader structures and narratives. As a queer woman who spent a decade in a hetero­normative marriage, I know how seductive the call of that particular “good life” can be; I also know the liberation of building something new. Max well’s book holds lessons for all readers about ac­­knowledging, and then escaping, the structures that ensnare us.Carson and Freeman found the way through their decidedly queer, deeply romantic, long-­lasting love. Even when they were apart, they imagined themselves together. As Freeman writes during one of these spells: “You and I have been walking on the Head in the moonlight. Do you remember the night we lay there in that lovely light? I told you you looked like alabaster. You did. How happy we were then.”

New Zealand Inks 'Sustainable' Trade Deal With Switzerland, Costa Rica and Iceland

SYDNEY (Reuters) - New Zealand signed a trade deal on Saturday with Switzerland, Costa Rica and Iceland to remove tariffs on hundreds of...

SYDNEY (Reuters) - New Zealand signed a trade deal on Saturday with Switzerland, Costa Rica and Iceland to remove tariffs on hundreds of sustainable goods and services, in a move Wellington says will boost the country's export sector.The Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) was signed at a ceremony during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in Peru on Saturday after being struck in July, Trade and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay said in a statement."This agreement removes tariffs on key exports including 45 wood and wool products — two sectors that are vital to achieving our goal of doubling New Zealand's exports by value in 10 years," McClay said."It will also reduce costs for consumers, removing tariffs on hundreds of other products, including insulation materials, recycled paper, and energy-saving products such as LED lamps and rechargeable batteries."The deal prioritised New Zealand's "sustainable exports", he said, amid a roll back by the country's centre-right government of environmental reforms in a bid to boost a flailing economy. Exports make up nearly a quarter of New Zealand's economy.(Reporting by Sam McKeith in Sydney; Editing by Sandra Maler)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

California inks sustainable aviation fuel deal with major airlines

California on Wednesday signed an agreement with the country's leading passenger and cargo airlines to accelerate the use of sustainable aviation fuels across the state. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Airlines for America (A4A) — an industry trade group representing almost a dozen airlines — pledged to increase the availability of sustainable aviation fuels statewide....

California on Wednesday signed an agreement with the country's leading passenger and cargo airlines to accelerate the use of sustainable aviation fuels across the state. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Airlines for America (A4A) — an industry trade group representing almost a dozen airlines — pledged to increase the availability of sustainable aviation fuels statewide. Sustainable aviation fuels, lower-carbon alternatives to petroleum-based jet fuels, are typically made from non-petroleum feedstocks, such as biomass or waste.  At a San Francisco International Airport ceremony on Wednesday, the partners committed to using 200 million gallons of such fuels by 2035 — an amount estimated to meet about 40 percent of travel demand within the state at that point, according to CARB. That quantity also represents a more than tenfold increase from current usage levels of these fuels, the agency added. "This is a major step forward in our work to cut pollution, protect our communities, and build a future of cleaner air and innovative climate solutions," Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a statement. Among A4A member airlines are Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Atlas Air Worldwide, Delta Air Lines, FedEx, Hawaiian Airlines, jetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines and UPS, while Air Canada is an associate member. To achieve the 2035 goals, CARB and A4A said they plan to work together to identify, assess and prioritize necessary policies measures, such as incentivizing relevant investments and the streamlining permitting processes. A Sustainable Aviation Fuel Working Group, which will include government and industry stakeholders, will meet annually to both discuss progress and address barriers toward meeting these goals, the partners added. A public website will display updated information about the availability and use of conventional and sustainable fuels across California, while also providing details about state policies, according to the agreement. “We’ve put the tools in place to incentivize cleaner fuels and spur innovation, creating opportunities like this to radically change how Californians can travel cleaner," Newsom said. Kevin Welsh, chief sustainability officer for A4A, stressed the importance of this government-private sector partnership, which he described as "necessary to achieve ambitious climate goals." This effort will help support the "industry's efforts to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050," he added, referring to a 2021 resolution passed by the International Air Transport Association. Like the U.S. airline industry, the federal government has also mounted a push for the integration of sustainable aviation fuel — offering tax credits for its use via the Inflation Reduction Act. Nonetheless, some experts maintain that sustainable aviation fuel is anything but sustainable, since plant-based fuel sourcing can require the diversion of valuable lands away from crop cultivation and thereby increase emissions. The World Resources Institute noted that 1.7 gallons of corn ethanol are required to make 1 gallon of sustainable aviation fuel — necessitating corn acreage expansion that could jeopardize forests and grasslands. The agreement signed on Wednesday, however, expressed a commitment to "ensuring the sustainability and environmental integrity of feedstocks," by prioritizing the use wastes and residues in these power sources. “This partnership with the nation’s leading airlines brings the aviation industry onboard to advance a clean air future," CARB Chair Liane Randolph said in a statement. The agreement, Randolph added, will accelerate the "development of sustainable fuel options and promote cleaner air travel within the state.”

California Announces Sustainable Fuels Partnership to Curb Emissions From Planes

California is partnering with a major airline trade group to increase the availability of sustainable aviation fuels in the state

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will partner with a trade group representing major U.S. airlines to increase the availability of sustainable aviation fuels, state officials said Wednesday.The California Air Resources Board announced a plan with Airlines for America — which represents Delta, JetBlue, United and other airlines — to increase the availability of sustainable aviation fuel in the state to 200 million gallons by 2035. That amount would meet about 40% of intrastate travel demand, the agency said. Davina Hurt, a board member and chair of the San Francisco Bay Area's Air Quality Management District, said the commitment would help the state combat climate change and improve air quality.“Together we are not just taking a step forward in cleaner fuels but creating a ripple effect of positive change that will resonate throughout the nine counties of the Bay Area and extend to the state of California and beyond,” Hurt said at a news conference at the San Francisco International Airport.California produces about 11 million gallons annually of sustainable aviation fuel, according to the board. The state plans to use sustainable aviation fuel produced in California and in other states to meet the new targets.The announcement comes after some airline workers and advocates said the state is not doing enough to address the health impacts of jet fuel emissions. Air Resources Board staff last year included jet fuel in proposed updates to the state's low carbon fuel standard, a program aimed at transitioning the state toward transportation fuels that emit fewer greenhouse gas emissions. But staff later removed jet fuel from proposed changes to the rule, which the board is set to vote on next week.President Joe Biden's administration has also set targets for curbing jet fuel emissions. Biden announced a goal in 2021 to reduce aviation emissions 20% by 2030 and replace all kerosene-based jet fuel with sustainable fuel by 2050. Planes contributed about 9% of planet-warming emissions from the transportation sector in the U.S. in 2022, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions from cars and trucks account for the majority of greenhouse gas releases from transportation. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who often touts the state's status as a climate leader, said the new commitment will help the state and industry “tackle emissions head-on.”“This is a major step forward in our work to cut pollution, protect our communities, and build a future of cleaner air and innovative climate solutions,” he said in a statement.Austin is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on Twitter: @ sophieadannaCopyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

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.