DENVER – As the New Year approaches, many Americans will be focusing on what resolutions they'll make to do things differently in 2018.

Climate scientists at the University of California at Davis say one option is to help slow climate change by adopting a low-emissions diet.

Maya Almaraz, a postdoctoral researcher at the university, says while people may feel helpless when it comes to an issue as large as a warming planet, the data show that personal decisions really can have a big impact.

"We make food choices every day,” she points out. “It's an individual choice, so you may make them based on how you want to look or what you want your health to be. Or you can choose to make them based on how you want to impact the planet."

Almaraz says the single biggest move you can make, in terms of diet to reduce methane and carbon pollution, is by putting less meat on your plate.

She points out by eating fish instead of steak, you'll produce an eight-fold reduction in emissions, and switching to beans or lentils drops your footprint to almost zero.

Almaraz adds that the good news is you don't have to go vegan to make a difference. She suggests instead of eating meat twice a day, try cutting that down to once a day.

She contends if enough people reduce their meat consumption, that decision alone could offset the emissions from all cars on the road today.

She explains every step that goes into meat production has an impact on global warming.

"When you produce a hamburger, what that takes is a lot of feed for those cows, so that requires a lot of land,” she states. “Cut down some forests, you grow corn, you grow oats, you grow barley – that requires a lot of fertilizer."

Almaraz recommends trying out the so-called Mediterranean diet, which includes lots of nuts, beans, fish, but also chicken once a week and red meat once a month.

In addition to lowering your risk of heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, she says a global adoption of a Mediterranean diet could help cut global warming by up to 15 percent by 2050.




get more stories like this via email

Michigan's electric vehicle industry is praising the Biden administration for its latest investments in EV manufacturing and innovation.

About $650 million will go toward retooling auto plants in Lansing and Marysville to produce newer EV models. The funding is part of the Inflation Reduction Act, going to Michigan and seven other states to make more EVs.

Sophia Schuster, policy principal for the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council, said the money should help the state fight "brain drain." She noted Michigan is 49th in the U.S. in population growth since 1990.

"I think it's exciting to show that investments like these not only encourage people to stay and come in (to) Michigan but that there is a lot of potential for the clean energy workforce," Schuster explained. "Particularly in the auto manufacturing space."

In Michigan, the plans are expected to retain more than 1,000 jobs and create a few dozen new ones. Billions of dollars have already been spent during the Biden administration to reduce vehicle emissions and combat climate change. Transportation is the top source of emissions in the U.S.

Jane McCurry, executive director of the trade group Clean Fuels Michigan, said it is an exciting time to be in the renewable energy industry. Public and private dollars are also pouring into EV chargers, zero-emission school buses and other alternative mobility sources. She argued it will ultimately give consumers more choices.

"No matter what your choice is, you know that you can fuel it in your community, on your commute, on your way up north for vacation," McCurry emphasized. "That is where public dollars come in, is making sure that people can get everywhere they need and want to go within Michigan in a safe, efficient, effective, enjoyable way."

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has set a statewide goal of building 100,000 EV chargers in the state by 2030, enough to support 2 million vehicles.


get more stories like this via email

A new study by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign suggests the long-term effects of climate change could create a higher risk of extinction for certain bird species.

Between 1980 and 2015, researchers studied more than 400 general and specialist bird species across North America. While a general species can thrive in various environments, specialist birds can only live in specific conditions.

Madhu Khanna, professor of environmental economics at the university, said the data show climate change affects migratory birds and specialist birds at greater rates than the general bird population.

"What we found is that an increase in the number of days that were hotter than 25 degrees centigrade decreased the population of birds, as well as the number of species, by about 2% or so," Khanna outlined.

Khanna pointed out specialist birds lost 7% to 16% of their populations because of climate change. She added other factors were already affecting birds, including pesticides, land use change and habitat loss. Researchers compared climate data for the same period alongside the studies.

The report found general species, like the North American sparrow, declined by almost 3% during the 25-year study. The threatened spotted owl and red-cockaded woodpecker, both specialist species, declined by 5%.

Khanna added they studied other variables that might influence birds' ability to adapt to climate change.

"Were there any changes that they might be doing in terms of their migratory routes or anything else because of this, that might reduce the negative impact of the changing climate? And we actually found no such effect," Khanna emphasized.

Khanna believes although birds are currently adapting to their respective environments, she is alarmed about the long-term effects on them if climate change continues. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources has recorded a total of 458 bird species in the state.


get more stories like this via email

By Stephen Battersby for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Broadcast version by Kathryn Carley for Commonwealth News Service, reporting for the Pulitzer Center-Public News Service Collaboration.

As a phrase and as a promise, net zero has been a great success. Hundreds of countries have pledged to reduce their net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by around the middle of this century. So, too, have thousands of regions, cities, and companies. Net zero has become a beacon of hope, guiding us to climate safety.

But look closely, and the beacon becomes a little blurry. Some scientists argue that net zero might lead us to rely too heavily on technologies that capture CO₂ from the air. That could bring dangerous delays and unwelcome side effects, and give fossil fuel producers leeway to keep pumping and polluting. And its allure may be obscuring our need to look beyond net zero to a more ambitious goal-a world of net-negative emissions.

Some climate scientists have ideas about how we could refine net zero to make it a more focused and effective target. Others say it should only be one part of a new climate narrative. "We don't think enough about net zero, what it means, and if it's the right goal," says environmental social scientist Holly Jean Buck, of the University at Buffalo in New York.

With the fate of the planet riding on the outcome, it's vital that governments and institutions are not led astray by their climate beacon-so the debate over net zero is more urgent than ever.

The Root of Zero

The idea of net zero is firmly based on climate science. In the 2000s, scientists worked out that if we stop pouring CO₂ into the atmosphere, global average temperatures should roughly stabilize. That is because two effects of Earth's oceans happen to cancel out. Today, the atmosphere is kept relatively cool by the oceans. As seawater slowly warms, we lose that cooling effect, so if emissions fall to zero, we might expect the atmosphere to carry on warming for a few decades-a phenomenon known as thermal inertia. But the oceans also keep absorbing CO₂, which should roughly balance the thermal inertia and keep temperatures steady.

Net zero took off in 2018, driven by the United Nations report "Global Warming of 1.5 °C." Three years earlier, the Paris Agreement had set out a goal to limit warming to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C. The new report laid out how the world might try to hit the more ambitious end of that goal, based on models that combine climate and economic activity. It concluded that to avoid warming of more than 1.5 °C, we would not only have to cut emissions deeply, but also remove a lot of CO₂ from the atmosphere. Such removal could balance any stubborn, ongoing sources of greenhouse gases, known as residual emissions. These might include CO₂ from concrete manufacture, for example, or nitrous oxide from fertilizers. So instead of absolute zero emissions, the new goal aimed for net zero, which allows some residuals to be balanced by removal.

This was only possible because technologies that remove CO₂ from the air had become feasible. "Targets through the years have tended to reflect the practicality at the time of reducing emissions," says climate ecologist Stephen Pacala at Princeton University in New Jersey. "When you could envision a practical path to zero net emissions without leaving the world in poverty-all of a sudden, humanity jumped on net zero as a target."

It has undoubtedly had a galvanizing effect. "Before this, few companies had climate targets at all," says Sam Fankhauser, a climate economist at the University of Oxford in the UK. "So this is a step in the right direction."

But that shouldn't be the end of the story. "Net zero comes from the science, so it's subject to change as we learn more," says climate economist Sabine Fuss at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin, who was a lead author on the "Global Warming of 1.5 °C" report. Climate scientists agree that the concept holds several crucial ambiguities that need to be resolved.

Zero Sum

For a start, what is the best balance between cutting emissions and removing CO₂? That depends on which emission sources will be too difficult to cut. But when Buck and her colleagues analyzed 50 national long-term climate strategies, they found that countries are inconsistent in how they consider residual emissions. "The risk is that governments put things that are expensive or politically inconvenient to abate into the 'residual box,'" the paper states. That makes it hard to know how much CO₂ removal we need.

According to these strategies, the average residual emissions in developed countries will be 18% of current total emissions at the time of net zero. Extended to the whole world, that would imply annual removals of at least 12 billion tonnes of CO₂.

Natural solutions, such as planting forests, can't come close to reaching this quantity on their own-and in a warming world, they will be increasingly vulnerable to fire, disease, and chain saws. So the assumption is that we will use a range of novel removal methods: using machines to suck CO₂ directly from the atmosphere, for example, or burning biomass to generate energy while capturing and storing the CO₂ emitted.

Most of these technologies operate at small scales today, collectively removing only about two million tonnes of CO₂ per year. For now, most of them are expensive to operate. Some need a lot more research and development and may yet prove difficult to scale up. That's the first problem with asking too much of carbon removal: It might not have the capacity to meet such high demand, and then we would fail to hit net zero.

The second problem is unwanted side effects. Deployed at large scale, biomass-based CO₂ removal could compete for land with agriculture or with rich ecosystems, which could push up global food prices or harm biodiversity. Other approaches are also likely to have snags, especially if stretched too far. Direct air capture requires a lot of energy, which must come from a very-low-carbon source not to be counterproductive. Enhanced weathering, which involves grinding certain types of rock to speed natural CO₂-absorbing chemical reactions, could create air pollution.

Without defining the levels of reductions and removals that lead to net zero, there's no clear imperative for each country or company to cut its emissions to the bone. Instead, they might hope to pay others to remove lots of CO₂ on their behalf. "Everyone thinks they will buy negative emissions from someone else," says climate scientist Bas van Ruijven at the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria.

Worse, it seems increasingly likely that CO₂ removal will have to go beyond merely balancing residuals. "Now it looks like we will need net negative to meet the Paris goal," says Fuss. That means removing more CO₂ from the atmosphere than we put in. Researchers in the international ENGAGE project have developed models that include a range of sociopolitical constraints, such as the ability of governments to enforce climate legislation. These models project that climate warming will overshoot the 1.5 °C target by 2050. Reversing that overshoot would require several hundred gigatonnes of CO₂ removal during this century. "So you cannot have an enormous amount of residual emission, as then you need an even more enormous amount of carbon removal," says van Ruijven, who is a member of the ENGAGE project.

It may be wise to go further and try to repair some of the damage we have done, dialing down global temperatures closer to pre-industrial levels and curbing the ocean acidification caused by absorbed CO₂. That would, of course, require even more removals. Despite this, companies and countries are not yet planning to reach net negative.

In some quarters, net zero is seen as a final goal. This could leave the door open for fossil-fuel production to continue at high levels and for new infrastructure that could commit us to burning those fuels for decades to come. "We haven't focused enough on the phaseout of fossil fuels," says Buck. "If we only focus on emission at the point of combustion, then we are missing half the picture." The 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (known as COP28) alluded to this problem, calling for "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems." But, this falls far short of a phaseout. "It is promising that they said something, but it could have been stronger," says Buck. "What you need is a plan and a lot of resources committed to phaseout."

Zero Clarity

Net zero holds a host of other ambiguities. "Today, everybody has their own idea of what net zero means," says Fuss. "So we should take a step back and refine the concept. It is really important to get all these things straight, so we are not fooling ourselves."

For example, it's unclear whether net zero should include climate feedback effects, such as CO₂ emitted by thawing permafrost. These could require vastly more removals to prevent temperatures from rising.


Nor does the target emphasize urgency. If governments are aiming for net zero in 2050, they might feel free to kick their heels for a while. But many mitigation measures will need decades to scale up, so "it's vital to reduce emission as much as possible in the short-term," says Fuss. "You don't break something just to then repair it."


Net zero doesn't yet specify the durability of removals, either. Today's emissions will linger for centuries, so they can't simply be balanced by a form of removal that is likely to last only years or even decades. As Fankhauser et al. write: "Achieving net zero through an unsustainable combination of fossil-fuel emissions and short-term removals is ultimately pointless."


The sum should also explicitly include any knock-on effects. For example, planting forests at high latitudes can be counterproductive because they create a darker landscape that absorbs more solar heat, melting local ice and snow.


Then there is the question of whether to include other greenhouse gases, such as methane, in the net-zero sum. Methane has a much shorter lifetime in the atmosphere, so attempting to cancel out methane emissions with CO₂ removal would tend to mean more warming in the short term, and less in the long run. That could be good or bad, depending on whether it takes us past climate tipping points.


Zooming in on Zero


How can we do better? The first thing is to decide what should be classed as a residual. "We should make sure that residual emissions are truly hard to abate," says Buck. Voluntary codes are starting to address that, including the net-zero corporate standard launched by the Science Based Targets initiative, which calls for residuals to be only 5-10% of a company's current emissions.


To get removals moving, Fuss thinks that we need higher prices on carbon emissions. "If we are asking people to remove, we are asking them to perform a public service," she says, "so we should be compensating them for extracting each tonne of CO₂."


Carbon pricing could also curb fossil fuel production. Pacala led a 2023 National Academies report on accelerating decarbonization, which, among other things, recommended an economy-wide carbon tax in the United States. He says that the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (the nation's main policy tool for moving toward net zero) omitted any such tax in order to gain political traction.


Assuming that carbon removals can scale up fast enough, it will be vital to prove how much CO₂ they are removing, through monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems. That could be challenging. "MRV is hard enough with forests, where we already have decades of experience," says Buck. "With novel techniques, it's a big challenge, and I'm not sure it's solvable on a timescale of 20 years or so." But there are some promising signs. In November 2023, the European Parliament voted to adopt a new certification scheme for removals, aiming to boost their credibility and scale. Meanwhile, advances in remote sensing and machine learning could make MRV more achievable.


As well as trying to redefine net zero, perhaps nations and societies also need to take a step back and think more broadly about what to strive for. Buck thinks that net zero should become just one among a set of targets, including reductions in fossil-fuel production and enhancing the capacity of countries to implement the clean-energy transition. She also considers the term to be fundamentally unsatisfying, a piece of accountancy that is not compelling to most people. Perhaps the world needs a more inspiring climate narrative that comes not just from scientists, but also other groups. "We need to evolve broader languages," Buck says, "and make more effort to understand what would encourage people to change their lifestyles and consumption."


Fankhauser, meanwhile, cautions against focusing on climate impacts alone. "The risk is that we maximize natural systems for carbon uptake but compromise biodiversity and other ecosystem services," he says. "We need a holistic point of view."


Climate solutions should also avoid dumping pollution or costs disproportionately on disadvantaged communities. This isn't just a moral matter. "People are not going to go along with these changes unless they see benefits in their own lives," says Pacala, who points to the plight of coal miners in the United States and other workers whose jobs may be threatened by the energy transformation. "We have to manage the jobs of legacy workers, who were previously thrown under the bus," he says.


At the moment, there is no pithy phrase to sum up these diverse aims. "Net zero is powerful because it is two words," says Fankhauser. Adding more detail could spoil that rhetorical impact. Low-residual, urgent, all-greenhouse-gas net zero, aligned with biodiversity and poverty reduction-it hardly trips off the tongue. For now, at least, researchers and policymakers may have to stick with those two words, while carefully contemplating all the things that add up to zero.




Stephen Battersby wrote this article for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


get more stories like this via email