By Robin Whitlock* Lahti, a small city of 120,000 in the south of Finland, is basking in newfound global fame as the 2021 recipient of the European Green Capital award, an honor extended each year to the most environmentally progressive metropolises in Europe. Lahti Wasn’t Always So “Green” Lahti is among the oldest habited sites in Finland. Its name (in English, simply meaning “bay”) reflects its geographical location on the southern shore of a bay on Lake Vesijärvi in the Päijänne Tavastia region, where Lahti is the capital. Lahti was first mentioned in documents in the 15th century. Industrialization of the city began from 1870 following the completion of the Riihimäk, Finland, to St. Petersburg, Russia, railway line. Sometimes called the “Chicago of Finland,” Lahti was once known for its slaughterhouses and high crime rates. The city’s first municipal slaughterhouse was established in 1914 and private meat processing plants soon followed, the most well-known being the Liha Heinonen slaughterhouse. Substantial pollution issues commonly surrounded slaughterhouses at the time, and those of Lahti were no exception. Lahti also had a considerable timber trade at one time, leading to its other moniker, “City of Carpenters.” In addition, Lahti also had glassworks, breweries, and clothing and machine-tooling factories. First Steps in a Sustainable Direction The city of Lahti began to take its initial steps toward becoming a green city in 1987 with the Lake Vesijärvi Project. In the 1970s, Lake Vesijärvi (pronounced “veh-she-yahr-vee”) was one of the most polluted lakes in the country as a result of industrial waste and sewage runoff being directly discharged into the lake. This practice ended when a wastewater treatment plant was built in 1976. The plant improved Lahti’s water quality, but a new problem arose soon after with the appearance of cyanobacteria—toxic blue-green algal blooms—in the lake fueled by an excess of nutrients through a process called eutrophication. To counter this problem, city authorities introduced a treatment pioneered by Finnish biologist Ilkka Sammalkorpi called biomanipulation, or the introduction of new forms of life to clean up pollution. The bioremediation project commenced in the early 1980s. Limnologist (a scientist who studies inland bodies of water) Juha Keto discovered that eighty-five percent of the fish in the lake consisted of roach. Roach are often the last species of fish to disappear when a body of water is polluted because they are bottom feeders whose food sources lie beneath the organic materials that remain unsettled and suspended in the water. To correct this imbalance, over a million kilograms (over a thousand tons) of roach were replaced by over a million individual pike perch. This strategy was effective in reducing the algal blooms, and the water began to clear. By the 1990s, the condition of the lake had improved to such an extent that fishermen began to return. Unfortunately, other people took note and built houses close to the shore. Around the turn of the millennium, the harmful algae pollution had returned. The response this time was to initiate a second conservation project in which local people were taught about the lake and how to protect it. Many were eager to help, and today the health of the lake is constantly maintained through processes such as water aeration and selective fishing. The Growth of Environmental Awareness in Lahti The Lake Vesijärvi Project inspired the University of Helsinki to establish its Department of Environmental Ecology in Lahti. The university began to study and generate information on topics such as stormwater management, algae, green roofs, soil health, and the circular economy. The result of this initiative can be seen in new developments that manage stormwater via urban wetlands, infiltration basins, and green roofs. The city established a targeted stormwater project in 2011 that has continued research and efforts in this particular area, including the 2018 establishment of a project called Stormwater Smart & Clean. Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan Lahti’s Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan (SECA) was developed as part of an initiative called the 2030 EU Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy. It is currently in implementation and contains over ninety measures for adapting to climate change, including managing stormwater, decarbonizing traffic, and increasing citizen awareness. It sets a target of eighty percent reduction in emissions (compared to 1990 levels) by 2025 and a requirement for monitoring progress every other year, carried out by the city itself, with a new emissions calculation every four years. Areas identified for adaptation measures include infrastructure and land use, health and well-being, residential spaces, parks and green areas, the economy, and inter-sector impacts. Lahti is located on what has always been an important trade route, connecting Finland’s capital city, Helsinki, to the Russian city of St. Petersburg. The city is also known as a cultural hub and a center of winter sports, particularly skiing. For all these reasons, an efficient transport system is essential for Lahti, but with climate change occurring, the city required that its transport services be sustainable and resilient, too. Lahti’s SECA has set a target for local transport to run off electricity and biogas by 2030. There is also a system of personal carbon trading in place with regard to transport. It is based on an app which directs people to the most sustainable ways of getting around. Making housing more energy efficient is another priority for Lahti, including increasing the energy efficiency of the rented housing stock and repairing or replacing older buildings. The city is also discussing a circular economy strategy, including the development of new sharing services and is contemplating how to increase citizen awareness of sustainability and climate issues through environmental counseling, both of citizens directly and through housing associations. Lahti’s City Strategy 2030 Lahti has established a “City Strategy” to achieve key environmental targets that promote sustainable urban development. These targets cover carbon neutrality, greenhouse gas emissions (to be cut by eighty percent by 2025 compared to 1990 levels), a zero-waste circular economy by 2050, protection of natural resources including surface water and ground water, and sustainable transport, such as walking, cycling, and public transport. Lahti’s 1.5 Degree Lifestyle Project is aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of families while collecting information on how municipal authorities can support sustainable lifestyles. This pilot project has helped many families in the city—even though many were already leading sustainable lifestyles—to reduce their carbon footprint by around nine percent. The city also raises awareness among the next generation by making its schools and kindergartens energy efficient, a program that began in 2011 with the installation of energy measurement devices. Sustainable Energy Advancements In Lahti, the former coal fired Kymijärvi I power plant has now been replaced with a new bioenergy plant called Kymijärvi III. The city was the first in Finland to abandon coal with the new plant being fueled by recycled and local certified wood. This changeover has helped to reduce Lahti’s carbon emissions from energy by 600,000 metric tons per year. Lahti has another green power plant called Kymijärvi II, which runs on solid recoverable fuel (SRF). The fuel is obtained from waste that would otherwise go to landfill. It is gasified, cooled, and cleaned and then combusted, producing about 280-300 GWh of electricity as well as 680-700 GWh of heat annually. The plant, the world’s first SRF gasification plant, is owned and operated by Lahti Energia Oy, a company owned directly by the city. The technology it utilizes was supplied by Finnish company Valmet Technologies Oy. Beyond the Award, Lahti Leads for a Greener Future Lahti’s comprehensive approach to sustainability was the main factor that led to the city being awarded the 2021 European Green Capital Award by a unanimous vote. Lahti performed strongly across a number of key environmental indicators, from air quality to waste, green growth, green innovation, and governance. Beyond the award, Lahti continues to exemplify an awareness of the urgency of the global climate crisis. Lahti has set an advanced environmental target to be carbon neutral by 2025—ten years ahead of Finland’s national target and twenty-five years ahead of the European Union’s 2050 goal. *Robin Whitlock is an England-based freelance journalist specializing in environmental issues, climate change, and renewable energy, with a variety of other professional interests including green transportation.

By Robin Whitlock* Antarctic Krill: Essential to the Food Chain Krill are crustaceans found in waters all over the world. Existing near the bottom of the food chain, krill are an important source of nutrition for many marine species including whales, seals, penguins, squid, and fish. It has been estimated that Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) make up a staggering 380 million metric tons of marine biomass. Krill are considered a “keystone species,” or a fundamentally essential species for its aquatic ecosystem. By feeding on plankton, krill unlock essential nutrition for other species. A migratory species, krill are fished commercially in the Southern Ocean and around Japan. Their stock, a rich source of protein and omega-3 fatty acids, has a variety of uses as aquaculture feed, aquarium feed, bait in sport fishing, and human and animal consumption as nutraceuticals (such as krill oil supplements) or food (including Japanese okiami and Filipino bagoóng alamáng). Mostly located in the southwest sector of the Atlantic Ocean, Antarctic krill are swarming animals that migrate to the upper levels of the ocean at night and retreat to deeper water during the day. Their numbers can reach from 10,000 to 60,000 per cubic meter. Krill Depend on Sea Ice It is believed that loss of sea ice due to climate change is adversely impacting krill populations, although a recent study found that Antarctic sea ice is not in decline. Loss of sea ice means less iron in the ocean due to fewer iron fluxes that result from the freezing and thawing of sea ice. Iron is a major food source for the phytoplankton on which krill feed, therefore it is likely that fewer hatching krill larvae would survive to maturity in a warming scenario. Long-term monitoring of the Western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) has shown steady loss of sea ice due to warming, whereas short-term studies from the late 1990s have observed growth in sea ice. Precisely measuring the anthropogenic effects of climate change on krill at a local level is hindered by naturally occurring background variations, particularly when measured over short time intervals. This hindrance is likely to mask anthropogenic effects of climate change on krill populations until around the year 2100, according to a recent study. For example, although monitoring of the Western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) over the long-term has shown steady loss of sea ice due to significant warming, other short-term studies from the late 1990s and early 2000s, have observed growth in sea ice. In their attempts to distinguish “human-driven” changes from naturally occurring ones, the study’s authors used a tool called a Community Earth System Model Large Ensemble (CESM-LE), which incorporates atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice component models, in association with existing krill modeling for species dynamics and associated ecological and environmental processes and drivers. Their research found, among other things, that during the summer, krill growth potential is affected by its level of tolerance of warmer waters. For instance, krill growth is strongly constrained by the boundary of the 5°C isotherm (a line connecting equal temperatures) coinciding with the Polar Front of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (the planet’s largest ocean current) that is particularly marked by insufficient concentrations of chlorophyll for growth in this region. The study suggests that a decline in the growth potential of krill could occur in association with warming trends along the WAP. An earlier study linked the decline in krill spawning habitat with significant changes in the advance of sea ice north of Marguerite Bay. The area around the WAP is likely to be the main spawning area for southwestern Atlantic kill. Natural variation in the climate affects the reproductive ability of female krill, in turn producing fluctuations in krill populations every five to seven years. Oceans are dynamic systems, and the effects of natural non-anthropogenic variations in the Southern Ocean have significant impacts on krill. An example of this natural oceanic variation is the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that is driven by the Southern Westerly Winds. These winds fluctuate naturally, with regard to their strength and position, in association with the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), the north-south movement of this wind belt. Another natural pressure is the Multivariate El Nino Southern Oscillation Index (MEI) that includes sea-level pressure, surface wind, sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, and cloudiness of the sky. Such natural variation in the climate affects the reproductive ability of female krill, in turn producing fluctuations in krill populations every five to seven years. Updated Data, Stronger Catch Limits Needed The Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica is a critical component of the global biosphere. It follows, therefore, that with its outsized contribution to marine ecosystems, krill must be protected. Growing concern over a marked increase in krill harvesting in the 1980s triggered the creation of the Convention on the Conservation of Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). This development led to imposed catch limits on the industry. However, these limits are based on an assessment methodology that has been criticized for not taking into account anthropogenic climate change or, indeed, population fluctuations caused by natural variables. Though CCAMLR now manages about 10% of Earth’s surface, only 4.6% of this area is designated as a Marine Protected Area (MPA), a situation that the Antarctic Krill Conservation Project wants to change. At present, there are two MPAs in place in the Southern Ocean, one being in the waters near the Orkney Islands and the other in the Ross Sea. Current data on krill populations in the Southern Ocean dates from 2000 and is therefore likely to be unreliable. To address this inadequacy, the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), as part of the Antarctic Krill Conservation Project, advocates for increasing mass surveys of krill populations. Made up of thirty non-government organizations including the World Wildlife Federation, ASOC is also pressing for greater transparency from the krill harvesting industry and the monitoring of fishing impacts on nearby krill-dependent species, such as whales. Krill is now the major target species of the fishing industry in the Southern Ocean. The use of continuous pumping systems accounts for 80% of the annual krill harvest. In the Southern Ocean, krill are now the major target species of the fishing industry, which has been growing locally in direct competition to aquatic species that depend on krill for food. This trend increased dramatically during the 2000s. With new continuous pumping systems accounting for 80% of the annual krill harvest, it is important to have better data to inform krill conservation efforts going forward, according to a study led by Bettina Meyer of Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute. Though data on krill has accumulated in recent years, research efforts are hampered by weather and logistics, limiting research to the summer months and to a single season’s populations. Meyer and her team propose that coordinated international year-round research is needed to fill the data and knowledge gaps that impede our understanding of how and how much to protect this vital species. *Robin Whitlock is an England-based freelance journalist specializing in environmental issues, climate change, and renewable energy, with a variety of other professional interests including green transportation.

By Robin Whitlock* Can food crops be grown in extreme environments? Novel research projects are looking at whether food plants can be grown in the desert, in the polar regions, and in space. As humanity migrates to harsher climates—or “unearthly” ones—fresh produce will be a requirement. Growing Plants in Space The global space sector has begun to investigate whether current space operations in the Earth’s orbit can be expanded to include longer expeditions, beyond the moon, and particularly to Mars. This idea is fairly controversial with regard to its technical feasibility, although the debate has become serious enough for NASA to actively consider how astronauts undertaking such a voyage might sustain themselves. The main focus of research in this area is to determine alternatives to the present system of packaged foods and vitamins that currently sustain astronauts engaged in space operations—on board the International Space Station (ISS), for example. Packaged foods are certainly suitable for near-Earth operations, but they will degrade as astronauts travel further into space. For this reason, a number of projects, many of them directly run by NASA, are investigating methods of growing fresh produce in space. Two major challenges to cultivating fresh food in space are low gravity and the lack of sunlight. Aboard the space station, the Vegetable Production System (Veggie) consists of a plant-growth facility. It utilizes two low-powered units with 70 watts of electricity to power lights, fans and electronic controls supporting basic hydroponic systems. The seeds are glued into wicks using water-soluble guar gum. Plant pillows, consisting of black Kevlar with a heat-resistant fiber bottom, contain growth media of calcined clay and controlled-release fertilizer. Water is introduced through a quick-disconnect valve. The Veggie project operates alongside a more sophisticated growth chamber called the Advanced Plant Habitat while, back on Earth, projects such as the NASA-sponsored Biological Research in Canisters (BRIC) and Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden’s Growing Beyond Earth (GBE) complement those in space. BRIC acts as a control group. Growing plants in microgravity is complicated by the fluid physics involved and lack of convective flow. This issue is addressed by the calcined clay media, which ensures that the roots of the plants in the space station’s Veggie project have air and water at the same time, while a fan system ensures the plants do not get trapped within a bubble. Although the Advanced Plant Habitat (APH) is located on the space station, it is an enclosed and automated project equipped with cameras and sensors that provide constant interactive contact with researchers at Kennedy Space Center. This means that the crew members of the space station have little direct interaction with the project other than to harvest samples and send them back to Earth for further study. APH looks at what happens to plant genetics, proteins, and metabolites in space, particularly with regard to what happens to plant lignin when in microgravity. Lignin supports vertical plant growth in gravity, and lignification can be slowed in microgravity. The aim is to assess whether or not plants that are genetically engineered to have less lignin can survive in space. "Advanced Plant Habitat (APH) on ISS is an automated project equipped with cameras and sensors that provide constant contact with researchers at Kennedy Space Center, meaning that the crew members have little interaction with the plants." The Biological Research in Canisters (BRIC) project focuses on small organisms grown in petri dishes, such as yeast and microbes. Its findings have included the observation that plants in space suffer increased stress from oxidation while some genes that are associated with the plant’s immune system turn on in space while others switch off. Plants in space also find it more difficult to fight off pathogens. Growing Plants in the Desert The challenges of growing food in deserts have led to plant-growth research projects that may prove applicable in space. On February 19, 2022, as reported by Jewish News Syndicate (JNS), Israeli chickpea seeds were scheduled to be delivered as part of the cargo of Northrop Grumman’s 17th commercial resupply voyage to the ISS. The seeds are to be grown in “miniature greenhouses” using hydroponic technology for scientific research. The chickpea project has been named Space Hummus—fast-growing chickpeas are a main ingredient of the popular dish and may hold potential for feeding space travellers on longer voyages. Here on Earth, a conceptual project run by King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Thuwal, Saudi Arabia, is looking at growing plants in hot desert regions using technologies already in development at the school. The KAUST project envisions facilities with large greenhouse complexes supported by solar panels, low-energy cooling systems, and salt-tolerant agriculture. This area of research is known as controlled environment agriculture (CEA), a technology-driven approach to food production in which the use of scarce commodities, such as fresh water and labor, are optimized. Research on salt-tolerant edible plants is aimed at using seawater or diluted seawater to water plants in arid coastal climates in the Middle East Region. KAUST research is also being conducted on the benefits of algal biotechnology as well as the cultivation of plants using liquid desiccants—concentrated substances that absorb water from the air. This research, if successful, could help reduce the demand on municipal water supplies in arid areas. Semi-transparent solar panels—used as glazing in greenhouses—could convert infrared energy into electricity while simultaneously allowing light through to aid plant growth and mitigate the problem of excessive heat adversely affecting plant growth. Some of this research has already delivered interesting and useful results, with Red Sea Farms, a spin-off of KAUST, having grown varieties of tomatoes that contain higher levels of vitamins and antioxidants while using seawater that is only 30% diluted. Growing Plants in Polar Regions While some projects investigating the growing of plants in polar regions have supported space research, such as the nearly-autonomous Arthur Clarke Mars Greenhouse in the Canadian Arctic, most polar projects focus on tackling food insecurity in cold regions. One such project is Nauvik (an Inuit word meaning “growing place”), which consists of a greenhouse run by the Arctic Research Foundation (ARF), located in Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, Canada. Nauvik is equipped with two shipping containers, two wind turbines and a 14.4-kilowatt solar array with a diesel generator for backup power. The facility harvests microgreens and tomatoes chosen by and distributed to community elders and residents. "Temperatures in Gjoa Haven can fall below -40 °F, while inside the greenhouse the temperature often reaches 100 °F in summer, aided by the region’s constant summer daylight." The project is a collaboration with the Hamlet of Gjoa Haven, ARF, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the National Research Council and the Canadian Space Agency. A similar project is the Inuvik Community Greenhouse, a polycarbonate dome on the site of a former hockey arena, beneath which vegetables and flowers are grown. Inuvik is a town in Canada located 120 miles north of the Arctic Circle, with a population of 3,200. Temperatures there can fall below -40 °F, while inside the greenhouse the temperature often reaches 100 °F in summer, aided by the region’s constant summer daylight. Constant daylight and warmth accelerate growth, resulting in a plentiful harvest, including leafy greens, squash, tomatoes, and flowers. Community greenhouses like Inuvik are now popular in northern Canada, with at least sixteen in the Yukon and twenty-four in the Northwest Territories. Another Arctic food project of note is The Institute of Arctic Biology Greenhouse in Alaska, run by the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). The institute, completed in 1994, was designed as a facility for research and education. The greenhouse is computer-controlled and focuses on plant genetics, physiology, ecology, evolution, and systematics. There are four computer-controlled zones within the greenhouse—where research is conducted—which also house plant collections. Alongside these zones are three climate-controlled growth chambers. An onsite teaching classroom can accommodate sixteen students and there is also an outdoor growing space. Projects have included a study on whether pollinators are abandoning native plants in favor of invasive species, a plant genome project and a project seeking to understand controls over nitrogen fixation by native and invasive plants. Implications Future requirements for fresh produce in extreme climates may one day be greater than we can imagine. Though most projects in harsh environments have already delivered benefits for area communities, the research in extreme-climate growing is still very much ongoing and developing. Whether or not it will deliver hoped-for, enhanced benefits and new discoveries remains to be seen. *Robin Whitlock is an England-based freelance journalist specializing in environmental issues, climate change, and renewable energy, with a variety of other professional interests including green transportation.

By Robin Whitlock* Can deep breathing be beneficial for people with respiratory conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)? Several studies suggest that it can. But what is deep breathing and what does it entail? And how might deep breathing techniques fit in with conventional treatments for respiratory disorders? COPD is an often-preventable chronic inflammatory lung disease often referred to as emphysema or chronic bronchitis. Smoking tobacco is a major risk factor for COPD, but non-smokers may develop it too. A progressive and incurable disease, COPD slowly inflames and thickens lung airways and destroys the tissues where oxygen is exchanged. As one’s air flow becomes constricted, the body has to work harder to function, so COPD is known for causing shortness of breath and severe fatigue. COPD causes serious long-term disability and is the third leading cause of death globally. In addition to COPD, other causes of poor breathing include asthma; heart problems; anxiety; stress; and infection in the airways from conditions such as croup, bronchitis, pneumonia and colds. Exploring “Free Diving” Techniques for Problematic Lung Conditions The conventional treatment for problematic lung conditions is pulmonary rehabilitation, which consists mainly of a physical exercise program along with instruction and a regimen designed to care for the body and lungs. While length of pulmonary rehabilitation courses can vary widely, the uncomfortable symptoms of COPD can make participation in physical activity unpleasant. So, these rehab programs, while helpful, are prone to significant dropout rates, and it can be difficult to keep patients motivated enough to continue exercising after completion of the program. A common exercise in pulmonary rehabilitation is pursed lip breathing (PLB). This involves exhalation through tightly pressed lips, followed by inhalation with the mouth closed, which reduces air trapping and reduces the amount of work in breathing. In diaphragmatic breathing (DB), patients inhale deeply and slowly through the nose for ten seconds, followed by deep and slow exhalation. See the role of the diaphragm in breathing (left). What about the breath-holding techniques used by “free divers” who go deep into water for many minutes without scuba gear? A six-week pilot study (Borg, M et al (2021) conducted by Danish researchers investigated this idea. Nine female patients with moderate to severe COPD were shown breathing techniques tailored for COPD patients by free divers from the Danish national free diving team. The techniques included learning how to inhale to full lung capacity, use PLB to release while performing side bends, and breathe in a rhythm adapted to gait and activity. The aim was to enable COPD patients to experience shortness of breath in a safe environment while performing moderate exercises and walking. The study found that participants were able to increase the distance walked in six minutes by 48.5 metres (52 yards) and significantly reduce their respiratory rate from 22 to 19 breaths per minute during the recovery period. (The normal adult respiration rate is 12 to 16 breaths per minute). This small, explorative study suggested that COPD patients could both benefit from—and adhere to—these new breathing techniques in daily life. “We believe the results are promising” and worthy of a large, randomized trial to compare their efficacy to conventional pulmonary rehabilitation, wrote lead researcher Dr. Morten Borg, Department of Respiratory Diseases at Aalborg University Hospital in Aalborg, Denmark. Stress and Breathing—Helpful Techniques Under normal circumstances, people do not pay much attention to their breathing—it’s easy and automatic. However, no one is immune to stress, and under certain circumstances, high levels of stress can greatly impact breathing. Patrick McKeown is an internationally acclaimed breathing coach, speaker, and author of The Breathing Cure: Develop New Habits for a Healthier, Happier and Longer Life. He notes that stress often prompts the body to take in more oxygen than it actually needs (over-breathing or chronic hyperventilation), thanks to a pattern of fast and shallow breathing. Put another way, taking short breaths of air when stressed is not helpful because the air goes no further than the upper chest, and that can perpetuate more stress while causing less oxygen to reach vital human organs. McKeown advocates learning to breathe through the nose rather than the mouth. Nose-breathing, he says, improves the quality of the inhaled air before it enters the lungs and provides a line of defense against viruses and bacteria. He claims that nose-breathing results in 10% to 20% better oxygenation of internal organs and cells, and also introduces nitric oxide (NO) into the body—the latter is produced in sinuses around the nose and sterilizes air during breathing. NO is known to act as an antifungal, antiviral, and antibacterial agent, as well as a bronchodilator in the lungs. McKeown suggests the use of breathing exercises to resolve stress, reduce anxiety, avoid headaches, and lessen back pain. Here is one such technique: Sit in a straight-backed chair Calm your breathing by taking in a small breath for two seconds through your nose, and then another small breath, this time for three seconds, through your mouth. Pinch your nose to hold your breath, keeping the mouth closed. Gently nod your head up and down or sway from side to side until you can’t hold your breath any longer. Let go of your nose and breathe gently through it. This will make your breathing calmer and more relaxed, and it will remove any blockage in the nose. Other Deep Breathing Techniques Studies of Hatha Yoga, which emphasizes deep breathing and the importance of posture, have found various benefits including reduced stress, easing depression and anxiety, and increasing muscle flexibility. Meanwhile, Dutch “extreme athlete” Wim Hof says certain “conscious” deep-breathing techniques can help people succeed in difficult situations like mountain-climbing, and heighten focus, reduce stress, and build a stronger immune system to fight disease. His method includes two more pillars: intentional exposure to cold weather (which can lead to a build-up of desirable brown adipose tissue and reduction of inflammation), and development of personal will power and commitment. Among conventional medical practitioners and the American Lung Association, PLB and DM are still the top deep-breathing techniques. Deep breathing is also often recommended as a means of recovery from COVID-19. However, some precautions are recommended, including avoidance of forced or prolonged expiration. The use of home air purifiers can also aid healthy breathing, but it’s important to choose the right air purifier for particular respiratory conditions. While many people are able to take breathing for granted, those who develop respiratory conditions may find deep-breathing techniques to be quite beneficial for the relief of constrained airways and stress. Numerous studies support this approach, particularly for patients of COPD. However, it’s important to consult professional practitioners first, so that the techniques involved can be performed properly and efficiently. *Robin Whitlock is an England-based freelance journalist specializing in environmental issues, climate change, and renewable energy, with a variety of other professional interests including green transportation.

By Robin Whitlock* What is a Tiny House and Will Tesla Get Involved? With the media awash in news of unaffordable housing and Tesla’s rumored foray into the tiny house market, The Earth & I asked journalist Robin Whitlock, with his interest in green transport, to look into the matter. His findings include a glimpse at the tiny house market and its promising future as an environmentally friendly lifestyle. The tiny house movement began in the late 1970s, partly driven by repeated housing crises and environmental issues. It picked up speed through the 1980s in contrast to the proliferation of oversized, mass-produced, and expensive “McMansions,” and pop culture’s “greed is good” mentality. The general idea behind the tiny house movement is to downsize, declutter, and lead a simpler, greener life. While tiny houses do not generally appear in censuses or surveys, in 2012 tiny house sales represented just 1% of the overall real estate market, according to ipropertymanagement.com. But the movement is growing and may soon reach a turning point as singles, couples, seniors, and families look closer at this housing style’s affordability and benefits. What is a Tiny House? There are different definitions as to what exactly constitutes a tiny house. One of them is that of the International Residential Code, Appendix Q, which defines a “tiny” house as “a dwelling 400 square feet or less in floor area, excluding lofts.” This code is also often used as the basis for local building codes, which set conditions on how houses and other buildings are constructed. Some tiny houses are built on foundations, but most rest and operate on trailers. The mobility factor of a tiny house on wheels, or THOW, has led some local authorities to classify them as “recreation vehicles,” which are unsuitable for use as a main dwelling. All tiny houses need some form of sanitation system. Tiny houses with foundations in city or community settings can use local sewage options. Others use septic tanks for waste disposal. Many tiny houses, including trailer-based, are also equipped with solar panels for electricity generation. Scale, Materials, and the Supply Chain Most tiny houses, thus far, are built to order rather than mass-produced at scale. An exception, though, is Boxabl’s tiny house, which is factory-produced. Some cities are using the tiny house model as a potential solution to homelessness. But building a tiny home does not mean its building costs are tiny, too. On the basis of dollars-per-square-foot, a tiny house is rarely less expensive than a conventional home—and it may indeed be more expensive. However, because tiny houses occupy less space, that means that the overall price tag is smaller. Tiny houses also use less electricity or natural gas, thus being cheaper to heat or cool. Energy-efficient appliances along with solar PV panels further help drive down costs. Boxabl’s tiny house is an SIP (Structurally Integrated Panel) house. It is based on steel and Styrofoam structural panels, which, according to a review by a Certified Building Biologist Practitioner in 2021, are fairly safe materials as they do not produce any off-gassing. (Off-gassing refers to the release of gases that were trapped, dissolved, frozen or absorbed in a material.) Magnesium oxide is used on the interior surfaces of Boxabl’s houses, and this, too, does not produce any off-gassing. A caveat is that if the magnesium oxide is attached to the walls with glue, that could produce unwanted release of gases. Other materials appear to be glued-down vinyl for the floors, laminates for the countertops, and particle board for the interior cabinets. Laminate is melamine plastic glued onto a medium-density fiberboard (MDF) substrate. These three materials will produce a certain amount of off-gassing, particularly volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and fumes from plasticizers, glues, and formaldehyde. However, it is entirely possible to use different, and much better, materials that are safer and healthier. Amenities in Tiny Houses Some tiny house builders have noticed customers asking for luxury materials in their homes, usually because buyers have the idea that if they are saving money by giving up living space, they can afford top-quality materials fitted into their tiny houses. However, this certainly excludes heavier materials, such as marble, granite or stone tile, except perhaps where a tiny house is built on a proper foundation rather than using a trailer. Tiny houses are not a simple matter either, unless they are on a trailer. The foundations-based tiny houses are actually fairly complex structures. “There is a lot of detail and complexity in connecting and integrating all the mains (electricity, sewage, heating) in a relatively small building” said Volodymyr Kupriyanov, a researcher at Porch.com, speaking to CNBC. “All of the material and labor often require custom or specialty sizing, which all adds to additional cost of building and maintaining the tiny home.” Zoning Problems with Tiny Houses As mentioned above, settling into in a tiny house can be tricky. For a start, zoning regulations can present a challenge if you want to live in a tiny house with foundations, as opposed to one on the back of a trailer. Zoning laws vary across the US, and their function is to divide areas into zones according to certain land uses. They are normally implemented by local authorities as part of a more general planning policy and are also used to calculate the rental value of a space, particularly with regard to retail businesses. This means it is far from easy to build a tiny house in certain areas with the intention of living in it full-time. This is mainly because zoning laws often require a minimum square footage for new-build homes. For owners of tiny homes that use trailers, finding a place to live is somewhat easier because zoning regulations do not apply. Tiny houses on trailers need to be preregistered to get a license plate—then the main challenge becomes where to park the trailer. Parking can be anywhere from a friend’s garden or driveway to a campsite, but with the latter there may be restrictions on how long the trailer can remain there. Most states do not permit the use of trailer-based accommodation as full-time residences unless they are situated in a proper “trailer park.” Regardless of tiny house style, the question of “where can I park it” is still a priority for those seeking to call a tiny house their home. According to the Tiny House Industry Association, there is headway in state legislation and community building for the tiny house movement. Another group, United Tiny House Association, organizes tiny house festivals and says it has 51,000 members as of June 1, 2022. Jill Kanto, an intentional community enthusiast, created a searchable website at SearchTinyHouseVillages.com to help gather information on established and developing tiny house communities. What will Elon Musk do with his Tesla tiny house? Recently, there have been numerous videos and other sources on a new Tesla product called Tesla’s Tiny House. It represents Elon Musk’s interest in joining the growing tiny house market—but with a product that may cost an astonishingly low $15,000. Tesla has yet to unveil its brand of tiny house; some websites claim that a Tesla product will be announced in August 2022. The $15,000 tiny house price tag would be quite a feat, compared with other products now available. The Nestron Cube Two covers just under 250 square feet and has two bedrooms and one bathroom. It is also fully furnished, so all the owner has to do is unpack it, plug in and start living in it. The Nestron Cube Two starts at $59,000 and ranges to $85,000, according to popular YouTube video blogger Kerry Tarnow, who follows housing innovations. Another tiny house manufacturer, Boxabl, offers the Casita. It covers an area of 375 square feet and is modular—it can be unfolded and assembled on site in little more than an hour. The Boxabl Casita, which includes a kitchen, bathroom, living room, and bedroom, is listed at just under $50,000. The COVID-19 epidemic paused tiny house festivals but drove up interest in building such houses, Insider.com reported in 2021. Going forward, experts say the tiny house movement is gaining momentum but needs more legislative accommodations and continued exposure for people to understand how these extraordinary houses may be the perfect solutions for many people, especially singles, couples, and seniors. *Robin Whitlock is an England-based freelance journalist specializing in environmental issues, climate change, and renewable energy, with a variety of other professional interests including green transportation.

By Robin Whitlock* Is the Process Achievable at Scale? Plastics, a ubiquitous, man-made element in the modern world, have been enormously beneficial to human society. Plastics are currently used for just about everything: food packaging, bicycle helmets, airbags in vehicles, cell phones, computers, roofing, insulation, and in sterile packaging in health care. But plastics have also been identified as a driver of climate change because plastics production leads to greenhouse gas emissions. The question emerges: Can plastics be produced in ways that do not worsen climate change? Some people are likely to see plastics as a single substance without being aware of the different types of plastics. To achieve a common understanding of plastics, it is important to understand the distinctions. Plastics (or polymers) is an umbrella term that includes hundreds of different types. Most people use just a handful of them, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), often used in food packaging and polyester fabric; high- and low-density polyethylene; polyvinyl chloride (PVC); polypropylene; and polystyrene (also known as Styrofoam). It is important to note that PVC and polystyrene have already been found to have serious adverse side effects in that they can leach toxins into the environment throughout their entire lifecycle. Another undesirable feature of plastic is that plastics are produced from fossil fuels. Plastic production is thus a major driver of man-made (anthropogenic) climate change. One possible solution to reducing dependence on fossil fuels is to produce plastics directly from carbon dioxide (CO2), thereby helping to reduce the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere and counter climate change. Conventional Plastic Production Plastics are largely made from fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, or from plants (for bioplastics). These raw materials are refined into ethane or propane, which are then subjected to high levels of heat in a process called "cracking." Cracking converts them into monomers such as ethylene and propylene. These monomers are then combined with a catalyst to create a polymer "fluff" that looks like a powder. This powdered polymer is fed into an extruder where it is melted and run through a pipe where it forms a long tube as it cools. The tube is then cut into bits to form pellets, and the pellets are sent off to factories where they are made into products. Bioplastics Are Not a Solution to Climate Change Bioplastics may seem to be a viable alternative to the use of fossil fuels for producing plastic. There has been a lot of discussion about this in recent years, focusing on the use of bioplastics, such as polylactide (PLA) to produce things such as disposable cutlery made from potatoes or plastic bottles made from corn. Bioplastics production, being an energy intensive process requiring the use of fertilizers, is not a viable alternative to conventional plastic production due to environmental impacts. However, bioplastics are not actually a viable solution. For a start, they do not biodegrade easily and usually need to be fed into industrial composters in order to be processed or recycled. The production of bioplastics is also fairly energy intensive, and some bioplastics actually have a higher carbon footprint than ordinary plastics for this reason. Researchers at the University of Sheffield found that, with fertilizer costs, transport, and harvesting, bioplastics were the worst option, with their adverse impacts even exceeding those made from fossil fuels. Furthermore, the water and fertilizers used in producing bioplastics can contribute to the eutrophication and pollution of rivers and estuaries. Utilizing CO2 for Plastic Production In order to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) into plastics, two things are required—a large store of captured CO2 and a number of cleverly designed catalysts. A catalyst is a substance or chemical that causes a chemical reaction without itself being affected in any way. Many metals can be used as catalysts, but copper is particularly useful when trying to convert CO2 into plastic. According to Prof. Peter Styring, Director of the UK Centre for Carbon Dioxide Utilization (CDUUK), most of the carbon currently available for potential plastic production comes from hydrogen production, but researchers are investigating the capture of industrial emissions as well. CDUUK has discovered how to make polyacrylamide (nylon) from CO2. A number of research projects are currently underway at different locations around the world to develop the processes needed to convert CO2 into plastics. Given that around half the plastic in the world is currently made from ethylene, several of these projects are investigating how to make ethylene from CO2, which can then be turned into plastic. At Rutgers University in New Jersey (US), scientists are using special electrocatalysts containing nickel and phosphorus in a process involving the combination of CO2 with water and electricity. This then produces complex carbon-containing molecules that can subsequently be used to produce plastics and other products, described by the research team as a form of "artificial photosynthesis." Other research projects investigating the combination of CO2 with water and electricity, with copper as a catalyst, are underway at Swansea University’s Energy Safety Research Institute in Wales, and at the Ted Sargent Group at the University of Toronto. The German company Covestro has designed a catalyst that could potentially allow CO2 to react with epoxides (a form of cyclic ether—an organic compound formed of ring-shaped molecules containing oxygen) to produce a family of chemicals called "polyether polycarbonate polyols." These substances can be used to make polyurethane, and Covestro plants in Germany are now producing mattresses using 20% captured carbon dioxide. Research in plastic production from CO2, including the use of electrocatalysis, heterogeneous catalysis, and microbial fermentation, is underway. In the UK, Econic is producing polyurethane from carbon dioxide and expects to be able to produce foam products, coatings, sealants, and elastomers ready for commercialization within two years. The Centre for Sustainable Chemical Technologies at the University of Bath is hoping to produce polycarbonate by combining carbon dioxide with sugars, such as xylose. In Germany, the research institute Fraunhofer has produced formic acid and methanol from carbon dioxide, subsequently converting them into the building blocks for the production of polymers and similar materials using fermentation through microorganisms, in particular methylotrophic bacteria and yeasts. Two processes were employed. Heterogeneous chemical catalysis was used to convert CO2 to methanol, while electrochemistry was also used to produce formic acid from CO2. The methanol and formic acid can be used to build blocks for polymers and can also be used to "feed" other microorganisms to produce other products. In this project, the researchers introduced genes into the microbes to provide a blueprint for enzymes, a process known as metabolic engineering. The enzymes can subsequently be used as a catalyst. Government Involvement In the US, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management has also been involved in research in the production of plastic from CO2. In 2013, the agency announced it had funded the world’s first successful large-scale production of a polypropylene carbonate (PPC) polymer using waste CO2. The project was actually carried out by Novomer Inc., in collaboration with Albemarle Corporation, using its manufacturing plant in Orangeburg, South Carolina. It tested the scale-up of Novomer’s catalyst technology and found that only minor modifications needed to be made to the company’s existing facilities to produce seven tons of polymer containing more than 40% CO2. The Office of Fossil Energy is involved in other approaches to convert captured CO2 into products through its Carbon Capture and Storage program, managed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory. Novomer appears to be continuing this project, and other companies are getting involved in this area of research as well, according to the website Packaging Europe. Projected Impact of Plastic Production from CO2 The processes used by the research team at Fraunhofer can be implemented over a medium to long term, say ten years or so, although industry is under pressure to find other processes that can be implemented sooner. However, IDTechEx sees limited potential for this approach to reducing carbon emissions, even though it expects this sector to expand. The key requirement is the expansion of carbon capture infrastructure to feed such carbon utilization strategies with CO2. These processes might not be as effective as the industry and some research organizations claim, however. Some environmental organizations warn that carbon capture and storage (CCS) remains unproven as a viable solution, and the projects in operation are ineffective and expensive. Should this turn out to be true, researchers will have to continue to seek new ways to cut emissions. *Robin Whitlock is an England-based freelance journalist specializing in environmental issues, climate change, and renewable energy, with a variety of other professional interests including green transportation.

By Robin Whitlock* The disposal of human waste—arguably one of the oldest problems on Earth—continues as a serious challenge to municipalities and locales across the planet. The World Toilet Organization is promoting international discussion and cooperation toward improving sanitation around the world, particularly in Asia and Africa, culminating in the World Toilet Summit (WTS). Below is an overview of current sanitation systems in use, followed by highlights from the WTS 2022 and an innovative project by Georgia Institute of Technology. Waste is Everyone’s Problem Left untreated, human urine and feces present grave risks to human health and the environment, and so societies all over the world have developed sanitation systems to collect, transport, and treat this waste safely before disposal or reuse. It follows that sanitation systems around the world differ widely in their design. Most people in developed countries use flush toilets. In this system, human waste is mixed with water and transported to sewage treatment plants via a sewage system consisting of sewage pipes and sewage mains. Unfortunately, some societies have inadequate sanitation systems, while others have no systems at all, leaving their populations to void and defecate openly into the environment, thereby causing significant environmental and public health problems. Risks from Untreated Human Waste Human waste is considered a biowaste because it acts as a transmission conduit (“vector”) for pathogens or living organisms that can cause disease. The risk to human health becomes especially acute if it enters sources of human drinking water. This is an everyday reality for many people around the world—according to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 2.2 million people die annually from diseases caused by contaminated water, such as cholera and diarrhea. Sanitations Systems Around the World Onsite sanitation systems typically include pit latrines, septic tanks, and container-based systems where toilets are contained in sealable containers that can be easily removed to treatment facilities. These facilities accumulate fecal sludge, which may include substances such as flushing water, cleaning materials, menstrual hygiene products, bathing or kitchen water (gray water, which can often also include fat, oil, and grease), and solid waste. This material is treated by an approach called fecal sludge management. Recycling Human Waste Human waste is potentially very valuable for agricultural purposes if it is properly treated. Urine, for example, contains a lot of nitrogen and phosphorus, both of which are key ingredients in fertilizer. Feces, meanwhile, contain organic matter and nutrients. For these reasons, in some parts of the developing world, human waste is often recycled and used to irrigate and fertilize fields where there is a shortage of fresh water. Raw human waste is potentially very dangerous, though. This is why sewage treatment systems work to kill off the bacterial contaminants, usually by running it through an anaerobic digester. The product of this anaerobic digestion is biosolids. In the US, about half of the biosolids from the sewage treatment system are returned to farmland. This process is heavily regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which introduced strict standards for biosolids in 1990, with a two-tier system. However, a National Academy of Sciences report in 2002 found that there are no studies that prove a link between biosolids and adverse health effects. In 2013, the US Geological Survey followed with an inconclusive investigation of what happens to plants when biosolids are applied to the soil. With the help of scientists in 2015, South Asian countries, particularly India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, developed composting policies and technology for their nations. For example, there were collaborative efforts between the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Programme and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), which helped to develop policy advice on the use of wastewater and septic tank sludge in India. In that same year, US scientists concluded that it may be possible to recover valuable metals from biosolids. This could open up a source of metals such as gold, silver, platinum, and copper, as well as other metals regularly used by the electronics industry, such as palladium and vanadium. It is not exactly clear how these metals enter the sewage system, but research by scientists at Arizona State University has indicated that an average American city with a population of about one million people is responsible for about $13 million worth of precious metals ending up in its sewage system each year. Research on potential avenues for recovery is still ongoing. New Research on Using Human Waste in Plants In 2021, Prof. Rebecca Nelson of Cornell University discussed human urine and plants in a presentation she gave in Salt Lake City, Utah, at the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA) and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Annual Meeting. Nelson explained that plants at the Cornell study site are fertilized with human urine, which recycles its nitrogen and phosphorus content while diverting it from the sewage system. Cornell’s system also saves money as there is less need for conventional fertilizers. Such an approach could be applied in countries where farmers have difficulty obtaining conventional fertilizer and could help to develop a more sustainable food production system. Human feces can be used in those countries to improve the soil structure and absorb rainwater, thereby reducing the effects of drought on crops. Feces can also be converted into biochar which can act as a valuable source of carbon for soil improvement. Some US cities, including Tacoma, Washington; Brattleboro, Vermont; and Chicago, have already started using biosolids from wastewater systems in this manner. Waterless Urinals Honey buckets (portable latrines) and sewage lagoons can be used in remote areas that do not have sewage or septic tank systems. The risk from disease tends to be low in these areas due to less dense populations. For instance, rural villages in Alaska do not try to build permanent conventional waste treatment systems because of the permafrost. WASH and Sustainable Development Goals Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) is a key topic in the international development sector, covered by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6. The policy document on this is entitled “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.” SDG6 recognizes that access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene is “the most basic human need for health and well-being.” Currently, billions of people lack access to these basic services and will continue to in 2030 unless current progress on these matters quadruples. However, demand for water is rising due to population growth, urbanization, and increasing water needs from sectors such as agriculture, industry, and energy. This "water stress" is exacerbated by decades of poor management and over-extraction, pollution of groundwater and fresh water supplies, and water scarcity caused by climate change, underinvestment, and lack of cooperation across national boundaries. Sustainable Development Goal 6 targets: 6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all. 6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations. 6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally. 6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity. 6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate. 6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes. 6.A By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programs, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies. 6.B Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management. World Toilet Organization The World Toilet Organization was founded by Jack Sim on November 19, 2001, with an inaugural event called the World Toilet Summit. The aim of both the organization and the summit was to draw the world’s attention to the global sanitation crisis. Since the first summit, the event has attracted the support of NGOs, the private sector, civil society organizations, and the international community. Sim’s founding of the World Toilet Organization was preceded by his establishment of the Restroom Association of Singapore (RAS) in 1998. In 2008, Sim founded SaniShop, which focuses on the entrepreneurship for toilet installation on a community level, and in 2013 he worked with the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs to pass a resolution at the UN General Assembly titled "Sanitation for All," designating November 19 as official UN World Toilet Day. Sim remains as the organization's founder and director, working alongside a team of eight directors. Originally, the World Toilet Organization had fifteen members, but this has grown to 151 current member organizations across fifty-three countries. It aims to continue building the global sanitation movement through collaborative action that provides innovative solutions with an ultimate aim of providing decent sanitation for everyone across the world. It does this through advocacy, education, and a market-based approach to providing solutions. Its major ongoing project is the World Toilet College, which has facilities in Singapore and India, to address the education and training gap around sanitation. The WTS 2022 was held on November 18 to 19 in Abuja, Nigeria, with the purpose of improving collaboration among stakeholders, increasing private sector participation regarding sanitation issues, mobilizing investment, and sharing knowledge on market-based approaches to sanitation solutions. Notably, representatives from eight states in Nigeria expressed their commitments to achieve a total of over thirty-five local government areas (LGAs) becoming open defecation free (ODF) between 2023 and 2025, with more details in the WTS 2022 report. Generation II Reinvented Toilet (G2RT) Project As part of the “Reinvent the Toilet Challenge” by the Gates Foundation, Dr. Shannon Yee, associate professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, is leading the G2RT team of seventy engineers, scientists, and industrial designers from around the world toward one goal—developing a plug-in toilet with minimal water input and no sewage output. Its current experimental model has a front end (toilet) and a back end (waste-processing unit). The front end requires just 0.2 L of water to flush, and the urine and fecal matter are separated. The back end treats the urine and fecal matter to produce clean water and odorless “feces cake,” which can be reused. Details on its mechanism can be found here. Current challenges include its size and cost, as G2RT is roughly the size of a washing machine with a target price of $450. It also requires a supply of electricity to run. In a podcast with World Changing Ideas, Yee explains that the big issue here is that “[people need] to be able to treat waste without input water. So, no water coming into the toilet and no output sewage.” If people had an appliance “where you just plug it in wherever you need a bathroom, and it treats your waste,” that would be such a big change, Yee says. “You wouldn’t need to have a dedicated plumbing area for where the bathroom is located. You could put a bathroom anywhere!” *Robin Whitlock is an England-based freelance journalist specializing in environmental issues, climate change, and renewable energy, with a variety of other professional interests including green transportation.

By Robin Whitlock* As the world turns to greater use of renewable energy, for both heating and cooling and power generation, more attention has been given to anaerobic digestion (AD) as an alternative to landfill sites for disposing of organic waste. In addition to addressing food waste, AD technology is becoming popular on farms for processing waste from livestock and crop production, as well as among retailers and food producers keen on reducing their energy bills. AD is also becoming increasingly popular as a general means of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide and methane released into the atmosphere, with governments assisting in this through the provision of incentives. What is anaerobic digestion, and how it can benefit consumers, businesses, and the environment? Anaerobic Digestion and How It Works AD is a process in which organic material, such as food waste, animal manure, and solids from wastewater treatment plants, is turned into biogas. This can then be used as a renewable fuel in vehicles and can generate heat and electricity. It can replace natural gas, be fed into the country’s gas grid, and help power the national electricity grid. The AD process is driven by bacteria, which break down organic matter in an anaerobic (or no oxygen) atmosphere. In doing so, the bacteria produce biogas, which mostly consists of methane (CH4), along with other elements, such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, water vapor, and small quantities of other gases. The process mirrors a similar process that occurs in certain natural environments. As discovered in 1776 by Alessandro Volta, methane, sometimes called “marsh gas,” is produced in some soils, lakes, and sediments in ocean basins. In an anaerobic digester, this biogas rises to the top of the digestion chamber, leaving the waste solids (digestate) to fall to the bottom. This solid material, which is rich in nutrients, can then be extracted and used in agriculture as fertilizer or animal bedding, or turned into a base material for bioplastics production. The biogas can be refined to create biomethane or renewable natural gas (RNG), which can be fed into the national gas grid. Bacterial Culture and “Seeding” AD begins with a process called bacterial hydrolysis, where the chemical bonds of the feedstock, particularly the insoluble organic polymers such as carbohydrates, are broken down. Acidogenic (acid-producing) bacteria then get to work on the sugars and amino acids, converting them into acetic acid, ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, ammonia, and organic acids. Lastly, methanogens (methane-producing bacteria) convert these products into methane and carbon dioxide. Given that these bacterial communities take a while to establish themselves, the AD process is typically given a “jump-start” by introducing other materials such as cattle slurry or sewage sludge. This practice is known as “seeding.” Some digesters can accept a number of different feedstocks through co-digestion. These co-digested materials usually include manure, food waste, crops specifically grown to produce feedstock for energy generation (energy crops), crop residues, as well as fats, oils, and greases from restaurants. Anaerobic digestion is increasingly being recognized as an important renewable energy and environmental technology in several countries, including the US, UK, Germany, and Denmark. This co-digestion process has specific benefits in that it can generate biogas from materials that would normally be difficult to digest or would yield low amounts of biogas when digested on their own. Anaerobic digestion is increasingly being recognized as an important renewable energy and environmental technology in several countries, including the US, UK, Germany, and Denmark. Currently, in the UK, 3.2 million tons of food waste are collected and transported to AD plants. There are currently 650 AD plants across the country. Many are accredited under ISO 9001 (referring to management standards) and ISO 14001 (specifically relating to environmental standards) from the International Organization for Standardization. They take different forms, being designed in different shapes and sizes according to the waste material (feedstock) that gets fed into them. The Importance of Temperature Alongside the various bacterial cultures, another important factor in anaerobic digestion is temperature. In Sweden, for example, a project was enacted in 2017 to explore the effect of specific temperatures on AD in a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) processing mixed sludge. In a laboratory-scale research program, using temperatures of 34°C (93°F), 38°C (100°F), and 42°C (107°F), it was found that an increase in temperature to 42°C increased the likelihood of process instability, reduced methane yield and increased costs. Lowering the temperature to 34°C increased the amount of sludge matter and lowered the rate of biogas production. Consequently, the project concluded that 38°C was the optimum temperature for AD at WWTPs. Lowering the temperature to 34°C (93°F) increased the amount of sludge matter and lowered the rate of biogas production. Consequently, the project concluded that 38°C (100°F) was the optimum temperature for AD and WWTPs. The WWTP project in this Swedish experiment showed that mesophilic (moderate temperature) systems are more appropriate for sludge processing by anaerobic digestion. In general, anaerobic digesters conform to two types. Mesophilic digesters are the most common, and these typically utilize a temperature range of between 35°C (95°F) and 40°C (104°F). In contrast, thermophilic digesters (with heat-loving bacteria) utilize temperatures above 50°C (122°F), but they have higher operating requirements and are therefore less common. Constant monitoring of the temperature of a digester is very important, and it may sometimes be essential to cool the digester for optimum efficiency. This is because the bacteria in an anaerobic digester are very sensitive to temperature and “temperature shocks” can reduce methane production. Pressure can be another important factor in AD. Pressure helps increase the content of methane produced and reduces energy costs for biogas upgrading and injection into the gas grid. However, high-pressure digesters require large capital investments, and this has tended to restrain the research in this area. Environmental and Agricultural Benefits of AD Anaerobic digestion can help to reduce the amount of food waste, which is a major problem across the world, particularly in more developed countries. According to one prominent UK AD operator, each ton of food waste fed into an anaerobic digester instead of going to landfill prevents between 0.5 and 1.0 tons of CO2 entering the atmosphere. By capturing organic materials and processing them, AD also helps to prevent methane from entering the atmosphere. This is beneficial because methane is viewed as being more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide. According to one prominent UK AD operator, each ton of food waste fed into an anaerobic digester rather than going to landfill prevents between 0.5 and 1.0 tons of CO2 entering the atmosphere. However, several challenges remain to utilizing AD for food waste reduction. One of these is the tendency of food waste to produce volatile fatty acids in the early stages of the process. If the AD process is poorly controlled and unoptimized, food waste digestion can generate various intermediate compounds. These can give rise to foaming and low methane yield, reducing the efficiency of the process. The high cost of transportation and operation is another problem. The quality of biogas determines how it is used. Biogas that has not been purified can come straight out of the digester and be fed into more hardy, less efficient, internal combustion engines, including those used in buses and coaches. Biogas that has been cleansed of trace elements can be used in more efficient and more sensitive engines. The best quality biogas, treated to meet gas grid standards, can be distributed through natural gas pipelines and used in homes and businesses. Biogas that has been upgraded into biomethane or compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid natural gas (LNG) can be used in cars and trucks. The remaining digestate can be separated into solids and liquids, upon which the solids can be processed into fertilizer pellets or decomposed, while the liquids can be used as liquid fertilizer. The benefits of these materials for the soil include: increasing soil organic matter content, reducing or replacing chemical fertilizers and pesticides, improving plant growth, reducing nutrient runoff and soil erosion, helping to prevent soil compaction, and helping the soil to retain water, which in turn reduces the need for irrigation. However, in several countries, particularly the US, this procedure requires a soil and nutrient management plan before application. AD Use in the Agriculture and Food Sectors Anaerobic digestion is commonly used in the agriculture and food sectors by big companies such as Smithfield Foods, a big global pork producer, US retail company Kroger, and large food vendors such as sports stadiums. In the UK, most on-farm digesters were constructed between 1987 and 1995. New incentives for renewable energy generation introduced by the UK government should lead to a revitalization of the AD approach. An Important Clean Energy Segment Considering all the available evidence across several countries, anaerobic digestion is clearly and widely understood as an important segment of the wider global clean energy industry. While, understandably, food waste should ideally be redirected to populations suffering food shortages, the current reality is that the world still wastes far too much food, which mostly goes into landfills. Redirecting this into anaerobic digestion not only reduces the problem but also generates much-needed clean energy to help counter climate change. For similar reasons, it also makes sense to redirect organic farm waste and solids from WWTPs into anaerobic digestion, which has the additional benefits of reducing costs for both farm and water industry operations by reducing waste and generating an additional income stream. So, expect to see continued growth in anaerobic digestion. *Robin Whitlock is an England-based freelance journalist specializing in environmental issues, climate change, and renewable energy, with a variety of other professional interests including green transportation.

By Rick Laezman* It has been observed that the best science fiction is predictive. Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of transit. While 1960s cartoon dad George Jetson and his flying car may not be in our future, other forms of imaginative and innovative transportation certainly are. For example, take electric vehicles, or EVs. There is no question about it. EVs are surging. What was only a few years ago considered by many to be a futuristic possibility (i.e., fantasy) is very quickly becoming an everyday reality. And it’s not just for the rich and famous or those who live in a space bubble. While Tesla made EVs attractive for the well-to-do, there are options for the everyday driver on an everyday budget. And electrification is taking over more than just passenger cars. Vehicle fleets, buses, and trucks are all going electric. Electric scooters are revving up, too. All these electric vehicles on the road have one thing in common. They need to be charged. The surge in electric vehicles has fueled an equally rapid expansion of charging infrastructure around the globe. Growth will continue, and more needs to be done. Whether governments and other stakeholders are poised to keep up with the rising demand is an issue that warrants a closer look. Electric Vehicle Popularity Continues to Skyrocket Electric cars and the charging infrastructure that supports them make up a growing industry. As it continues to expand, we can wonder: Does the availability of chargers increase the demand for consumers to go out and buy EVs, or does the rising demand for electric cars create a need for more chargers? A true causal relationship may be hard, if not impossible, to determine. According to the Fuels Institute’s 2020 Electric Vehicles Adoption report, "There is no single ratio that accurately captures the relationship between EV charging stations and EVs." Although it may be difficult to characterize the nature of the relationship between the two, there is no disputing that one exists. First, there is the matter of EVs and their rapidly growing numbers. According to the BloombergNEF Electric Vehicle Outlook October 2021, "There are 12 million passenger EVs on the road globally today." This is an increase from just 170,000 in 2010. That's an average of more than one million new EVs on the road per year over the last ten years. Analysts expect this growth to continue. Varying scenarios forecast anywhere from 145 million to 230 million EVs on the road globally by the year 2030. That's a tenfold to twentyfold increase over the next decade. Demand for Chargers Is Met by Three Main Types As EV numbers grow, so does the volume and diversity of chargers that serve them. There are a variety of chargers to support the needs of EV owners. Currently, there are three types of chargers which are distinguished by how fast they can charge up a car's battery. A Level 1 charger uses (in the United States) a standard 120-volt outlet. The same kind of plug you would use for your household appliances, like a television or a toaster. It is the slowest kind of charger and adds about three to five miles of driving range per hour of charging. Level 2 chargers are significantly faster and must be installed separately in the home or office. They can deliver between 12 to 80 miles per hour of charging depending on the output of the charger and the charge rate of the car. An EV plugged into a Level 2 charger will almost certainly be fully charged overnight, even if the battery was empty when charging began. Level 3 chargers, also called fast chargers or superchargers, can deliver a whopping 3 to 20 miles per minute. Unlike Level 1 and 2 chargers, which rely on Alternating Current (AC), a Level 3 charger relies on Direct Current (DC) to deliver a charge to the EV's battery. In slightly more technical terms, Level 1 chargers rely on a 120-volt setup. Level 2 utilizes a 208-volt to 240-volt circuit. Level 3 chargers rely on a setup that delivers 400 to 900 volts of current. There is also the question of standards. In North America, all EVs use the standard J1772 or "J-Plug" for Level 1 and Level 2 chargers. Level 3 charging has more options. Most EV manufacturers use the Combined Charging System, CCS or “Combo” plug. Some manufacturers use the Asian standard called CHAdeMO. Tesla uses its own proprietary charger for all three levels of charging. Price and Efficiency Can Make EVs a Better Deal Than Gas Cars Part of the cost of keeping an electric car running is determined by the price of electricity where it’s charged. That can make a difference depending on where the owner lives. For example, charging up an EV in California, which has almost half of the EVs in the entire country, requires drivers to pay one of the highest average rates for electricity. The calculation will also reflect the fuel efficiency of the car, or how much electricity is used to drive a certain distance. One way to make the calculation is to measure the number of kilowatt-hours (kWh) per 100 miles driven. In California, in the United States, for example, electricity rates average 16.89 cents per kWh. If an EV in California consumes 33 kWh to travel 100 miles, or .33 kWh per mile, that's a cost of about $0.05 per mile. At a cost of $6.75 per charge, a driver would pay about $400 per year to charge an electric car. That’s easily a fraction of the typical amount spent on gasoline for a standard car. Making a similar calculation for a gasoline-powered car shows the difference between the two. For example, a gasoline car that gets 22 miles per gallon and fuels up in California, where fuel prices average more than $4.00 per gallon, will cost about $.20 per mile. Another way to evaluate the cost of an electric car is to calculate how much it costs to charge the vehicle. Take for example, a typical EV with a 40-kWh battery. If this car were to be charged in California, with its average rate of 16.89 cents per kWh, the owner will pay about $6.75 every time the car is charged. According to the American Automobile Association, US drivers average about thirty-one miles of driving per day. The range of EVs varies from less than a hundred miles to over 250 miles per charge. Taking an average of 200 miles, that equates to about six days of use per fully charged battery. That means an EV owner would have to charge up his or her car about sixty times per year. At a cost of $6.75 per charge, that equates to about $400 per year to charge an electric car. That's easily a fraction of the typical amount spent on gasoline for a standard car. There is No Place Like Home for Charging These days, everyone is doing things from home. EV charging is no exception. Studies show that over 80% of EV owners prefer to charge their vehicles at home, where they can plug it into the wall using the standard outlet or that dedicated 220-volt station they paid an electrician to install. Installing a Level 1 or Level 2 charger can cost anywhere from a few hundred dollars to over $2,000. Level 3 chargers will cost tens of thousands of dollars, making them impractical to install for most homeowners. Despite the preference for powering up at home, charging away from home is still an important consideration. According to Eric Wood, Team Lead, Decarbonized Vehicle Systems for the National Renewal Energy Lab (NREL), there is a psychological component to owning an EV. He calls it "range anxiety." Although most drivers are taking those relatively short, thirty-one-mile trips on a daily basis, they all plan to go on a road trip someday. "The value of public investment in EV charging," says Wood, "is in providing charging for long-distance trips." Everyone takes a trip out of town eventually. Wood says those trips will be at least 200 miles and sometimes more. Federal Investments Multiply Charging Stations Across the World All of this begs the question, what is being done to build up the charging infrastructure for electric cars? Like so many new technologies, when it comes to a public EV charging network, government has stepped in to charge up the industry. In countries around the globe, federal government has invested heavily in the charging infrastructure, and it has paid off. For example, last year the government of the United Kingdom announced its Rapid Charging Fund, part of a five-year, £500 million plan to support the rollout of a fast-charging network for electric vehicles, ensuring that drivers will never be further than thirty miles from a rapid charging station. The goal of the plan is to have 2,500 high powered charge points across England’s motorways and major roads by the year 2030, and 6,000 by 2035. Government spending on EV infrastructure yields results: Recent reports show that electric cars make up over 80% of new cars sold in Norway. Similarly, the Norwegian government launched a program in 2017 to finance the establishment of at least two multi-standard fast-charging stations every fifty km on all main roads in Norway. The country is a world leader in EV adoption. Recent reports show that electric cars made up over 80% of new cars sold. China is also a global leader in the EV industry. The central government set a goal in 2015 to build 12,000 centralized charging stations with 4.8 million EV charging plugs by 2020. The plan appears to have been a success with over 17,000 new charging plugs installed per month in 2019 and over 800,000 total charging points installed by 2020. The United States is also committed to building out this country's charging infrastructure. The Biden Administration's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act would invest $7.5 billion to build out the first-ever national network of EV chargers in the U.S. The bill will provide funding for deployment of EV chargers along highway corridors. Expansion Hopes to Keep Up with Demand By all accounts, continuing investment in charging infrastructure is needed. Growing demand from consumers and continuing pressure from government in the form of zero emission standards will only lead to more electric cars on the road. The projected rapid and continuing increase in the number of EVs over the coming years will be dependent on an expansive public and private charging network. The challenge is not small. For example, the NREL estimates that the United States needs a total of 27,500 DC fast chargers and 601,000 Level 2 chargers to meet the country's charging needs by the year 2030. That's a 40% and 86% increase, respectively. If the past decade is any indication, government and the private sector, with support from the consumers, are up to the task. *Rick Laezman is a freelance writer in Los Angeles, California, US. He has a passion for energy efficiency and innovation. He has been covering renewable power and other related subjects for more than ten years.

By Rick Laezman* Policymakers who met this fall in Glasgow, Scotland for the UN Climate Conference, also known as COP26, made an earnest attempt at collective action in the fight against global warming. Of note, a number of the participating nations signed a pledge to completely eliminate the use of coal. Yet for all the self-congratulating by its signatories, the pledge received ample criticism for not going far enough. The criticism warrants a closer look. Why Coal? Stakeholders in the fight against climate change have had their sights set on coal for decades. One of the oldest forms of fuel for the world, it is also one of the dirtiest. Coal emits a myriad of toxins and pollutants when it is burned, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, mercury, and ash. It also emits massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), a potent greenhouse gas. Coal is not the lone culprit. Other fuels also emit CO2, but none as much. In quantifiable terms, coal emits over 200 pounds of CO2 per million British Thermal Unit (BTU) of energy—a standard unit of measurement—that is generated when it is burned. The next closest by comparison are diesel fuel and heating oil, which emit 163 pounds of CO2 per million BTU they generate. Further down on the list are other common fossil fuels, including gasoline, propane, and natural gas. Why is this relevant? For over a century, since the early years after the Industrial Revolution, coal has been a global fuel source. While a number of factors have contributed to a decline in the overall use of coal, it is still consumed on a massive scale. Coal emits over 200 pounds of CO2 per million British Thermal Unit of energy that is generated when it is burned. The next closest by comparison are diesel fuel and heating oil, which emit 163 pounds of CO2 per million BTU generated. It is important to note that coal is not the world’s biggest polluter. That distinction falls to petroleum, otherwise known as oil, consumed in the transportation sector (think exhaust belching cars and trucks). Although it has many uses, coal is burned mostly to generate electricity. This is also where much of the decline in the consumption of coal has occurred. Other sources of fuel, such as renewables and natural gas, have grown enough to eclipse coal as the dominant fuel in the electricity sector. However, of all the fuels consumed for this purpose, coal is the dirtiest, and it is largely responsible for making the electricity sector as dirty as it is. Here are some figures to put this characterization into perspective: According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), in 2020, the electric power sector accounted for about 38% of total U.S. primary energy consumption and about 32% of total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions. Coal accounted for 54% of the CO2 emissions from the electricity sector. Natural gas accounted for most of the rest. Getting Beyond Coal Is a Global Challenge Despite its ill effects, getting rid of coal’s massive global footprint is no easy task. It is inexpensive and plentiful. In 2020, the world consumed more than 8 billion tons of coal. China accounted for more than half of that total, consuming more than 4 billion tons. India and the United States occupy the second and third spots on this list, consuming close to one billion and a half billion tons, respectively. These numbers have remained relatively unchanged for the last ten years. Why do nations like China, India, and the US rely so heavily on this dirty fuel? Coal has a number of advantages over other fuels in the production of electricity, which these nations need to fuel their booming economies. Because coal is so vital and so entrenched, transitioning to alternative fuels without disrupting industry, manufacturing, business, and the economy is a complicated process. The world produces about 8 billion tons of coal annually, roughly the same amount it consumes. The global coal mining industry is the world’s second-largest mining industry by market size. Coal mining and production is also big business. The world produces about 8 billion tons of coal annually, roughly the same amount it consumes. The global coal mining industry is the world’s second-largest mining industry by market size. It is also a major employer, with millions of people working in some capacity to mine, produce, and transport coal around the world. The same big users of coal are also large exporters and importers of the fuel. In this category, too, China, India, and the US top the list. Again, China accounts for almost half of the total, producing nearly 3.8 billion tons of coal. Of course, with such a large footprint, the industry has clout, and its influence on policymakers is not to be overlooked. Taking all these factors together, coal is a difficult habit for some countries to break. COP26 Pledge Directly Targets Future Coal Use Despite the challenges that it presents, many countries have taken the bold step of weaning themselves off coal. At COP26, participating countries announced major breakthroughs. For example, the UK, which presided over the conference, said that at least 23 new countries joined a commitment at the conference to phase out and not build or invest in new coal power over the next few decades, bringing the number of signatory countries up to 190. According to the UK government, the so-called “Global Coal to Clean Power Transition Statement” will commit the signing nations to: end all investment in new coal power generation domestically and internationally, rapidly scale up deployment of clean power generation, phase out coal power in the 2030s for major economies and 2040s for the rest of the world, and make a just transition away from coal power in a way that benefits workers and communities. Additionally at the conference, 25 countries signed a pledge to end public financing of overseas oil, gas, and coal projects by the end of 2022. Signatories include the US, UK, Denmark, Canada, Italy, and the European Investment Bank. Lastly, at the close of the conference, the participating nations signed a pledge, known as the Glasgow Climate Pact, which contained a number of shared goals to address climate change. Specifically, Section IV Mitigation, Item 20, calls upon the parties to accelerate the transition towards clean energy. This includes “accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.” The pact is significant for a number of reasons. It marks the first time the negotiating parties have specifically mentioned coal and other fossil fuels, and in doing so, they established target dates for eliminating their use. On the other hand, the language was modified and mollified in a way that many observers felt will slow progress toward the ultimate goal, which is a zero-emission or carbon free energy environment. In particular, the pledge had originally called for the “phase-out” of coal, but at the last minute, India negotiated for the words “phase-down.” Coal-Free Nations Offer Hope for More Change While some countries may appear to be dragging their feet, there are real world examples of nations that have accomplished a complete divorce from coal. For example, the UK has seen its use of coal drop to levels not seen since before the Industrial Revolution, and the government has announced its intentions to completely phase-out the use of coal by the year 2025. Other countries have made similar progress. Four European nations—Belgium, Sweden, Austria, and Portugal—have already achieved the goal of being coal-free by shutting down their last operating coal-fired facilities. A handful of nations have gone even further. Iceland is the only nation in the world to be powered entirely by renewable energy. Nearly 100% of its energy consumption is derived from hydropower and geothermal energy. Two nations have even gone beyond the global standard of carbon neutrality. Bhutan and Suriname are the only countries in the world to be considered carbon negative. They capture more carbon from the atmosphere than their economies and industries emit. Each nation is unique. A myriad of circumstances has helped these achieve their goals. A country’s size, economy, culture, and availability of resources combine with national level policies to help them reach these remarkable milestones. Not all their actions can be replicated by other nations, but their examples demonstrate what can be done. China, India, US: Key to Changing the Global Coal Industry When it comes to global movements, all eyes are on the biggest nations. They are expected to lead the world by their example. When China, India, and the US did not sign onto the most impactful pledges of COP26, their actions elicited complaints. For example, the smaller nations of the world are vulnerable to the effects of the larger nations’ energy consumption patterns. The effects of climate change have a devastating impact on these small countries, many of which are situated in geographically sensitive locations. Floods, wildfires, and rising seas have become an existential threat, and their small, underdeveloped economies do not have the means or the power to reverse these trends. For their very survival, they are dependent on the larger nations to take bold steps. As nations follow through on their commitments to end their use of coal, worldwide demand for the fuel will diminish. This will lead to a contraction of the coal export industries in China, India, and the US. Frank Bainimarama, the Prime Minister of Fiji, put this dynamic into perspective. He described the pledges made at the conference as “insufficient commitments.” He added that “the developed nations are failing us.” China, India, and the US may have left other nations wanting more, but their inaction is not the last word on efforts to rid the world of coal. Political pressure will continue, and the nations participating in COP26 agreed to continue to meet and discuss further action. As nations follow through on their commitments to end their use of coal, worldwide demand for the fuel will diminish. This will lead to a contraction of the coal export industries in China, India, and the US. Commitments to end the production of coal will also impact the ability of the three nations to import coal. Every year, China, India, and the US import about 300 million tons, 20 million tons, and 69 million tons of coal, respectively. Lastly, there is still hope for future agreements. Although they did not sign onto the COP26 pledge, at the conference, the US and China announced their own separate agreement. According to the US Climate Envoy, John Kerry, the agreement commits both nations to work to use their “best efforts to phase down unabated coal in this decade as fast as is achievable.” What’s Next? International agreements notwithstanding, it is also important to note that the US coal industry has been shrinking for years. Competition from natural gas and renewables and policies designed to cut carbon emissions have combined to help shrink consumption and production. The coal industry peaked in 2007, when the U.S. consumed 1.1 billion tons of coal. In 2020, consumption had dropped to 477 million tons. This trend preceded the conference in Glasgow, and if the past is an indicator, the trend will continue. *Rick Laezman is a freelance writer in Los Angeles, California, US. He has a passion for energy efficiency and innovation. He has been covering renewable power and other related subjects for more than ten years.

By Rick Laezman* Sustainable, green energy technology, like solar power and electric vehicles, have captured much of the world's attention in the fight against global warming. Another less obvious solution has also garnered attention. Because buildings have been established as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, employing efficiency measures to reduce the consumption of gas and electricity in them and the emissions these cause are now also championed as an effective way to fight climate change. How effective is this technology and how much emphasis should the world place on reducing building emissions? Buildings and the Pollution They Emit It is a difficult proposition to embrace: The very buildings we construct and inhabit, both at work and at rest, are contributing to the existential crisis of global warming. The numbers are impossible to ignore. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), residential and commercial buildings emitted about nine gigatons of carbon in 2020. Other sources paint a similar picture. According to Architecture 2030, an organization dedicated to addressing climate change in the building industry, buildings generate almost 40% of global carbon emissions. 28% comes from the operations of existing buildings. The remaining 11% is generated by the materials used and the construction of new buildings. What causes emissions from buildings? They consume massive amounts of energy. Most of it is to support their functionality and the comfort of their inhabitants—people. Over one third is used for heating, ventilation, and cooling. Other sources of consumption include lighting, water heating, refrigeration, appliances, computers, and other electronics. Most of these functions rely on electricity, but they are also powered by natural gas and other fossil fuels, all of which emit greenhouse gasses. According to the US Department of Energy (DOE), the US buildings sector accounts for about 76% of the nation's electricity use and 40% of all its primary energy use and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Making Buildings More Efficient The good news is that energy use in buildings can be reduced. These reductions also cut carbon emissions. According to the DOE, building energy use could be reduced by more than 20% by the year 2030 using known technologies, and "much higher savings are technically possible." The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) embraces the possibility of “much higher savings.” It asserts that “new homes and commercial buildings could cut their emissions by 70% with efficient design and use of cleaner electricity.” So how do we go about making buildings more energy efficient? Since heating, cooling, and ventilation consume most of the energy in buildings, they also represent the greatest potential for savings. Reductions can be achieved in two ways: (1) by improving the functionality of devices and appliances, and (2) by improving the way they are controlled. In both cases, modern technology offers many options. Heat pumps, boilers, furnaces, air conditioning units, and other appliances that control the environment in buildings have become much more efficient in recent decades. More efficient units can be installed in new buildings when they are constructed. Existing buildings have to replace existing appliances with new, more efficient models. Chances are that appliances in buildings that are more than ten years old can, and should be, replaced with a more efficient model. “New homes and commercial buildings could cut their emissions by 70% with efficient design and use of cleaner electricity.” The Energy Star rating developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1992 is given to appliances that meet certain efficiency standards. It helps consumers make more informed choices about efficiency when they purchase appliances for their home or commercial buildings. According to the EPA, Americans purchased 300 million Energy Star products in 2019. More importantly, in that same year, these products helped consumers save 230 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, avoid $23 billion in energy costs, and achieve 170 million metric tons (187 million tons) of GHG reductions. Building owners can also achieve great savings in consumption by changing the way they control and manage appliances. Programmable thermostats, for example, allow occupants to adjust the schedule of heating and cooling appliances to turn on at certain times or days of the week. Smart thermostats go even further, using artificial intelligence that "learns" the occupants' behavior. They detect patterns tied to occupancy, outside temperatures, and daily and weekly schedules to create schedules for appliances based on when they are most likely to be needed. These intelligent controls eliminate the use of energy for heating and cooling when the buildings are not occupied or when temperature control is otherwise unnecessary. Smart controls in buildings can also be applied to lighting. LED fixtures are much more efficient in their energy consumption than other types of lighting. They are also easily paired with digital controls and platforms that allow building owners and managers to control and manage lighting. Occupancy sensors turn on lights only when rooms are occupied. Ambient light sensors adjust lighting according to the amount of daylight that is penetrating a building. Smart lighting, like smart thermostats, also learn from the behavior of building occupants to set schedules and minimize the lighting that is needed. According to the ACEEE, advanced lighting systems can cut energy use in buildings by as much as 45%. What Are the Major Obstacles to Building Efficiency? While the technology exists to make buildings more energy-efficient, cost remains a major challenge. Many of the technologies that have been developed are still very expensive. Building owners must make a calculation about energy efficiency: Will the value of the energy saved exceed the cost of the improvements? Recognizing that energy savings do not happen all at once, building owners also must ask how long it will take to recoup the cost of the improvements based on the energy saved over time. The calculations are different for new and existing buildings. For example, a homeowner who is considering purchasing solar panels coupled with a battery system will make several calculations. Solar roof panels on a typical residential home can cost $20,000 or more. A battery to store power generated by those panels can cost $10,000 or more. "Building owners must ask how long it will take to recoup the cost of the improvements based on the energy saved over time." The homeowner in this scenario will have to decide if the $30,000 investment is worth the value of the electricity to be saved. This will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to the size of the home, the location of the home (how much solar power can be generated), energy use patterns in the home, the cost of the electricity from the local utility, how the purchases will be financed, and how long the owner will live in the home. Commercial building owners face similar questions on a larger scale. New buildings, commercial and residential, can include the cost of the technology in the upfront cost of the building, which can be wrapped into the financing (mortgage loan). This may be less of a financial shock for the owner or occupant, but it still puts upward pressure on the price of the building. As technology improves, and the costs come down, balancing these equations may become easier. Meanwhile, utilities continue to wrestle with the questions of rates and incentives for things like electricity that is sold back into the grid from building owners with solar panels. The question of cost-effectiveness remains a challenge for any building owner considering energy efficiency technology. What About New Buildings? As noted, adopting energy efficiency in new buildings can be less painful for building owners. While existing buildings remain the larger source of GHG emissions, making new buildings more efficient may represent a more practical way to reduce overall emissions from buildings. Many of the same methods used in existing buildings can make new buildings more efficient. Smart technology like thermostats and other temperature and lighting controls can greatly reduce energy consumption. More efficient heating and cooling systems can also drastically reduce energy demands. Other technologies and approaches to building design, which are less practically applied to existing buildings, can make new buildings also more energy efficient. For example, energy use in a building can be significantly reduced by changes to what is referred to as the building envelope. This entails applying more efficient materials and technology to the structure and exterior of the building to minimize the loss of energy, the transfer of hot and cold air, the penetration of sunlight, and other factors that affect the indoor environment. Roofing materials, insulation in the walls and roof space, and advanced window insulation technology can help create a more secure and efficient environment within buildings that minimizes the loss of energy and the need to adjust conditions through lighting or air temperature controls. According to the Advanced Energy Economy (AEE), building envelope technologies can reduce the energy demands in buildings for heating and cooling alone by as much as 40%. Similarly, buildings can be constructed more strategically to minimize the impact of the surrounding environment. So-called passive design entails situating and positioning buildings to minimize or maximize, depending on the environment, the penetration of sunlight to affect inside temperatures and reduce the need for heating or cooling. The same methods can be applied to capture natural light in a similar way. Lastly, some building complexes like hospitals or universities can be designed with cogeneration systems. These capture heat created by onsite power generation facilities and reuse it for air and water heating inside the buildings. What More Can Be Done? The contribution of buildings to global warming has been well established. The need to reduce those emissions is also clear. Furthermore, a myriad of technologies and know-how has been developed to help buildings reduce their carbon footprint. The cost of this technology can still be prohibitive for many commercial and residential building owners. Incentives, policies, and supportive energy rate structures adopted by government and utilities, will serve to encourage more investment in energy efficiency and the much-needed reduction of energy use and carbon emissions from new and existing buildings. *Rick Laezman is a freelance writer in Los Angeles, California, US. He has a passion for energy efficiency and innovation. He has been covering renewable power and other related subjects for more than ten years.

By Rick Laezman* In addition to causing vast human suffering, Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine is trampling Europe’s energy and climate plans. The impact of Russia's bold and unprovoked invasion of its neighbor, Ukraine, cannot be understated. The violence and physical destruction, blatant disregard for national sovereignty, and the brutal displacement of millions of innocent civilians have shocked the world. The war has also created political and economic uncertainty for neighboring countries and the globe, with insecurity about a wider war rippling through the European continent and the West. Expanded fighting is not the only fear. An extended conflict, and the way nations including Russia respond to it, are dramatically affecting energy markets. The impact on an oil-based economy is easy to see. Much less clear is the impact the war will have on nations' plans to wean themselves off oil. Phasing out Fossil Fuels Russia's European neighbors have been earnestly moving away from fossil fuels for many years. Germany, for example, has adopted a policy known as “Energiewende,” the ongoing transition to a-low carbon, environmentally sound, reliable, and affordable energy supply, which will guide the country on a path to phasing out nuclear power and coal and getting 50% of its energy from renewables by the year 2030. Denmark aims to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 70% from 1990 levels by 2030 and plans for renewables to cover at least half of the country’s total energy consumption by 2030. On a broader scale, the European Union’s (EU) Green Deal will reduce net GHG emissions by at least 55% from 1990 levels by the year 2030, and reach no net emissions of these gases by 2050. Late last year, at the COP26 Climate Summit, more than forty countries agreed to phase out the use of coal. With all these examples in mind, the nexus between the war in Ukraine and the rest of Europe's energy needs may be unclear. After all, one of the primary objectives of powering up entirely on renewables is to establish so-called "energy independence." It is fair to ask, then, why or how nations that have fully embraced renewables and are on a near-term path to becoming fossil fuel-free would be impacted in the least by Russia's actions. The answer is in the wording. Being on a near-term path implies that nations have not yet completely weaned themselves off fossil fuels, and in this regard, Russia plays a vital role. Despite their efforts and intentions, European nations are still predominantly reliant on fossil fuels. According to Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU, as of 2019, the EU was still only getting about 15% of its energy from renewables. The bulk of its energy continues to come from a mix of oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and coal, in that order. Despite their efforts and intentions, European nations are still predominantly reliant on fossil fuels. The continent also does not generate most of the energy it consumes. Instead, most of its power is imported. According to Eurostat, the EU gets about 60% of its energy from imports. Most importantly, most of the imports come from Russia. It is the continent's largest energy supplier, accounting for 27% of the oil, 41% of the natural gas, and 47% of the coal that is consumed there. This has also not been by accident. For many of the nations that are on a path to clean energy, gas from Russia was intended to support their transition. Moving from an economy fueled by fossil fuels to one that is powered by new clean energy sources takes years. Sufficient capacity from renewable generation must get regulatory approval, obtain financing, then undergo construction. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline, for example, was approved by Germany to supply additional natural gas to support the country as it pursues its “Energiewende” objectives. This hard reality presents a challenging political dynamic for a continent that is appalled by Russia's behavior, wants to take punitive action against it, and does not want to indirectly finance the war with the proceeds from its own purchases of Russian fuel. Can Europe punish Russia without punishing itself? Conversely, will a more rapid divorce from Russian oil, gas, and coal facilitate an even more rapid transition to clean burning renewable energy? The responses so far have been mixed. On February 23, one day before Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his military to invade Ukraine, Germany paused the certification of the above-mentioned Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The 1,200-kilometer pipeline running under the Baltic Sea, which has already been built, would double the capacity of the existing Nord Stream supply line, bringing the total capacity for the two parallel conduits to 110 billion cubic meters of natural gas delivered to Germany every year. In announcing a pause of the certification, effectively stopping any fuel from being transported across the newly built pipeline, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who had previously resisted linking the pipeline to political events, said that "the situation today is fundamentally different," in reference to Russia's aggression. The decision was perilous if not politically correct. Germany relies on gas for about one-quarter of its energy consumption. Almost all of that is imported, and nearly half of those imports come from Russia. To compensate for the loss in supply, Germany made some quick decisions. On March 20, barely a month after pausing Nord Stream 2, Germany's economy and climate minister, Robert Habeck, announced an energy partnership with the Emir of Qatar that includes the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as well as cooperation on renewables, saying “It’s the Ukraine crisis which has brought me here.” The deal is designed to find a replacement for Russian gas and shield the country's consumers from skyrocketing prices. Also in March, Habeck announced a tentative plan to partner with Norway to build a pipeline for blue hydrogen as a secondary replacement for Russian gas. Both decisions will help the country replace fuel supplies, but they will not get the country any closer to its clean energy goals because both fuel sources, LNG, and blue hydrogen, are considered fossil fuels. Other countries have taken similar steps. The Italian government recently announced plans to phase out the country's heavy reliance on gas imports from Russia “within thirty months” and a 50% reduction by late spring. It has not specified how it will do this. On March 25, the United States announced a joint effort with the European Union to deliver an additional 15 billion cubic meters of LNG to Europe this year and another 50 billion annually by 2030. The controversy has also sparked discussions in many of the affected countries about reconsidering plans to phase out nuclear power and even coal. Making a Clean Break Not all are pleased with these responses. In his keynote speech to a Sustainability Summit hosted by the Economist on March 21, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, “This is madness,” in reference to nations hastening to replace Russian oil and gas with other fossil fuels. “Addiction to fossil fuels is mutually assured destruction,” he added. However, at the same time, nations are also taking a more aggressive approach toward clean energy in their response to the Ukraine invasion. On March 8, the European Union announced the outline of a plan to make Europe independent from Russian fossil fuels, starting with gas, well before 2030. To achieve this goal, the EU proposes to develop a plan, called REPowerEU, that will increase the resilience of the EU-wide energy system based on two pillars. The first pillar involves diversifying gas supplies by using higher LNG and pipeline imports from suppliers other than Russia, plus larger volumes of biomethane and renewable hydrogen production and imports. The second pillar will rely on faster reduction in the use of fossil fuels in homes, buildings, industry, and power systems. This will be accomplished by boosting energy efficiency, increasing renewables and electrification, and addressing infrastructure bottlenecks. The EU notes that existing proposals are already on track to reduce annual fossil gas consumption by 30%, equivalent to 100 billion cubic meters (bcm), by the year 2030. Under the new proposals, fossil fuel reduction and energy diversification could be achieved even faster. According to the EU, member nations could remove at least 155 bcm of fossil gas use, which is equivalent to the volume imported from Russia in 2021. Nearly two-thirds of that reduction could be achieved within a year, ending the EU's overdependence on a single supplier. Member nations are also taking their own independent actions. For its part, Germany has stepped up its clean energy transition. Just two days prior to announcing its LNG and blue hydrogen deals, Climate Minister Habeck announced a comprehensive program for energy efficiency measures, and in February, German policymakers began considering legislation to rapidly accelerate the expansion of wind and solar power, bringing forward a target to generate almost all the country’s electricity from renewable sources by fifteen years to 2035. The Long View The Russian invasion of Ukraine has forced all responsible nations of the world to make some very difficult choices. None are pain-free. Natural gas and other fossil fuels were to play an integral role in the transition to a carbon-free energy landscape. Sufficient renewable capacity cannot be created in a snap. Nor can fossil fuels be eliminated right away. However, the politics of aggression does not respect environmental concerns or well-intended plans to transform the way the world consumes power. Nations must make painful choices. Just as the outcome of the way remains uncertain, time will tell if the European leaders have acted prudently in their difficult endeavor to reconcile these seemingly irreconcilable differences. *Rick Laezman is a freelance writer in Los Angeles, California, US. He has a passion for energy efficiency and innovation. He has been covering renewable power and other related subjects for more than ten years.