# data[].attributes.headline
Opinion | The Earth Is Just as Alive as You Are - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.subject
Opinion | The Earth Is Just as Alive as You Are - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The Earth Is Just as Alive as You Are (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists once ridiculed the idea of a living planet. Not anymore.

# data[].attributes.headline
NOVA: Earth System Science | PBS LearningMedia

# data[].attributes.subject
NOVA: Earth System Science | PBS LearningMedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NOVA: Earth System Science | PBS LearningMedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NOVA's Earth system science collection highlights important Earth processes normally invisible to the human eye. The standards-based media resources below expose the intricate web of forces that sustain life on Earth, allowing educators to explore the astonishing beauty and complexity of our dynamic planet with their students.

# data[].attributes.headline
The High Price of Modern Hygiene | National Geographic Society

# data[].attributes.subject
The High Price of Modern Hygiene | National Geographic Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Director

Author

National Geographic Society

Production Managers

Program Specialists

other

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Treatment facilities that clean sewage water to remove waste and ensure that municipal water supplies stay uncontaminated are extremely expensive, and sometimes, cost prohibitive to poor or underdeveloped communities.

# data[].attributes.headline
VU GEOS 101 - Environmental Science - Home

# data[].attributes.subject
VU GEOS 101 - Environmental Science - Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Worldwide, less than 10 percent of the plastic we use gets recycled. Most ends up in a landfill. And much of that eventually makes its way out to sea, clogging up our oceans.

And here's the extra bad news: Global demand for plastic is projected to triple by midcentury.

Here's the problem with plastic: It's super useful, lightweight and strong, and smooth and flexible. Back when Dustin Hoffman's legendary character in the movie, The Graduate was entering the workforce a half-century ago, the career advice was simple: "Just one word: Plastics!"

But the guy giving advice to the young college graduate probably wasn't thinking of all the junk we'd still be stuck with two generations later. Plastic toys, straws, and tiny ketchup pouches - things that make life more convenient - can take hundreds of years to degrade.

Here's the other problem. Plastic isn't just plastic. There are hundreds of different kinds. Think of a flexible plastic baggie versus a water bottle versus rigid plastic for your computer keyboard. Most of us just toss it all in a blue recycling bin and say: "Should be OK."

"The industry has started calling that wish-cycling," said Susan Collins, president of the Container Recycling Institute in California. "Especially with curbside recycling that uses this single-stream process where we put all our recyclables in one bin, the expression we use a lot is that, 'You can't unscramble an egg.'"

And when recycling gets contaminated, it becomes trash, bound for the landfill. Still, even if you deliver a pristine batch of plastic bottles to the recycler, there's another hurdle.

"Plastics are inherently susceptible to some decrease in their properties when they're recycled," said Sue Selke, director of the Center for Packaging Innovation and Sustainability at Michigan State University.

There are only so many times a plastic bottle can be melted down and reused before it degrades too far in quality.

"That leads to this overabundance of plastics in our waste streams," said Brett Helms, a staff scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. His team is designing a new type of plastic, PDK ( polydiketoenamine), which can be used over and over.

Scientist Brett Helms at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. | (Jason Margolis/Courtesy The World)

"What we've created is a plastic that can be deconstructed into its molecular building blocks," Helms said.

So, for example, a phone case could be later rebuilt into a watchband or part of a new shoe. "And the way that becomes possible is by designing plastics to degrade with essentially no difference in quality or performance from the virgin resin."

Most plastics are not like Legos. Once the pieces - or molecules in this case - are snapped together, they can't easily be taken apart.

"But for recycling, you need to go in the reverse direction," Helms said. "So, you need to take these big long chains that may have other things in them, and you have to be able to efficiently deconstruct them at the molecular level."

Acid allows this new plastic to be depolymerized - broken down into basic molecular building blocks called monomers - and Helms hopes that his new plastic encourages other innovators to rethink how plastic is designed.

The British newspaper, The Independent, asked if this could be the holy grail of plastic.

"If you think it's the holy grail, you're definitely getting prematurely excited," Selke said, adding that she still wants to learn more about this new plastic being cooked up in the labs of Berkeley.

Some commercially available plastic can already be broken down to the molecular level. (The new plastic in Berkeley could be an improvement, however, being more flexible than current plastics that can be chemically recycled.) But there is a problem with chemical recycling: It's not cheap.

"It takes more expense, more energy, usually to do that kind of recycling than to just do mechanical recycling," Selke said.

Mechanical recycling is, simply put, melting down old plastics to make new ones. It's a cheaper way to recycle, but again, you can only do that so many times.

But there's more to this plastic debate than just economics.

One recent study delivered a sobering statistic: If we fail to rethink how we're using plastics, by midcentury, when measured pound for pound, there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish.
This article originally appeared at PRI's The World.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Worldwide, less than 10 percent of the plastic we use gets recycled. Most ends up in a landfill. And much of that eventually makes its way out to sea, clogging up our oceans. And here's the extra bad news: Global demand for plastic is projected to triple by midcentury.

# data[].attributes.headline
Science Lesson Plans for the Classroom | California Academy of Sciences

# data[].attributes.subject
Science Lesson Plans for the Classroom | California Academy of Sciences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It seems JavaScript is either disabled or not supported by your browser. To view this site, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options and try again.

Jump to main content

Find a lesson plan

Anoushka Takla's fourth graders seek to answer the question: "What happens to our trash over time?"

Erica Katz's fifth graders seek to answer the question: "Why does the moon look different on different days?"

¡Únete a nosotros mientras nos acercamos a los árboles en nuestros barrios y trepamos a un gigante de las secuoy

Pages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Science lesson plans for elementary, middle, and high school classrooms teaching life, earth, and physical sciences: activities for kids and students!

# data[].attributes.headline
Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment | Environment | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment | Environment | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.

Instead of "climate change" the preferred terms are "climate emergency, crisis or breakdown" and "global heating" is favoured over "global warming", although the original terms are not banned.

"We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue," said the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. "The phrase 'climate change', for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity."

"Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we're in," she said.

The United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, talked of the "climate crisis" in September, adding: "We face a direct existential threat." The climate scientist Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a former adviser to Angela Merkel, the EU and the pope, also uses "climate crisis".

In December, Prof Richard Betts, who leads the Met Office's climate research, said "global heating" was a more accurate term than "global warming" to describe the changes taking place to the world's climate. In the political world, UK MPs recently endorsed the Labour party's declaration of a "climate emergency".

The scale of the climate and wildlife crises has been laid bare by two landmark reports from the world's scientists. In October, they said carbon emissions must halve by 2030 to avoid even greater risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. In May, global scientists said human society was in jeopardy from the accelerating annihilation of wildlife and destruction of the ecosystems that support all life on Earth.

Other terms that have been updated, including the use of "wildlife" rather than "biodiversity", "fish populations" instead of "fish stocks" and "climate science denier" rather than "climate sceptic". In September, the BBC accepted it gets coverage of climate change "wrong too often" and told staff: "You do not need a 'denier' to balance the debate."

Earlier in May, Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has inspired school strikes for climate around the globe, said: "It's 2019. Can we all now call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?"

The update to the Guardian's style guide follows the addition of the global carbon dioxide level to the Guardian's daily weather pages. "Levels of CO ₂ in the atmosphere have risen so dramatically - including a measure of that in our daily weather report is symbolic of what human activity is doing to our climate," said Viner in April. "People need reminding that the climate crisis is no longer a future problem - we need to tackle it now, and every day matters."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From now, house style guide recommends terms such as 'climate crisis' and 'global heating'

# data[].attributes.headline
Guardian US launches Toxic America: Is modern life poisoning us? | GNM press office | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
Guardian US launches Toxic America: Is modern life poisoning us? | GNM press office | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new editorial series and fundraiser on dangers of everyday exposure to toxic chemicals in our food, water, household products, and cosmetics
Guardian US today launches a new editorial series and fundraising campaign, Toxic America, a six month project that will explore the health implications of daily exposure to potentially toxic chemicals in our everyday lives.

From pesticides in our produce to toxic dyes in cosmetics, Americans are routinely exposed to dangerous chemicals that have long been banned in countries such as the UK, Germany and France. Of the 40,000 chemicals used in consumer products in the US, according to the EPA, only one percent have been rigorously tested for human safety.

The series launch package features an in-depth look at the 1,300 chemicals used in US cosmetics that are banned in the EU; an explainer on the toxic threat in everyday products; and - after taking tests for more than 1,500 chemicals - Guardian environment writer Emily Holden's reports on the synthetic chemicals in her body.
John Mulholland, editor, Guardian US said:
" The Guardian is committed to rigorous environmental reporting, both on the threats to our natural environment and the solutions that can help preserve it. This series arose from readers' deep interest in the dangers present in our environment and we hope they will contribute to this project to support our reporting on the chemicals present in our daily lives and the damage they can do."

We're asking our readers to help us raise $150,000 to increase our coverage of the toxic chemicals in our environment for the rest of 2019. This follows successful fundraising campaigns This Land is Your Land, Break the Cycle and The Mother Load.

Toxic America will include articles videos, opinion pieces, and visual stories offering practical advice on navigating possible toxic threats in the home and the food and water we consume, as well as looking into deeper questions of how we got here, who is responsible, and what the solutions are. The series will:

Offer advice on how to navigate the supermarket to reduce your exposure to health threats - and toxins found in food, cosmetics and cleaning products

Look at the everyday potential dangers in our homes, from flame retardants in the sofa to carcinogens in dry cleaning

Explore how chemicals in our environment can impact fertility, parents and babies

Report on how plastic pollution is impacting human health as microplastic enters our food supply

Report on threats to our drinking water supply

Examine the role of the American chemical lobby and raise awareness about its political influence and impact on public policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Guardian US launches Toxic America: Is modern life poisoning us?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new editorial series and fundraiser on dangers of everyday exposure to toxic chemicals in our food, water, household products, and cosmetics Guardian US today launches a new editorial series and fundraising campaign, Toxic America, a six month project that will explore the health implications of daily exposure to potentially toxic chemicals in our everyday lives.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are My Denim Jeans Bad for the Environment? | NRDC

# data[].attributes.subject
Are My Denim Jeans Bad for the Environment? | NRDC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Q: I've heard that producing denim is particularly bad for the environment. Do I need to give up my blue jeans?

A: Throwaway plastics and gas-guzzling cars are the typical consumer no-nos, but clothing also has oversize impacts on the planet and our health. And it's true-denim is one of the worst offenders.

Let's start with the fabric. Denim is made primarily with cotton, though it's now often blended with synthetic fibers like polyester. And though all fibers have their trade-offs, "cotton in general is a very thirsty crop," says Tatiana Schlossberg, a former environmental reporter at the New York Times and the author of Inconspicuous Consumption, a new book on the hidden environmental impact of our spending habits. Very thirsty, indeed: Producing just 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cotton can require up to 7,660 gallons of water, depending on where it's grown. (In comparison, producing 2.2 pounds of tomatoes requires one one-hundredth of that amount, 76 gallons.) A cotton crop consumes a lot of chemicals too: 16 percent of all insecticides are used on the plant, and many of them pose significant health risks for farm workers and nearby residents.

Nowhere have the impacts from this process been more evident than in Xintang, a town in southern China. The denim capital of the world, it produces one in every three pairs of jeans sold. Because of limited regulatory oversight, by 2013 Xintang's rivers ran a deep blue and smelled foul, a result of manufacturers dumping chemical-laden wastewater directly into local waterways. Unsafe amounts of toxic metals like mercury, lead, and copper have been found in the water, which residents rely on for drinking and bathing. Workers and residents have reported rashes, lesions, and, some locals believe, infertility.Denim also goes through a particularly energy- and water-intensive-and destructive-dyeing and finishing process, beginning with what gives the fabric its signature indigo color (originally a plant-based dye, but today largely replaced with a synthetic version). After dyeing, fabrics are repeatedly treated and washed with a variety of chemicals, like bleach, to soften, fade, or texturize the fabric. Most of our favorite shades and styles-acid-washed, distressed, light-washed-require additional treatments and chemicals. All in all, producing a single pair of jeans requires an immense amount of water and energy and creates significant pollution.

"These clothes are cheap in the store because nobody's paying for this waste," Schlossberg says, adding that communities on the other side of the world will be footing that bill for generations.

But the industry is transforming, however slowly. When the dangerous situation in Xintang came to light several years ago, China's central government ordered the local government to tackle the pollution issue. In response, between 2016 and 2018, 76 facilities, including 68 dyeing, printing, and laundry mills, were shut down. According to Sina Finance, these shutdowns have caused more than 1 billion U.S. dollars' worth of local economic loss. But there are now encouraging signs: Some companies are rolling out new production techniques that significantly reduce water usage, and other brands are pursuing sustainability by powering their factories with renewable energy and recycling water.

Although some denim manufacturers are making smarter choices, most international corporations get away with disclosing little information about their production processes. "People need to demand that companies make their practices available. Because the information isn't there in the first place, people don't know what to ask," Schlossberg says.

Yiliqi, a scientist at NRDC, is working to do just that. She says improving the clothing industry will require oversight, transparency, and accountability. NRDC has worked with the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs in China, for example, to map and rank multinational corporations on their supply chain performance. Meanwhile, the Clean by Design program that NRDC created more than a decade ago provides a tool for brands to cut water, energy, and chemical consumption as well as wastewater discharge from their supply chains. (Last year the program was transferred to the Apparel Impact Institute, a collaboration of industry stakeholders working to scale up the initiative.) The Sustainable Apparel Coalition has developed indices for measuring a products' environmental impact. And various sustainability certifications, including BCI (Better Cotton Initiative), Bluesign, OEKO-TEX, and GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard), among others, can be used as branding and put on clothing labels, creating further incentives for companies to improve.

For individuals, Yiliqi says, "the fastest way to make an impact is to ask their brands to do better." It's also important to investigate the work a company is doing to reduce its impact before you buy its products. And if you're looking to change some of your shopping habits, here are some tips:

Avoid overconsumption. Wear the denim you have as long as possible and forgo "fast fashion," which is a term for cheaply made, trendy clothing manufactured to last only a season or two.

Take existing jeans in for mending when needed, rather than tossing them out altogether.

Shop at thrift stores, which extends the life and reduces the carbon footprint of each pair of jeans, or swap with friends.

When you do buy new, opt for durable items that will last years instead of months.

We don't have to forgo this American classic-it just needs a makeover.

This NRDC.org story is available for online republication by news media outlets or nonprofits under these conditions: The writer(s) must be credited with a byline; you must note prominently that the story was originally published by NRDC.org and link to the original; the story cannot be edited (beyond simple things such as grammar); you can't resell the story in any form or grant republishing rights to other outlets; you can't republish our material wholesale or automatically-you need to select stories individually; you can't republish the photos or graphics on our site without specific permission; you should drop us a note to let us know when you've used one of our stories.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are My Denim Jeans Bad for the Environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Q: I've heard that producing denim is particularly bad for the environment. Do I need to give up my blue jeans? A: Throwaway plastics and gas-guzzling cars are the typical consumer no-nos, but clothing also has oversize impacts on the planet and our health. And it's true-denim is one of the worst offenders.

# data[].attributes.headline
A seafood fraud investigation DNA tested fish sold in the US – 20% were mislabelled | World Economic Forum

# data[].attributes.subject
A seafood fraud investigation DNA tested fish sold in the US – 20% were mislabelled | World Economic Forum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A seafood fraud investigation DNA tested fish sold in the US – 20% were mislabelled

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What if the fish on your plate is not the fish you thought you were ordering? A study of seafood sold in food stores, restaurants and sushi outlets in the United States has found that a fifth is mislabelled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our NCSE Teacher Ambassadors developed and field-tested five lessons that focus on combatting misconceptions. Download the lessons and watch accompanying webinars.

Want to read more about the science and bring it to your classrooms? Here are just a few NCSE staff picks:
Keep Heartland Out of Science Classrooms Top 5 Reasons Why This Book Doesn't Belong in Classrooms Heartland's Claims Against the 97% Climate Consensus Teaching Climate Change: Best Practices
Want to Teach Middle Schoolers about Climate Change? Start with a Fish Tank
Rethinking Climate Change Education
In the Classroom: Climate Change Chemistry

Teaching Climate Science: It's Elementary

In the Classroom: Elementary Lesson on Sea Level Rise
Walking and Talking Evolution
Need Help Teaching Natural Selection? Try This!
A Fishy and Fun Tale from Scientist in the Classroom Even the Classics Can Surprise You
A New Book to Introduce Evolution to Preschoolers: Grandmother Fish
In the Classroom: Sneak Attack Evolution! The Parent Trap Redux When the School Board Attacks Science When Students Ask about Religion To Teach or Not to Teach: is that really the question?
Excerpt: The Missing Link: An Inquiry Approach for Teaching All Students About Evolution by Lee Meadows

Climate Change 101: A brief overview of climate change science.

Teaching Climate Change: Best Practices: A collection of resources with basic information on climate literacy and tools for overcoming misconceptions in the classroom.

The Climate Literacy & Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN): A catalog of existing online resources that have been reviewed for scientific accuracy and pedagogical potential. The catalog can be searched by grade level, resource type and other criteria. Included are learning activities, videos, visualizations, and tips for teaching.

The U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy: An "education toolbox" that teachers can search for lesson plans, videos, and other resources by topic and grade level.

NASA Wavelength: A digital collection of reviewed resources for Earth and space science educators. Searches can be filtered by topic, grade level, and strategy. Resources include videos, activities, informative text, models, and demonstrations.

Climate.gov: A multi-purpose resource from the U.S. government on climate change. It includes educational activities, a library of presentations that can be downloaded, and access to climate data and services.

U.S. Global Change Research Program: A compilation of climate change resources such as the Climate Literacy Framework and climate change education videos from the National Park Service.

NASA's Global Climate Change Website: High-quality information about climate science from America's space agency. Winner of the 2011 Webby Award for Best Science Site, it includes engaging interactive activities and a series of quizzes on a variety of climate-related topics.

The Teacher-Friendly Guide to Climate Change: From the Paleontological Research Institute.

Alliance for Climate Education: ACE's mission is "to educate young people on the science of climate change and empower them to take action." New from ACE: Our Climate, Our Future.

UC Berkeley's Understanding Evolution Resource Library: A "one stop shop" for teaching and understanding evolution, including an Evolution 101 link for students and teaching resources for kindergarten through undergraduate educators.

NOVA's Evolution Lab: A phylogeny puzzle game and an interactive tree of life that helps students explore the relationships between species and the history of life on Earth. It also includes a collection of videos that outline the evidence for evolution and lesson planning resources for educators.

The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History: Information for teachers and students from the Smithsonian's Human Origins Initiative. The site also has a Teacher's Forum, which provides a private online space for educators to share information with each other about teaching human evolution. Lesson plans are available for grades 9-12.

HHMI's Biointeractive: At BioInteractive, you can find award-winning multimedia resources that bring the excitement of scientific discovery into your classroom-all 100% free. There are hundreds of evolution-related assets, ranging from short films and lectures to animations and apps. Each short film serves as a launching point for many classroom-ready materials developed in collaborations between scientists and educators.

Evolution: Education & Outreach: This open-access journal promotes accurate understanding and comprehensive teaching of evolutionary theory for a wide audience. Targeting K-16 students, teachers, and scientists alike, the journal presents articles to aid members of these communities in the teaching of evolutionary theory. It connects teachers with scientists by adapting cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles for classroom use on varied instructional levels.

UC Berkeley's National Conference on the Teaching of Evolution Resource Matrix: A list of resources recommended by participants of the conference. Resources include articles and books, as well as textbooks and software recommendations.

Cornell University's Paleontological Research Institution: A series of Teacher-Friendly Guides that are written to provide teachers with the scientific background they need to introduce Earth systems science topics in their classrooms.

Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science: A well-structured framework from the National Academy of Sciences for understanding and teaching evolution. Written for teachers, parents, and community officials as well as scientists and educators, this web-based version explains how evolution reveals both the great diversity and similarity among Earth's organisms. It explores how scientists approach the question of evolution and illustrates the nature of science as a way to understand the natural world.

ActionBioscience.org: ActionBioscience.org is an education resource of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, aiming to promote bioscience literacy. The site provides peer-reviewed articles on issues related to seven bioscience challenges: environment, biodiversity, genomics, biotechnology, evolution, new frontiers in science, and bioscience education. In addition, the web site provides educators with original lessons and other resources to enhance bioscience teaching. Select articles are translated into Spanish. The site was chosen as the 2003 best biology site by Scientific American and the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse of the U.S. Dept. of Education honored it with the Digital Dozen Award for quality content in 2002.

Evolution and the Nature of Science Institutes (ENSI): Originally NSF-funded, the ENSI program focused on teaching teachers about the nature of science, using evolution as the exemplar. A site for teachers by other teachers with lots of classroom-tested exercises available free of charge.

Have resources you'd like to share? Get in touch with us at info@ncse.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate Change LessonsOur NCSE Teacher Ambassadors developed and field-tested five lessons that focus on combatting misconceptions. Download the lessons and watch accompanying webinars.

# data[].attributes.headline
What This Year’s World Happiness Report Reveals About Our National Well-Being by Kira M. Newman — YES! Magazine

# data[].attributes.subject
What This Year’s World Happiness Report Reveals About Our National Well-Being by Kira M. Newman — YES! Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to the 2019 World Happiness Report, negative feelings are rising around the world-and the United States is particularly hard hit with an "epidemic of addictions." Tellingly, the report also shows a widening happiness gap, with some people reporting much more well-being and others showing much less within each country.

Released annually on the International Day of Happiness, the World Happiness Report ranks countries based on their life satisfaction in the Gallup World Poll. Residents rate how satisfied they are with their lives on a scale of zero to 10, from the worst possible life to the best possible life.

This year, the most satisfied country was Finland, followed by Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and the Netherlands. The United States ranked 19 with an average score of 6.9, down from a ranking of 18 last year.

This year's report also analyzes how global happiness has changed over time, based on data stretching back to 2005. One trend is very clear: Negative feelings-worry, sadness, and anger-have been rising around the world, up by 27 percent from 2010 to 2018.

"We are in an era of rising tensions and negative emotions," says economist Jeffrey D. Sachs. "These findings point to underlying challenges that need to be addressed."

Who gets to be happy?

The authors also found troubling trends in happiness inequality, which is the psychological parallel to income inequality: how much individuals in a society differ in how satisfied they are with life. Since 2007, happiness inequality has been rising within countries, meaning that the gap between the unhappy and the happy has been getting wider. This trend is particularly strong in Latin America, Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

The report also features commentary and analysis from economists, psychologists, and public policy experts about urgent issues in well-being, and one theme this year is the "sad state of happiness in the United States." Research suggests that American adults have been getting less happy since 2000, while adolescents have been experiencing more depression, suicidal ideation, and self-harm since 2010. It's difficult to say why this is happening, and to tease out symptoms from causes. Some researchers blame rising income inequality; others blame political polarization.

Another possible explanation for unhappiness: Governments are losing their way.

One thing is certain, says Sachs: "The U.S. is suffering an epidemic of addictions." This includes an addiction to technology, which researcher Jean Twenge largely blames for the worrying mental health trends among U.S. adolescents. In her chapter of the report, she argues that screen time is displacing activities that are key to our happiness, like in-person social contact. Forty-five percent of adolescents are online " almost constantly," and the average high school senior spends six hours a day texting, on social media or on the internet.

But we're hooked on more than just technology. According to researcher Steve Sussman, around half of Americans suffer from at least one addiction. Some of the most prevalent are alcohol, food, and work-which each affect around 10 percent of adults-as well as drugs, gambling, exercise, shopping, and sex.

There's another possible explanation for unhappiness, though: Governments are losing their way.

Can good government help?

Last year's World Happiness Report found that locals and immigrants within a country have similar happiness levels. In other words, immigrants who arrive adapt to the local psychological climate, whether happy or not. This suggests that something pervasive is influencing everyone's well-being-and this year's report focuses on the role of government.

According to survey results since 2005, people across the globe are more satisfied with life when their governments are more effective, enforce the rule of law, have better regulation, control corruption, and spend in certain ways-more on health care and less on military. It also helps to live in a country with more political stability, less violence, and less conflict. Overall, being confident in your government goes hand in hand with a satisfying life.

We might help promote happiness for all by voting and marching for change.

Fortunately, research cited in this year's report also suggests that unhappy people can fight for change. Studies find that nations who are less satisfied as a whole tend to vote against incumbent politicians, and that election results can make a nation happier.

In particular, Americans could use their votes to support certain policies to help turn things around in the United States. For example, among the report's recommendations are more public mental health services, regulations on prescription drugs and advertising, and mindfulness programs in schools.

The report does highlight some positive trends. Since 2005, the majority of countries studied have become more satisfied with life (despite rising happiness inequality in many regions). Countries like Bulgaria, Sierra Leone, and Ecuador have seen gains greater than you'd expect had their gross domestic product multiplied by 10. And if our governments aren't taking care of us, we do take care of each other: Worldwide, nearly 30 percent of people donated to charity and 20 percent volunteered in the previous month; in the United States, those numbers were twice as high.

So, we might help promote happiness for all by voting and marching for change. We can volunteer and make donations. We can strengthen connections with family, friends, neighbors, and even people we only know online. As research suggests, it's this ethos of connection and generosity that might help make next year's World Happiness Report a happier one.

This article originally appeared on Greater Good, the online magazine of the Greater Good Science Center.

Inspiration in Your Inbox

Sign up to receive email updates from YES!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What This Year's World Happiness Report Reveals About Our National Well-Being - YES! Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When governments take care of us, we take care of each other. And the U.S. is struggling.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elders Climate Action - We're Taking Action on Climate Change

# data[].attributes.subject
Elders Climate Action - We're Taking Action on Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elders Climate Action - We're Taking Action on Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Elders Climate Action. Find inspiration, climate change information, eca materials for action and a number ways to get engaged and take action!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
350.org: A global campaign to confront the climate crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy future for all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sunrise is building a movement of young people across race and class to stop the climate crisis and win a Green New Deal. We will force the government to end the reign of fossil fuel elites, invest in Black, brown and working class communities, and create millions of good union jobs. We're on a mission to put everyday people back in charge and build a world that works for all of us, now and for generations to come. Join us for a 1-hr video call to connect with people like you across the country, hear our plan to win, and find your home in the movement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sunrise Movement - We Are The Climate Revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sunrise is building a movement of young people across race and class to stop the climate crisis and win a Green New Deal. We will force the government to end the reign of fossil fuel elites, invest in Black, brown and working class communities, and create millions of good union jobs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Our Climate Our Future | A climate education video experience

# data[].attributes.subject
Our Climate Our Future | A climate education video experience

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our Climate Our Future | Climate Education That Inspires.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our Climate Our Future is a collection of educational resources on climate science, justice, and solutions. Climate education that inspires.

# data[].attributes.headline
21 Things You Didn't Know You Can Recycle | Green America

# data[].attributes.subject
21 Things You Didn't Know You Can Recycle | Green America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
21 Things You Didn’t Know You Can Recycle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lots of junk can be recycled, not just plastics and newspaper. We have resources for what you can do with your would-be trash.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Teen Started a Global Climate Protest. What Are You Doing? | WIRED

# data[].attributes.subject
A Teen Started a Global Climate Protest. What Are You Doing? | WIRED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Greta Thunberg cut a frail and lonely figure when she started a school strike for the climate outside the Swedish parliament building last August. Her parents tried to dissuade her. Classmates declined to join. Passersby expressed pity and bemusement at the sight of the then unknown 15-year-old sitting on the cobblestones with a hand-painted banner.

Eight months on, the picture could not be more different. The pigtailed teenager is feted across the world as a model of determination, inspiration, and positive action. National presidents and corporate executives line up to be criticized by her, face to face. Her Skolstrejk för Klimatet (school strike for climate) banner has been translated into dozens of languages. And, most striking of all, the loner is now anything but alone.

On March 15, when she returns to the cobblestones (as she has done almost every Friday in rain, sun, ice and snow), it will be as a figurehead for a vast and growing movement. The global climate strike this Friday is gearing up to be one of the biggest environmental protests the world has ever seen. As it approaches, Thunberg is clearly excited.

"It's amazing," she says. "It's more than 71 countries and more than 700 places, and counting. It's increasing very much now, and that's very, very fun."

A year ago, this was unimaginable. Back then, Thunberg was a painfully introverted, slightly built nobody, waking at 6 am to prepare for school and heading back home at 3 pm. "Nothing really was happening in my life," she recalls. "I have always been that girl in the back who doesn't say anything. I thought I couldn't make a difference because I was too small."

She was never quite like the other kids. Her mother, Malena Ernman, is one of Sweden's most celebrated opera singers. Her father, Svante Thunberg, is an actor and author (named after Svante Arrhenius, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who in 1896 first calculated how carbon dioxide emissions could lead to the greenhouse effect). Greta was exceptionally bright. Four years ago, she was diagnosed with Asperger's.

"I overthink. Some people can just let things go, but I can't, especially if there's something that worries me or makes me sad. I remember when I was younger, and in school, our teachers showed us films of plastic in the ocean, starving polar bears and so on. I cried through all the movies. My classmates were concerned when they watched the film, but when it stopped, they started thinking about other things. I couldn't do that. Those pictures were stuck in my head."

She has come to accept this as part of who she is-and made it a motivating force instead of a source of paralyzing depression, which it once was.

At about the age of 8, when she first learned about climate change, she was shocked that adults did not appear to be taking the issue seriously. It was not the only reason she became depressed a few years later, but it was a significant factor.

"I kept thinking about it, and I just wondered if I am going to have a future. And I kept that to myself because I'm not very much of a talker, and that wasn't healthy. I became very depressed and stopped going to school. When I was home, my parents took care of me, and we started talking because we had nothing else to do. And then I told them about my worries and concerns about the climate crisis and the environment. And it felt good to just get that off my chest.

"They just told me everything will be all right. That didn't help, of course, but it was good to talk. And then I kept on going, talking about this all the time and showing my parents pictures, graphs and films, articles and reports. And, after a while, they started listening to what I actually said. That's when I kind of realized I could make a difference. And how I got out of that depression was that I thought: It is just a waste of time feeling this way because I can do so much good with my life. I am trying to do that still now."

Her parents were the guinea pigs. She discovered she had remarkable powers of persuasion, and her mother gave up flying, which had a severe impact on her career. Her father became a vegetarian. As well as feeling relieved by the transformation of their formerly quiet and morose daughter, they say they were persuaded by her reasoning. "Over the years, I ran out of arguments," says her father. "She kept showing us documentaries, and we read books together. Before that, I really didn't have a clue. I thought we had the climate issue sorted," he says. "She changed us and now she is changing a great many other people. There was no hint of this in her childhood. It's unbelievable. If this can happen, anything can happen."

The climate strike was inspired by students in Parkland, Florida, who walked out of classes in protest against the US gun laws that enabled the massacre on their campus. Greta was part of a group that wanted to do something similar to raise awareness about climate change, but they couldn't agree what. Last summer, after a record heat wave in northern Europe and forest fires that ravaged swathes of Swedish land up to the Arctic, Thunberg decided to go it alone. Day one was August 20, 2018.

"I painted the sign on a piece of wood and, for the flyers, wrote down some facts I thought everyone should know. And then I took my bike to the Parliament and just sat there," she recalls. "The first day, I sat alone from about 8:30 am to 3 pm-the regular school day. And then on the second day, people started joining me. After that, there were people there all the time."

She kept her promise to strike every day until the Swedish national elections. Afterward, she agreed to make a speech in front of thousands at a People's Climate March rally. Her parents were reluctant. Knowing Thunberg had been so reticent that she had previously been diagnosed with selective mutism, they tried to talk her out of it. But the teenager was determined. "In some cases where I am really passionate, I will not change my mind," she says. Despite her family's concerns, she delivered the address in nearly flawless English and invited the crowd to film her on their mobile phones and spread the message through social media. "I cried," says her proud dad.

People with selective mutism have a tendency to worry more than others. Thunberg has since weaponized this in meetings with political leaders and with billionaire entrepreneurs in Davos. "I don't want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act," she told them.

Such tongue-lashings have gone down well. Many politicians laud her candidness. In return, she listens to their claims that stronger climate policies are unrealistic unless the public make the issue more of a priority. She is unconvinced. "They are still not doing anything. So I don't know really why they are supporting us, because we are criticizing them. It's kind of weird." She has also been withering about leaders in the US, UK, and Australia who either ignore the strikers or admonish them for skipping classes. "They are desperately trying to change the subject whenever the school strikes come up. They know they can't win this fight because they haven't done anything."

Such blunt talk has found a broad audience among people jaded by empty promises and eager to find a climate leader willing to ramp up ambition. Thunberg's rise coincides with growing scientific concern. A slew of recent reports has warned that oceans are heating and the poles melting faster than expected. Last year's UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change spelled out the dangers of surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming. To have any chance of avoiding that outcome, it said, emissions must fall rapidly by 2030. That will require far more pressure on politicians-and nobody has proved more effective at that over the past eight months than Thunberg.

The girl who once slipped into despair is now a beacon of hope. One after another, veteran campaigners and grizzled scientists have described her as the best news for the climate movement in decades. She has been lauded at the UN, met French president Emmanuel Macron, shared a podium with the European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, and has been endorsed by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

You may think this would put the weight of the world on the 16-year-old's shoulders, but she claims to feel no pressure. If "people are so desperate for hope," she says, that is not her or the other strikers' responsibility.

"I don't care if what I'm doing-what we're doing-is hopeful. We need to do it anyway. Even if there's no hope left and everything is hopeless, we must do what we can."

In this regard, her family sees her singular focus as a blessing. She is someone who strips away social distractions and focuses with black-and-white clarity on the issues. "It's nothing that I want to change about me," she says. "It's just who I am. If I had been just like everyone else and been social, then I would have just tried to start an organization. But I couldn't do that. I'm not very good with people, so I did something myself instead."

While she has little time for chitchat, she gets satisfaction from speaking to a big audience about climate change. Regardless of the size of the crowd, she says she does not feel the least bit nervous.

She seems incapable of the cognitive dissonance that allows other people to lament what is happening to the climate one minute, then tuck into a steak, buy a car, or fly off for a weekend break the next. Although Thunberg believes political action far outweighs individual changes to consumer habits, she lives her values. She is a vegan and only travels abroad by train.

At its best, this sharpness can slice through the Gordian knot of the climate debate. It can also sting. There are no comfortable reassurances in her speech, just a steady frankness. Asked whether she has become more optimistic because the climate issue has risen up the political agenda and politicians in the US and Europe are considering green New Deals that would ramp up the transition to renewable energy, her reply is brutally honest. "No, I am not more hopeful than when I started. The emissions are increasing, and that is the only thing that matters. I think that needs to be our focus. We cannot talk about anything else."

Some people consider this a threat. A handful of fossil fuel lobbyists, politicians, and journalists have argued Thunberg is not what she seems-that she was propelled into prominence by environmental groups and sustainable-business interests. They say the entrepreneur who first tweeted about the climate strike, Ingmar Rentzhog, used Thunberg's name to raise investment for his company, but her father says the connection was overblown. Greta, he says, initiated the strike before anyone in the family had heard of Rentzhog. As soon as she found he had used her name without her permission, she cut all links with the company and has since vowed never to be associated with commercial interests. Her family says she has never been paid for her activities. In a recent interview, Rentzhog defended his actions, denied exploiting Greta, and said that climate change, not profit, was his motive.

On social media, there have been other crude attacks on Thunberg's reputation and appearance. Already familiar with bullying from school, she appears unfazed. "I expected when I started that if this is going to become big, then there will be a lot of hate," she says. "It's a positive sign. I think that must be because they see us as a threat. That means that something has changed in the debate, and we are making a difference."

She intends to strike outside parliament every Friday until the Swedish government's policies are in line with the Paris climate agreement. This has led to what she calls "strange contrasts": balancing her math homework with her fight to save the planet; listening attentively to teachers and decrying the immaturity of world leaders; weighing up the existential threat of climate change alongside the agonizing choice of what subjects to study in high school.

It can be grueling. She still rises at 6 am to get ready for school. Interviews and writing speeches can leave her working 12- to 15-hour days. "Of course, it takes a lot of energy. I don't have much spare time. But I just keep reminding myself why I am doing this, and then I just try to do as much as I can." So far, this does not appear to have affected her academic performance. She keeps up with homework and is in the top five in her class, according to her father.

And now that she is active on climate change, she is no longer lonely, no longer silent, no longer so depressed. She is too busy trying to make a difference. And enjoying herself.

This Friday, when she takes her usual spot outside the Swedish Parliament, she will be joined by classmates and students from other schools. "It's going to be very, very big internationally, with hundreds of thousands of children going to strike from school to say that we aren't going to accept this anymore," she says. "I think we are only seeing the beginning. I think that change is on the horizon and the people will stand up for their future."

And then the activist slips back into being a teenager. "I'm looking forward to it and to see all the pictures the day afterwards. It's going to be fun."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How a 16-Year-Old Girl Started a Global Climate Protest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This story was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Greta Thunberg cut a frail and lonely figure when she started a school strike for the climate outside the Swedish parliament building last August. Her parents tried to dissuade her.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate Change and the Ocean | the Shape of Life | The Story of the Animal Kingdom

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate Change and the Ocean | the Shape of Life | The Story of the Animal Kingdom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
the Shape of Life | The Story of the Animal Kingdom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the atmosphere has warmed due to human-driven climate change, the ocean has taken up an inordinate amount of heat. And, that has taken a toll: the ocean is warmer than at any time since we began keeping records in the 1880s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Something peculiar is happening in the azure waters off the rocky cliffs of Ischia, Italy. There, streams of gas-filled volcanic bubbles rising up to the surface are radically changing life around them by making seawater ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Mary Oliver's Poetry Captures Our Relationship With Technology - The Atlantic

# data[].attributes.subject
Mary Oliver's Poetry Captures Our Relationship With Technology - The Atlantic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I worried that the culture would succumb to this stultification and I wouldn't be immune. Thus, my self-prescribed daily dose of poetry to sharpen the faculties that stare at the world. I would read to bulwark my attention against the assault waged by my phone.

On the 17th day of the year, the poet Mary Oliver died, and I pulled her books from the shelf. Her oeuvre became my morning ritual-and because she wrote with directness, the windowpane clarity achieved when a writer aims to persuade, I found myself reading many pages at a time. There were poems I knew, the ones recited at weddings or quoted on yearbook pages ("Tell me, what is it you plan to do / with your one wild and precious life?"). But this was the first time I had read Oliver beyond her hits. Her books had tumbled into my arms at the right moment. Her collected works amount to an instruction manual for how to focus the gaze. The exhortations that filled her poems became my command: "To pay attention, this is our endless and proper work."

In the age of surveillance capitalism, the biggest corporations redirect the gaze, exploiting the psyche's vulnerabilities for profit. Even silenced phones light up with notifications that break eye contact and disrupt concentration. YouTube plays videos in an endless loop, queued on the basis of intimate data, so that the emotional rush of one clip stokes the desire to watch the next. Facebook, the ultimate manipulation machine, arrays information to exploit the psychic weaknesses of users, with the intent of keeping them on its site for as long as it can. The hand touches the phone upon waking, even before it can rub the eye or reach across the bed to wake the spouse.

While society has grown a little wiser to how the technologies can be exploited by foreign governments and boiler rooms spewing misinformation, the costs of allowing our attention to be commandeered remain drastically understated. It was not Mary Oliver's intent to critique this new world-and it's hard to imagine she even owned a flip phone-but her poetry captures its spiritual costs.
Read: From the archives: "Moccasin Flowers," a poem by Mary Oliver
Her final collection of essays was called Upstream. In the title piece, she remembers getting separated from her parents in the woods as they stroll along a creek. But what she recalls isn't the trauma of being lost, but the attentiveness she achieves in that charged moment of aloneness, "the sense of going toward the source." In her narration, this is the very instant she began her long career as a noticer. What she sees isn't an undifferentiated mass of a forest or an abstraction called "nature." Her revelation is the pluralism of the woods. "One tree is like another, but not too much. One tulip is like the next tulip, but not altogether." This discovery of the "harmonies and also the discords of the natural world" fills her with ecstatic joy. "Doesn't anybody in the world anymore want to get up in the / middle of the night and / sing?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Attention Is the Beginning of Devotion'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I worried that the culture would succumb to this stultification and I wouldn't be immune. Thus, my self-prescribed daily dose of poetry to sharpen the faculties that stare at the world. I would read to bulwark my attention against the assault waged by my phone.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Diversity of Life | Biology for Non-Majors I

# data[].attributes.subject
The Diversity of Life | Biology for Non-Majors I

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learning Outcomes

Explain the diversity of life

Biological diversity is the variety of life on earth. This includes all the different plants, animals, and microorganisms; the genes they contain; and the ecosystems they form on land and in water. Biological diversity is constantly changing. It is increased by new genetic variation and reduced by extinction and habitat degradation.

What Is Biodiversity?

Biodiversity refers to the variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. Scientists have identified about 1.9 million species alive today. They are divided into the six kingdoms of life shown in Figure 2. Scientists are still discovering new species. Thus, they do not know for sure how many species really exist today. Most estimates range from 5 to 30 million species.

Video Review

Watch this discussion about biodiversity:

Literally, the word biodiversity means the many different kinds ( diversity) of life ( bio-), or the number of species in a particular area.

Biologists, however, are always alert to levels of organization, and have identified three unique measures of life's variation:

The most precise and specific measure of biodiversity is genetic diversity or genetic variation within a species. This measure of diversity looks at differences among individuals within a population, or at difference across different populations of the same species.

The level just broader is species diversity, which best fits the literal translation of biodiversity: the number of different species in a particular ecosystem or on Earth. This type of diversity simply looks at an area and reports what can be found there.

At the broadest most encompassing level, we have ecosystem diversity. As Leopold clearly understood, the "cogs and wheels" include not only life but also the land, sea, and air that support life. In ecosystem diversity, biologists look at the many types of functional units formed by living communities interacting with their environments.

Although all three levels of diversity are important, the term biodiversity usually refers to species diversity!

Scale of Biodiversity

Diversity may be measured at different scales. These are three indices used by ecologists:

Alpha diversity refers to diversity within a particular area, community or ecosystem, and is measured by counting the number of taxa within the ecosystem (usually species).

Beta diversity is species diversity between ecosystems; this involves comparing the number of taxa that are unique to each of the ecosystems.

Gamma diversity is a measurement of the overall diversity for different ecosystems within a region.

Benefits of Biodiversity

Biodiversity provides us with all of our food. It also provides for many medicines and industrial products, and it has great potential for developing new and improved products for the future. Perhaps most importantly, biological diversity provides and maintains a wide array of ecological "services." These include provision of clean air and water, soil, food and shelter. The quality-and the continuation- of our life and our economy is dependent on these "services."

Australia's Biological Diversity

The long isolation of Australia over much of the last 50 million years and its northward movement have led to the evolution of a distinct biota. Significant features of Australia's biological diversity include:

A high percentage of endemic species (that is, they occur nowhere else):

over 80% of flowering plants

over 80% of land mammals

88% of reptiles

45% of birds

92% of frogs

Wildlife groups of great richness. Australia has an exceptional diversity of lizards in the arid zone, many ground orchids, and a total invertebrate fauna estimated at 200,000 species with more than 4,000 different species of ants alone. Marsupials and monotremes collectively account for about 56% of native terrestrial mammals in Australia.

Wildlife of major evolutionary importance. For example, Australia has 12 of the 19 known families of primitive flowering plants, two of which occur nowhere else. Some species, such as the Queensland lungfish and peripatus, have remained relatively unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explain the diversity of life Biological diversity is the variety of life on earth. This includes all the different plants, animals, and microorganisms; the genes they contain; and the ecosystems they form on land and in water. Biological diversity is constantly changing. It is increased by new genetic variation and reduced by extinction and habitat degradation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement | Smart News | Smithsonian

# data[].attributes.subject
Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement | Smart News | Smithsonian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement

smithsonian.com

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists, international governmental bodies, relevant research institutes and scientific societies are in unison in saying that climate change is real, that it's a problem, and that we should probably do something about it now, not later. And yet, for some reason, the idea persists in some peoples' minds that climate change is up for debate, or that climate change is no big deal.

Actually, it's not "for some reason" that people are confused. There's a very obvious reason. There is a very well-funded, well-orchestrated climate change-denial movement, one funded by powerful people with very deep pockets. In a new and incredibly thorough study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle took a deep dive into the financial structure of the climate deniers, to see who is holding the purse strings.

According to Brulle's research, the 91 think tanks and advocacy organizations and trade associations that make up the American climate denial industry pull down just shy of a billion dollars each year, money used to lobby or sway public opinion on climate change and other issues.

"The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires," says the Guardian, "often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change."

"This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power," he said. "They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hear people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy.

Last year, PBS talked to Brulle about his investigation into the climate change countermovement. The project, says Brulle, is the first part of three: in the future he'll turn a similar eye to the climate movement and to the environmental movement. But for now, the focus is on the deniers.

Now, what you can see in the movement itself is that it has two real roots. One is in the conservative movement itself, in that you see a lot of conservative foundations that had been funding the growth of the conservative movement all along now appear as funding the climate countermovement. You also can see dedicated industry foundations that come in to start funding the climate countermovement.
So it's kind of a combination of both industry and conservative philanthropies that are funding this process, and what they did was they borrowed a great deal of the strategy and tactics that came out of the tobacco industry's efforts to prevent action on the health impacts of smoking.

What you see is the tactics that this movement uses were developed and tested in the tobacco industry first, and now they're being applied to the climate change movement, and in fact, some of the same people and some of the same organizations that were involved in the tobacco issue are also involved in climate change.

Here's where the money is coming from:

The climate denial movement is a powerful political force, says Brulle. They've got to be, too, to outweigh in the public's mind the opinions of pretty much every relevant scientist. Brulle:

A Friendly Reminder From Pretty Much Every Climate Scientist in the World: Climate Change Is Real
It's 95 Percent Certain That We're the Main Cause of Climate Change
Head of World's Largest Oil Company Suggests Climate Change is No Big Deal
Three Quarters of Americans Now Believe Climate Change Is Affecting the Weather
With delay and obfuscation as their goals, the U.S. CCCM has been quite successful in recent decades. However, the key actors in this cultural and political conflict are not just the "experts" who appear in the media spotlight. The roots of climate-change denial go deeper, because individuals' efforts have been bankrolled and directed by organizations that receive sustained support from foundations and funders known for their overall commitments to conservative causes. Thus to fully understand the opposition to climate change legislation, we need to focus on the institutionalized efforts that have built and maintain this organized campaign. Just as in a theatrical show, there are stars in the spotlight. In the drama of climate change, these are often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians, such as Senator James Inhofe. However, they are only the most visible and transparent parts of a larger production. Supporting this effort are directors, script writers, and, most importantly, a series of producers, in the form of conservative foundations. Clarifying the institutional dynamics of the CCCM can aid our understanding of how anthropogenic climate change has been turned into a controversy rather than a scientific fact in the U.S.

More from Smithsonian.com:

Like this article?
SIGN UP for our newsletter

About Colin Schultz

Colin Schultz is a freelance science writer and editor based in Toronto, Canada. He blogs for Smart News and contributes to the American Geophysical Union. He has a B.Sc. in physical science and philosophy, and a M.A. in journalism.

Read more from this author | Follow @_ColinS_

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
smithsonian.com The overwhelming majority of climate scientists, international governmental bodies, relevant research institutes and scientific societies are in unison in saying that climate change is real, that it's a problem, and that we should probably do something about it now, not later.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Moral Cost of Cats | Science | Smithsonian

# data[].attributes.subject
The Moral Cost of Cats | Science | Smithsonian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pete Marra is haunted by cats. He sees them everywhere: slinking down alleys, crouched under porches, glaring at him out of wild, starved eyes.

People assume that Marra, head of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center and author of the recent book Cat Wars, hates cats. This is not the case. "I love cats," he says, calling them "fascinating, magnificent animals," that seem to have a "freakish love for me." He's even considered a pet cat, despite being mildly allergic. "This is the thing people don't realize," Marra told me recently at a café near his office in Washington, D.C. "I'm both a wild animal advocate and a domestic animal advocate. If my mother thought I wasn't supporting cats, she'd be flipping in her grave."

It's an understandable mistake. After all, Marra has made himself the public face of what sounds a lot like an anti-cat crusade. For years, the wildlife ecologist has been investigating the lethal implications of cats and urging that pet owners keep them indoors. Now, he argues in Cat Wars: The Devastating Consequences of a Cuddly Killer, co-authored with freelance writer Chris Santella, the time has come for more drastic action: a concerted, nationwide effort to rid the landscape of cats. (The book is based on Marra's personal and scientific research, and the views and conclusion are expressly his own and do not represent those of the Smithsonian Institution.)

That effort will require an ugly reality: the targeted killing of felines. "No one likes the idea of killing cats," Marra concludes in his book. "But sometimes, it is necessary."

Marra might like cats. But he also sees a bigger picture. In his day job, he and his team at the migratory bird center track the global movements of birds and tease apart threats to their existence. He knows that birds don't just twit around pointlessly. They pollinate plants, spread seeds, control insects and protect environments from the effects of climate change; they are the glue that binds healthy ecosystems together. "Birds are critical," he says. And outdoor cats, he and other ecologists have determined, are the leading human-influenced cause of dead birds.

In 1962, biologist Rachel Carson wrote that "in nature nothing exists alone." Marra couldn't agree more. Like Carson, he thinks of life on Earth as a complex tapestry in which each species represents a single thread. Outdoor cats threaten that tapestry. Their crimes include contributing to 33 extinctions around the world and counting, to say nothing of their potential to spread deadly diseases like rabies and Toxoplasmosis. They hold in tooth and claw the power to destroy that delicate web-like, well, a cat unraveling a ball of string.

Americans own about 86 million cats, or one cat for every three households. That makes cats more popular, petwise, than dogs, and we haven't even gotten to Internet memes yet. But not all pet cats are created equal. The majority of them-about two-thirds to three-fourths, surveys say-are your sweet, harmless, cuddly housecats, which seldom set foot outside. Marra takes no issue with these lap cats. Their instincts may be lethal, but they rarely get the chance to harm more than a house mouse.

The other one-quarter to one-third, though, aren't so harmless. These are outdoor pet cats, and they are murderers. Equipped with laser-quick paws and razor-tipped claws, these natural born killers are the stuff of every bird and small mammal's nightmare. Often we love them for just this quality; the hard-working barn cat has nipped many a country mouse infestation in the bud. But sometimes their deadly instincts spell trouble for animals and ecosystems we value-and often, Marra argues, desperately need.

Marra tells the story of Tibbles the cat, who traveled with her owner to an untouched island south of New Zealand in 1894. There, she single-pawedly caused the extinction of the Stephens Island wren, a small, flightless bird found only in that part of the world. Most cats aren't as deadly as Tibbles, but your average outdoor pet cat still kills around two animals per week, according to the Wildlife Society and the American Bird Conservancy. The solution for these cats is simple, says Marra: Bring them indoors. The Humane Society of the United States agrees.

So far, so good. Now comes the real problem: unowned cats, which include strays and ferals. Born in the wild or abandoned, feral cats spend almost no time with humans; they're basically wild animals. Stray cats, by contrast, often have a working relationship with humans. They might live in managed communities, where a human caretaker regular feeds and watches over them-"subsidizing" them, in Marra's words-meaning their numbers can soar to rates they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Whether stray or feral, these cats kill on average three times as many animals as owned cats, according to Marra.

No one knows exactly how many stray and feral cats stalk the U.S. They are, by nature, elusive and transient. In a 2012 study, Marra used an estimate of 30 to 80 million; the Humane Society estimates a more conservative 30 to 40 million. Adithya Sambamurthy from the Center for Investigative Reporting's The Reveal recently reported that unowned cats may rival the number of pet cats, placing them at about 80 million. That means, for every lap cat hunkering over his dish of Fancy Feast, there is another one prowling around for his dinner-like an evil twin, or a particle of antimatter.

For these cats, there is no easy solution. This is where Marra's unorthodox plan comes into play. As he writes:

In high-priority areas there must be zero tolerance for free-ranging cats. If the animals are trapped, they must be removed from the area and not returned. If homes cannot be found for the animals and no sanctuaries or shelters are available, there is no choice but to euthanize them. If the animals cannot be trapped, other means must be taken to remove them from the landscape-be it the use of select poisons or the retention of professional hunters.

Feral cat advocates and ecologists agree on very little. But one thing they both will say is this: There are too many cats outside. Feral cat advocates say these dense numbers threaten the welfare of cats themselves, which lead miserable lives colored by fights and starvation. Ecologists, meanwhile, worry about those cats' victims-as well whether the cats might be spreading disease to humans and other animals.

Management of these overabundant felines is where the two disagree. For many animal welfare advocates, the solution is TNR, or Trap-Neuter-Return. TNR is just what it sounds like: a policy that involves trapping stray and feral cats, sterilizing them and returning them to the urban wilds in the hopes that populations will decrease. In the past decade, TNR has gone mainstream in many cities, helped along by generous funding from pet food companies including Petco and PetSmart. The premise is simple: Cats live out their lives, but don't reproduce.

Becky Robinson, president of the advocacy group Alley Cat Allies and a major proponent of TNR, calls the method "effective, humane control." "This is a benefit directly to the cats," she told me over the phone. (Two communications staffers from Robinson's organization were listening in our conversation, to give you an idea of the delicateness of the topic.)

Some researchers have documented surprising successes with TNR. Dr. Julie Levy of the University of Florida in Gainesville and colleagues conducted one of the first long-term studies on the effectiveness of TNR, publishing their results in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2003. They sought to quantify whether TNR could succeed in a specific population: stray cats colonies on the campus of the University of Central Florida.

The researchers expressed doubts at the outset, reporting that "virtually no information exists to support the contention that neutering is an effective long-term method for controlling free-roaming cat populations." Yet today, more than ten years after their study concluded, just five cats remain on campus-and these are so old and sickly they have to be given geriatric care. Even Levy was taken aback by the results. "We keep seeing better success in the field than the models ever predict," she says. However, much of the decrease can be attributed to the fact that volunteers often end up adopting cats-a phenomenon Levy considers an unofficial part of many TNR programs.

Despite these kinds of successes, many ecologists say flatly that TNR doesn't work. The problem is that, for TNR to succeed in large populations, at least 75 percent of cats in a colony must be sterilized. That rarely happens. The trouble is that negligent pet owners continue to abandon pet cats, which then join existing colonies; additionally, non-neutered stray cats can wander in. Like efforts at vaccinating schools against chickenpox, just a few stragglers can undermine an entire TNR program. Any short-term reduction in colony size is therefore quickly reversed, a group of researchers including Levy and ecologist Patrick Foley reported after studying nearly 15,000 stray and feral cats.

For Marra, TNR is a feel-good solution that is no solution at all-a Band-Aid that has done little to stem the flow of cats. By refusing to look at the reality, he says, we are letting our "misplaced compassion" for cats get the better of our reason. That is why he and some other ecologists call for a more draconian approach: widespread removal of feral and stray cats, including euthanasia.

The concept isn't as radical as it sounds. Australia aims to kill two million cats by 2020 using "robots, lasers, [and] poison." New Zealand, as I've reported previously, has long perpetrated mass warfare on possums, stoats and weasels in a bid to save its beloved birds. In America, too, we cull mammals- including gray wolves, which can prey on livestock and pets, and bison, our national mammal, which can spread bacterial infections to cattle. We even kill cats: American shelters put down more than 1.4 million cats a year, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

That doesn't mean we're comfortable with it. "That's the aspect that is most alarming about the animal welfare groups, is the fact that often the only reasonable solution of getting rid of invasive species is lethal control," says Stanley Temple, a wildlife ecologist who argued for the necessity of eradicating invasive species in a 1990 essay The Nasty Necessity. "And that is the single thing that they are so vehemently opposed to. Their hang-up, if you will, on death."

Given the unpopularity of eradication programs in the U.S., it would seem inadvisable for any researcher to make one part of his platform of action. But this, Marra says, is our only option. Now his challenge is to get others on his side. To do so he will need more than science-he will need to get people to empathize with birds, and to value species and ecosystems over individuals.

Marra likes to say that birds saved him, which isn't far off. He was raised mainly by his mother, who worked full-time to support him and his three siblings after his father left when he was an infant. As a result, he enjoyed a relatively feral childhood. By the time he was six, he found himself wandering alone in the woods near his house in Norwalk, Connecticut, swimming in lakes, climbing trees and digging in the dirt for star-nosed moles, frogs and salamanders. He loved catching animals of all kinds-"anything wild," he says now.

The Westport Nature Center, a half-mile walk down the hill from his house, became a refuge. With its living wild animals and displays of taxidermied ruffed grouse, the center got Marra asking questions about how his surroundings came to be. One day, a naturalist at the center caught a black-capped chickadee in a mist net, and placed it in his hands. He remembers cupping the bird delicately, "looking into its eyes, feeling its feathers, feeling its wildness," as he recalled at a Smithsonian event last June. Meeting the bird's black marble gaze, a switch flipped in his brain.

"It was a remarkable moment that I'll never forget," he said at the event. "The aura of the bird almost entered my body. It was really kind of a transformational experience for me."

Throughout a tumultuous childhood, birds provided an anchor. "Birds saved me, because they were always this constant thread that I could come back to," he says. "It was the one stable thing in my life." When he went to Southern Connecticut State University to study biology, he quickly realized that dusty specimens in libraries held little appeal. "I was less interested in understanding the subtleties between plumages," he says. "I was much more interested in watching live birds."

In 1999, Marra took a job as a wildlife ecologist at Smithsonian's Environmental Research Center to be on the front lines of human encroachment on the natural environment. When West Nile virus began leaving a trail of dead crows, he started looking into bird mortality. In 2011, he published a paper in the Journal of Ornithology that followed the fate of young gray catbirds in the Maryland suburbs. Soon after leaving the nest, 79 percent of birds were killed by predators, primarily cats, which leave the telltale sign of decapitated victims with just the bodies uneaten. (Ironically, this bird gets its name not because it commonly ends up in the jaws of cats, but from its vaguely catlike yowl).

The following year, Marra got more ambitious: He decided to tally up the national toll that outdoor cats take on wildlife. He and colleagues used mathematical models to analyze data from local cat predation studies going back more than 50 years. When they extrapolated the data to reflect national trends, they were stunned. According to their calculations, outdoor cats killed somewhere in the ballpark of 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion small mammals in the U.S. per year-far exceeding any other human-influenced cause of avian death, such as pesticides or collisions with windows.

When Marra saw the number "2.4 billion," he knew that the claws were about to come out. He was right. On January 29, 2013, the same day the paper was published in the journal Nature Communications, the New York Times featured a front-page article highlighting his findings entitled "That Cuddly Killer Is Deadlier Than You Think." The piece became the newspaper's most-emailed article of the week. It garnered more than a thousand comments online, ranging from outraged ("I'm tired of everyone putting down cats and trying to justify their extermination") to pointed ("It's the large bipeds who are the problem, not their cats") to satirical ("Eat more cat!").

Marra read them all. Many were personal insults directed squarely at him. Some suggested that he should be predated or euthanized. Marra understands how emotional people can get about cats-he has entered into many a dinner table debate with his 15-year-old daughter, a long-time vegetarian and animal lover, over cat policy-so he tries to take these reactions with a grain of salt. Still, he admits, "it hurts." When I ask him how he deals with the constant backlash, he laughs. "Good question," he says. "It's actually because I believe in what I do. And if I don't do it-well, I've got one life. This is it. This is the now."

More bothersome than the personal attacks were the attacks on his research methodology. The most relentless was Peter Wolf, a vocal feral cat advocate who called Marra's paper "garbage," "junk science" and "an agenda-driven effort to undermine TNR" on his blog, Wolf took issue with the levels of uncertainty in Marra's paper, alleging that the numbers were "wildly inflated," came from biased sources, and drew upon just just a handful of studies. "When seen in context, these astronomical figures alone raise questions of credibility," Wolf wrote on his blog. "It doesn't seem like science to me," he told me recently.

It was, Marra admits, a wide range. He and his colleagues estimated that "free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3-4.0 billion birds and 6.3-22.3 billion mammals annually." The reason for the discrepancy was the woeful lack of data on feral cat populations and their lifestyles. Marra worked with the limited data he had, synthesizing the results from previous studies and augmenting them with predation numbers from Europe, Australia and New Zealand. By including both the lowest and highest possible estimates for cat predation, he thought he was covering all his bases.

In all the fighting and flying fur, Marra saw an opportunity. By the time his paper was published in Nature Communications, he was already thinking about writing a book. "I knew this had huge potential for creating a lot of controversy," he says. "But also conversation. To me, it's really about the conversation and trying to figure out: how do we come to some resolution on this thing?"

Cats kill; that much is clear. "The science is all pretty bloody obvious," as Michael Clinchy, a Canadian biologist focusing on predator-prey relationships at the University of Victoria, puts it. But cats also spread disease. Outdoor cats can transmit plague, rabies, feline leukemia and a mysterious parasite known as Toxoplasma gondii. The extinction of the Hawaiian crow, or ʻalalā, in 2002 is thought to have been caused in part by the spread of Toxoplasma via feral cats. "The diseases from cats is what's going to change this whole equation," Marra says.

Cat feces, 1.2 million tons of which are excreted a year, are known to contain Toxoplasma. The single-celled parasite enters the brain and changes the behavior of prey animals like rats, which can show a strange attraction to cat urine. About 10 to 20 percent of Americans also harbor the parasite, which can be absorbed through contact with litter boxes, drinking contaminated water or eating undercooked meat. Once believed to hang out harmlessly in the human brain, some scientists now believe that Toxoplasma may actively change the connections between our neurons-shifting dopamine levels, altering personalities and even triggering diseases like schizophrenia in genetically susceptible individuals.

Marra calls Toxoplasma a contaminant on the order of DDT, the broad-scale chemical pesticide used to control insects and combat infectious disease up until the 1960s. (DDT lingers in the environment for years, where it can threaten human and animal health, as Rachel Carson documented in her book Silent Spring.) In fact, Marra thinks of outdoor cats themselves as a DDT-like contaminant-wreaking widespread, unnatural havoc on their surroundings. The difference, to him, is that DDT has never been known to wipe out a species, while cats have been implicated in at least 33 extinctions thus far.

The Toxoplasma threat, Marra writes, makes outdoor cats nothing less than a public health issue. He recommends that the federal government take on the task of eradicating cats from the landscape, via the Centers for Disease Control. He imagines taxpayer-supported public education campaigns, billboards about disease dangers and the importance of keeping cats inside, and large-scale eradication programs in vulnerable areas like Hawaii. To Wolf and others, the idea of such a policy is "absurd" and "screams of desperation." But to Marra, it's simply a logical conclusion: "We need to minimize the impact humans have," he says. "Cats are one of the impacts."

Science might be able to tell us how many animals cats kill per year. But it can't tell us what that means-nor what we should do about it. It is us who attach moral weight to cats, by projecting our fear and fantasies upon them. Tibbles was "doing only what her instinct told her to do," Marra writes. We make cats into pets or pests; victims or villains; those who suffer or those who cause suffering.

At the heart of this debate is a question not of data, but of aesthetics, principles and philosophies. That is: In a world fundamentally shaped by humans, who is to say whether birds and native wildlife have any more right to the landscape than domestic cats do? Should the goal be to rewind the urban landscape back to before the arrival of Europeans-and is that even possible?

Conservation biologists have always called these kinds of shots themselves. "We've made a judgment that biodiversity is good," says Temple. For Marra, cats represent yet another destructive footprint man has made on the landscape. To rid the country of their presence is therefore to restore some pre-human balance of nature, some lost sense of grace. It is to protect those creatures that cannot save themselves. "It is essential," he says, "that we save these species."

In his closing chapter, Marra warns that Americans may soon awaken to dead birds and "muted birdsong, if any at all." It's another nod to Rachel Carson, whose defense of nature helped spark the modern environmental movement. Today we've come to recognize Carson as an environmental Cassandra; history has vindicated many of her inconvenient truths. But when Silent Spring first came out, her ideas were met with hostility from other scientists, who deemed her hysterical, alarmist and "probably a Communist."

For Marra, it is clear that outdoor cats represent the Silent Spring of our time. Not only are cats the single worst threat to birds caused directly by humans, but they are also the easiest problem to fix, as compared to many-leveled threats like climate change. For him, it is obvious what we must do. Yet he is also starting to understand the challenge of making others see the world as he does. "To me, this should be the low-hanging fruit," he says. "But as it turns out, it might be easier stopping climate change than stopping cats."

About Rachel E. Gross

Rachel is the Science Editor, covering stories behind new discoveries and the debates that shape our understanding of the world. Before coming to Smithsonian, she covered science for Slate, Wired, and The New York Times.

Read more from this author | Follow @rachelegross

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pete Marra is haunted by cats. He sees them everywhere: slinking down alleys, crouched under porches, glaring at him out of wild, starved eyes. People assume that Marra, head of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center and author of the recent book Cat Wars, hates cats. This is not the case.

# data[].attributes.headline
One man’s two-decade quest to suck greenhouse gas out of the sky - MIT Technology Review

# data[].attributes.subject
One man’s two-decade quest to suck greenhouse gas out of the sky - MIT Technology Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The big metal container in Klaus Lackner's lab doesn't look like it could save the planet. It mostly closely resembles a dumpster - which it sort of is.

As Lackner looks on, hands in the pockets of his pressed khakis, the machine begins to transform. Three mattress-shaped metal frames rise from the guts of the receptacle, unfolding like an accordion as they stretch toward the ceiling.

Each frame contains hundreds of white polymer strips filled with resins that bind with carbon dioxide molecules. The strips form a kind of sail, designed to snatch the greenhouse gas out of the air as wind blows through the contraption.

Crucially, that same material releases the carbon dioxide when wet. To make that happen, Lackner's device retracts its frames into their container, which then fills with water. The gas can next be collected and put to other uses, and the process can begin again.

Lackner and his colleagues at Arizona State University's Center for Negative Carbon Emissions have built a simple machine with a grand purpose: capturing and recycling carbon dioxide to ease the effects of climate change. He envisions forests of them stretching across the countryside, sucking up billions of tons of it from the atmosphere.

Lackner, 66, with receding silver hair, has now been working on the problem for two decades. In 1999, as a particle physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, he wrote the first scientific paper exploring the feasibility of combating climate change by pulling carbon dioxide out of the air. His was a lonely voice for years. But a growing crowd has come around to his thinking as the world struggles to slash climate emissions fast enough to prevent catastrophic warming. Lackner's work has helped inspire a handful of direct-air-capture startups, including one of his own, and a growing body of scientific literature. "It's hard to think of another field that is so much the product of a single person's thinking and advocacy," says David Keith, a Harvard professor who cofounded another of those startups, Carbon Engineering. "Klaus was pivotal in making the argument that [direct air capture] could be developed at a scale relevant to the carbon-climate problem."

No one, including Lackner, really knows whether the scheme will work. The chemistry is easy enough. But can we really construct anywhere near enough carbon removal machines to make a dent in climate change? Who will pay for them? And what are we going to do with all the carbon dioxide they collect?

Lackner readily acknowledges the unknowns but believes that the cheaper the process gets, the more feasible it becomes. "If I tell you, 'You could solve the carbon problem for $1,000 a ton,' we will say, 'Climate change is a hoax,'" Lackner says. "But if it's $5 a ton, or $1 a ton, we'll say, 'Why haven't we fixed it yet?'"

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is approaching 410 parts per million. That has already driven global temperatures nearly 1 ˚C above pre-industrial levels and intensified droughts, wildfires, and other natural disasters. Those dangers will only compound as emissions continue to rise.

Some scientific critics found Lackner's projections not just wrong but dangerous. A pair of critical papers in 2011 sounded to many like a death knell for direct air capture. Lackner was undaunted.

The latest assessment from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that there's no way to limit or return global warming to 1.5 ˚C without removing somewhere between 100 billion and a trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide by the end of the century. On the high end, that means reversing nearly three decades of global emissions at the current rate.

There are a handful of ways to draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. They include planting lots of trees, restoring grasslands and other areas that naturally hold carbon in soils, and using carbon dioxide-sucking plants and other forms of biomass as a fuel source but capturing any emissions when they're used (a process known as bio-energy with carbon capture and storage).

But a report from the US National Academies in October found that these approaches alone probably won't be enough to prevent 2˚C of warming-at least, not if we want to eat. That's because the amount of land required to capture that much carbon dioxide would come at the cost of a huge amount of agricultural food production.

The appeal of direct-air-capture devices like the ones Lackner and others are developing is that they can suck out the same amount of carbon dioxide on far less land. The big problem is that right now it's much cheaper to plant a tree. At the current cost of around $600 per ton, capturing a trillion tons would run some $600 trillion, more than seven times the world's annual GDP.

In a paper last summer, Harvard's Keith calculated that the direct-air-capture system he helped design could eventually cost less than $100 a ton at full scale. Carbon Engineering, based in British Columbia, is in the process of expanding its pilot plant to increase production of synthetic fuels, created by combining the captured carbon dioxide with hydrogen. These, in turn, will be converted into forms of diesel and jet fuel that are considered carbon neutral, since they don't require digging up additional fossil fuels.

If Keith's method can capture carbon dioxide for $100 a ton, these synthetic fuels could be sold profitably in markets with public policy support, such as California, with its renewable-fuel standards, or the European Union, under its updated Renewable Energy Directive. The hope is that these kinds of early opportunities will help scale up the technology, drive down costs further, and open additional markets.

Other startups, including Switzerland-based Climeworks and Global Thermostat of New York, think they can achieve similar or even lower costs. They are exploring markets like the soda industry and greenhouses, which use air enriched with carbon dioxide to fertilize plants.

However, selling carbon dioxide isn't an easy proposition.

Global demand is relatively small: on the order of a few hundred million tons per year, a fraction of the tens of billions that eventually need to be removed annually, according to the National Academies study. Moreover, most of that demand is for enhanced oil recovery, a technique that forces compressed carbon dioxide into wells to free up the last drips of oil, which only makes the climate problem worse.

A critical question for the carbon-capture startups is how much the market for carbon dioxide could grow. Dozens of businesses are exploring new ways of putting it to work. They include California-based Opus12, which is using carbon dioxide to produce chemicals and polymers, and CarbonCure of Nova Scotia, which is working with more than 100 concrete manufacturers to convert carbon dioxide into calcium carbonate that gets trapped in the concrete as it sets.

A 2016 report by the Global CO ₂ Initiative estimated that the market for products that could use carbon dioxide-including liquid fuels, polymers, methanol, and concrete-could reach $800 billion by 2030. Those industries could put to use some 7 billion metric tons per year-about 15% of annual global emissions.

Such projections are extremely optimistic, though. And even if such a vast transformation of multiple sectors actually occurs, it will still leave huge amounts of captured carbon dioxide that will need to be permanently stored underground.

That's only going to happen if society decides to pay for it, and some are skeptical we ever will. Capturing carbon dioxide out of the air-which means plucking a single molecule from amid nearly 2,500 others-is one of the most energy-intensive and expensive ways we could dream up of grappling with climate change. "Direct air capture is more expensive than avoiding emissions, but right now we're not even willing to spend the additional money to do that," says Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution. "So the idea that we're going to get to negative civilization-scale emissions through air capture, to me, just seems like a fantasy."

On a summer night in 1992, while Lackner was a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory, he and a fellow particle physicist were having a beer and complaining about the lack of big, bold ideas in science. One or two drinks later, they had one of their own: What would become possible if machines could build machines? How big and fast could you manufacture things?

They quickly realized that the only way the scheme would work is if you designed robots that dug up all their own raw materials from dirt, constructed solar panels to power the process-and made ever more copies of themselves.

The next morning, Lackner and his friend, Christopher Wendt of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, decided they had an idea worth exploring. They eventually published a paper working out the math and exploring several applications, including self-replicating robots that could capture massive amounts of carbon dioxide and convert it into carbonate rock.

"My argument has always been we need to be passive," Lackner says. "We want to be a tree standing in the wind and have the CO ₂ carried to us."

The robot armada, solar arrays, carbon-converting machines, and piles of rock would all grow exponentially, reaching "continental size in less than a decade," the paper concluded. Converting 20% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would generate a layer of rock 50 centimeters (20 inches) thick covering a million square kilometers (390,000 square miles)-an area the size of Egypt.

The hitch, of course, is that self-replicating machines don't exist. Lackner moved on from that part of the plan, and briefly focused on solar power as a replacement for fossil fuels. But the more he studied the problem, the more he came to believe that renewable sources would struggle to compete with the price, abundance, and energy density of coal, oil, and gasoline.

"This suggested to me that fossil-fuel-based power will not just roll over and die," he says. But perhaps if carbon removal technologies were cheap enough, he thought, you could "force fossil-fuel providers to clean up after themselves."

A few years later, Lackner published a paper titled "Carbon Dioxide Extraction from Air: Is It an Option?" He argued that it was technically feasible and might be possible for as little as $15 a ton. (He now believes the price floor is probably between $30 and $50 a ton.)

In 2001 Lackner moved to Columbia University, where he cofounded Global Research Technologies, the first effort to commercialize direct air capture. Gary Comer, founder of the clothing and furniture company Lands' End, handed the company $8 million of what Lackner describes as "adventure capital, not venture capital."

The company built a small prototype but soon ran out of money. A group of investors bought the controlling interest, moved it to San Francisco, and renamed it Kilimanjaro Energy. Lackner served as an advisor and board member. But it quietly closed its doors after failing to raise more money.

Despite these failures, Lackner continued to try to figure out how to do air capture cheaply and efficiently. He's published more than 100 scientific papers and editorials on the subject, and applied for more than two dozen patents.

Some scientific critics, however, found Lackner's projections not just wrong but also dangerous. They feared that claiming direct air capture could be done cheaply and easily would reduce the pressure to slash emissions. In 2011, a pair of studies concluded that the technology would cost between $600 and $1,000 a ton.

Howard Herzog, a senior researcher at the MIT Energy Initiative, who coauthored one of the studies, took the added step of suggesting that "some purveyors" of the technology were "snake-oil salesmen." In an interview last year, Herzog told me he was mainly talking about Lackner. "He was the one who was really out there," he says.

Many read the two papers' conclusions as a death knell for direct air capture. Lackner stood firm, telling the journal Nature after the first of the studies was published: "They proved that one specific way to capture carbon dioxide from air is expensive. If you study penguins, you might jump to the conclusion that birds can't fly."

In 2014, he and his Global Research Technologies cofounder, Allen Wright, established the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions at Arizona State, where they've continued to try to get their own fledgling to take flight.

At the heart of the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions' design is a particular type of commercially available anion-exchange resin. As wind carries carbon dioxide in the air across those polymer strips, negatively charged ions bind with the gas molecules and convert them into bicarbonate-the main compound in baking soda and antacids.

The machine then retracts, pulling those saturated strips back into the container and pumping it full of water. The water begins converting the bicarbonate molecules into carbonate ions.

As the water drains away, those compounds become unstable and turn back into carbon dioxide in the air within the container. The now carbon dioxide-rich air can then be sucked out through a tube, and into an adjacent set of tanks.

Since carbon dioxide is relatively dilute in the air, most other direct capture approaches employ large fans to blow air over the binding materials to trap more of the gas. They then employ heat to drive the subsequent reactions that release the carbon dioxide. Both these steps use more energy. In contrast, Lackner says, his and Wright's approach just requires a little electricity to extend and retract the machine, pump the water, and vacuum out the air.

"My argument has always been we need to be passive," Lackner says. "We want to be a tree standing in the wind and have the CO ₂ carried to us."

But there are big drawbacks to this method. It works only when the wind is blowing and makes sense only in dry areas, since humidity allows the carbon dioxide to escape. Moreover, the concentration of captured carbon in the resulting gas is less than 5%, compared with around 98% from a Carbon Engineering or Climeworks facility.

A critical question for carbon-capture startups is how much the market for carbon dioxide could grow. Dozens of businesses are exploring new ways of putting it to work.

That low level is fine for fertilizing plants in greenhouses. But that's a tiny market, and Lackner has grander designs.

He envisions thousands of these machines plucking carbon dioxide from the sky in some dry and hot part of the world, while adjacent solar panels drive an electrolysis process that extracts hydrogen from water. The carbon dioxide and hydrogen could then be combined on site to produce thousands of barrels a day of synthetic fuel, which could be sold for heating or transportation, or used to feed the electric grid when renewables like wind and solar flag.

That plan, however, poses several challenges. Electrolysis is still very expensive. And they'd need to compress the carbon dioxide to the necessary concentration while removing water vapor, nitrogen, and oxygen.

That can be done, but it could substantially increase costs and energy needs. "This is a big, important piece that he's glossing over a bit," says Jennifer Wilcox, a professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and coauthor of the National Academies report.

Some believe Lackner's strengths as a theorist and big-picture guy haven't served him as well in translating those ideas into the necessary advances in materials science and chemistry. Notably, the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions project is trailing well behind Carbon Engineering, Climeworks, and Global Thermostat, which are amassing capital, hiring staffs, and building out demonstration if not commercial-scale facilities.

But Lackner remains confident that his approach will be less expensive than competing ones. "I can lay it out unit process by unit process, and in terms of first principles, at every step we're a little cheaper," he says.

Sign up for The Download - your daily dose of what's up in emerging technology

How does Lackner himself feel about the technology's prospects more than two decades after starting down this research path? It's not a simple answer. Lackner doesn't really do simple answers. During a walk across the university's palm-lined campus in Tempe, he says he remains confident that direct air capture is feasible and believes it could get much less expensive if it's able to reach commercial scale.

"But I'm less optimistic that we have the political will to go through that threshold," he says.

Given the high early costs and limited markets, he believes the technology will need significant government funding or tight regulations to be widely adopted-and more government support to cover the cost of capturing and burying the majority of the carbon dioxide that can't be used. He thinks we'll need to treat carbon dioxide like sewage, requiring consumers or companies to pay for its collection and disposal, whether in taxes or fees.

But after decades of relatively little political action on climate change, and fierce public resistance to carbon taxes, he fears the world isn't going to come around to that way of thinking until the suffering from climate catastrophes becomes too horrible to ignore.

What he is sure of, after spending more time than anyone else puzzling over carbon removal, is that we're going to need it. "I'm the first to admit that air capture isn't proven-and it certainly isn't proven at scale," Lackner says. "But we're in deep trouble if we can't figure it out."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
One man's two-decade quest to suck greenhouse gas out of the sky

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The big metal container in Klaus Lackner's lab doesn't look like it could save the planet. It mostly closely resembles a dumpster - which it sort of is. As Lackner looks on, hands in the pockets of his pressed khakis, the machine begins to transform.

# data[].attributes.headline
6: Shrink your travel footprint – shrinkthatfootprint.com

# data[].attributes.subject
6: Shrink your travel footprint – shrinkthatfootprint.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you drive or fly a lot travel could be the largest part of your footprint.

Travel footprints are often dominated by car use but just one long flight could cause air travel to be the largest part of your footprint.

This step will analyse what a travel footprint is, how much we travel, the carbon intensity of travel and the steps we can take to reduce our emissions from different modes of transport.

Travel footprints

A person's travel footprint is made up by the emissions from each mode of transport they use. This is generally dominated by driving, bus, rail and air travel. In each case emissions result directly from fuel combustion as well as indirectly from fuel production and vehicle manufacturing.

In 2005 the average American travel footprint looked something like this:

Clearly this footprint is dominated by the vehicle use, which is mostly passenger cars and light trucks. In 2005 personal vehicle use accounted for 5.7 t CO ₂ e of an average American's footprint. Of this vehicle footprint around 73% was the result of direct fuel combustion, 18% arose from fuel production and about 9% came from vehicle construction.

The breakdown of emissions between different modes looks like this:

Almost 90% of total emissions arose from vehicles while 11% came from air travel. Bus travel made up around 1% while rail was only a third of a percent. The dominance of vehicle travel is a result of the large distances Americans drive each year and the relatively low fuel economy of the American car fleet, which averaged just over 20 MPG in 2005. High car usage is also reflected in the relatively limited use of public transport.

Although the average American travel footprint is large compared to most other countries, the predominance of vehicle use is common most nations. Although rail and bus travel make up larger shares in European and Asian countries, vehicle emissions remain the dominant source of travel emissions in almost all countries.

Using a method like the one described in our calculation page you can calculate your own travel footprint. This will show you how your own footprint is divided between vehicle, bus, rail and air travel emissions. In order to reduce this footprint you will either have to reduce the distance you travel or travel less carbon intensively. Although this step will focus mostly on the latter, we will begin with the former.

How much we travel

The simplest and cheapest way to reduce your travel footprint is to travel less. Of course this is often much easier said than done. As people get wealthier they tend to travel more, particularly for leisure. In most countries the average distance travelled has increased quite consistently over time.

To analyse distance travelled we use the idea of passenger miles or passenger kilometres. A passenger mile is literally each mile travelled by a passenger. For example a bus which drives 100 miles with 10 passengers results in 1000 passenger miles. Using emissions per passenger mile or kilometre allows comparison between different forms of transport. This helps account for the very different number of people travelling in cars, buses, trains and planes.

If we take the US as an example average per capita passenger miles have increased from around 7,000 in 1960 to more than 18,000 in 2005. Graphically it looks like this: Although increases in the oil price and recessions have reduced travel for short periods, because this data is in five-yearly intervals the overall upward trend is unrelenting. This trend may have peaked in recent years, but only future data will verify that. Personal vehicles are obviously the major form of transport used, while flying is the fastest growing type of travel.

On average American travel more than people from most other wealthy countries. This is due to America's size, the way it has developed and its relatively low fuel prices. We can see this by comparing land based travel between different nationalities.

In 2005 Americans travelled over 25,000 passenger kilometres per capita (pkm/cap) in cars, buses and trains. This was considerably more than people of other wealthy countries. Canadians travelled around 16,000 pkm/cap, Australians 14,000, the French and British 13,000, Germans 12,000 and the Japanese around 10,000 passenger kilometres each. So while people definitely choose to travel more as they get wealthier, the extent of that travel does still vary from place to place.

Travel patterns also vary enormously from person to person. Your own footprint will be unique depending on where you work, go to school, shop, do personal business, socialise and take your holidays. Travel conducted while at work is generally omitted from an individual's footprint, as it is counted as part of the footprint of a product or service.

To reduce distance travelled you need to make changes in your travel patterns. Reducing commuting is likely to both reduce your footprint and increase your quality of life, so if at all possible it is a great place to start. Unfortunately, much like trips to school, commuting miles can be very hard to influence. Shopping more locally, less frequently and online can help reduce shopping miles.

The travel you have most control over is often you leisure miles. Taking local holidays and less frequent long distance trips can reduce the distance you travel greatly. Any avoided flights in particular can have a large effect on your footprint, simply because flying is such an efficient way of racking up miles.

If you are focussed on reducing your carbon footprint you will no doubt find ways to limit the amount you travel. You will probably also find that travelling less isn't always practical or desirable. Commuting to and from work is necessary, while travelling to see friends and going on holiday is something most of us enjoy. So while reducing the distance you travel is an effective way to shrink your footprint, it can be very hard work. Travel less carbon intensively on the other hand can be an attractive way to reduce your travel footprint.

The carbon intensity of travel

The emissions caused by travelling a kilometre (or a mile) can be hugely different depending on how you travel it.

Take the example of a person travelling 10,000 kilometres each year, similar to the average Japanese citizen. If a person drove that distance by themselves in a large car each year it could result in as much as 5 t CO ₂e. In a small fuel-efficient car it would be more like 2 t CO ₂e. Whereas on a scooter, in a car full of passengers or on a light rail system it could be less than 1 t CO ₂ e.

To be more precise we can compare different modes of transport by calculating their carbon intensity in grams of carbon dioxide equivalents per passenger kilometre (g CO ₂ e/pkm). These emissions occur as direct emissions from fuel use, indirect emissions from fuel production and from vehicle manufacturing. They are calculated based on the average loading (the average number of people travelling) which in the case of car travel is 1.6 people.

Our descriptions of petrol vehicles are based on fuel economy of 15 MPG (15.7 l/100 km) for a large car, 25 MPG (9.4 l/100 km) for a typical US passenger car, 35 MPG (6.7 l/100 km) for a small European car, 45 MPG (5.2 l/100 km) for a hybrid, 50 MPG (4.7 l/100 km) for a 250cc bike and 80 MPG (2.9 l/100 km) for a 50cc scooter.

Despite using descriptive names like 'Large Car' vehicles are better defined by their fuel economy, as this determines the vast majority of their emissions through fuel use. Actual fuel economy achieved is estimated, rather than official test cycle results which are generally not representative of real world driving. In addition to petrol vehicles we also include figures for air travel, rail, buses and electric cars.

Our example looks like this:

The most striking thing about this chart is the huge range in emissions between different forms of transport. This offers great potential to reduce your footprint by changing the type of transport you use, despite the fact that they are not all substitutes for one another.

From the most the carbon intensive Large Car example down to the Eurostar Rail there are different factors that influence the carbon intensity of travel. The major ones are occupancy, the energy efficiency of the vehicle, the route travelled and the carbon intensity of energy supply.

Despite their using relatively similar diesel vehicles, local buses, coaches and school buses have hugely different emissions. This is largely as a result of different occupancy levels as well as the type of route travelled . A heavy petrol car, with poor aerodynamics and an older engine can use three times as much fuel as a modern hybrid over the same distance. For electrified transport, like rail, the carbon intensity depends greatly on how that electricity has been produced.

Before getting into more specific detail about different types of travel it is worth understanding the breakdown of emissions. Looking at our travel modes again we can show the split between direct fuel emissions, indirect fuel emissions and vehicle manufacturing.

For each form of travel that uses an oil based fuel direct emissions from combustion are the most important. Indirect emissions from fuel production are around a fifth of direct ones, although this rises for energy intensive production like in the case of oil from tar sands. For systems using grid electricity the indirect emissions of electricity generation are most important factor, as can be seen from the low-carbon intensity Eurostar Rail, which is mostly powered by French nuclear energy.

Vehicle manufacturing emissions are very small for busy public transport systems, but make up a larger share of emissions in low-carbon vehicles. Because manufacturing emissions are based on the vehicle's construction footprint divided by average lifetime mileage, both these factors can affect the estimate. Large Car manufacturing emissions are not always as big as expected because of high lifetime mileage, while Scooter manufacturing emissions may not be as small as one might think because of low lifetime mileage. The relatively large construction emissions of Electric Cars reflect a combination of lower estimated lifetime mileage, due to range restrictions, and carbon intensive battery manufacturing.

The obvious omission from the chart above is biofuels. These have been excluded because technologies are so numerous, and not universally available. Compared to petrol the emissions from biofuels vary enormously. Ethanol from sugarcane, recycled vegetable oils and second generations biofuels can all yield substantial emission reductions compared to petrol. In contrast things like corn ethanol and soy biodiesel often perform less well. Perhaps even more importantly production of certain biofuels can have adverse effects on food prices and contribute to deforestation.

Having taken a broad look at how carbon intensive different modes of travel are, we will move on to discussing each in turn.

Driving

Private vehicles are by far the largest source of travel emissions. If you own a car and drive it regularly then vehicle emissions are likely be the dominant share of your travel footprint. To reduce your driving footprint you either need to drive less, drive more efficiently, changing your vehicle or share more journeys.
Driving Less
As we have already discussed, reducing travel is the cheapest and most effective way to minimise your travel footprint, but it can be very difficult depending on your travel patterns.

Aside from reducing your total mileage, limiting the number of short trips you make is a good way to improve your footprint. Short trips involve a lot of stopping, starting and parking, which makes them an inefficient use of fuel. Walking or cycling for short journeys is a simple, and often quite pleasant, way to reduce emissions.

A more extreme way to ensure you drive less is to simply to get rid of your car. Growing access to car share schemes in big cities is making this idea more viable for many people. This idea is particularly appealing to city dwellers who like to drive occasionally but do their normal commuting on public transport, bike or foot.
Improving fuel economy

We can often increase the fuel economy we achieve in numerous ways without changing vehicles.

Cars use energy to accelerate, brake, power gadgets and overcome resistance from the air and road. Reducing how much energy is used doing these things will improve the fuel economy of your car. This can be done by avoiding rapid acceleration and braking, ensuring tyres are correctly inflated, limiting unnecessary weight in the car, removing roof boxes if not used regularly, and avoiding traffic when possible.

In terms of highway miles the most important factor is how fast you drive. Combustion engine cars tend to be most efficient from 40-60 mph ( 64-96 km/h) in their highest gear. Increasing this to 70 mph (113 km/h) can reduce fuel efficiency by as much as 30%. So driving highway miles at a moderate speed in the highest gear tends to be the most efficient way to drive.
Changing Vehicles
As we showed earlier changing the vehicle you use can have a dramatic effect on your carbon footprint. To illustrate these reductions we will compare the emissions of different vehicles assuming only the driver is on board. We will also add a small diesel car, and vary the source of the electric cars electricity in order to compare emissions based on different generation technology.

Our new example looks like this:

With only the driver to transport, both the motorbike and scooter are less carbon intensive per kilometre than all but the renewably powered electric car. For petrol cars carbon intensity falls as fuel economy rises, from 499 g CO ₂e/km for the 15 MPG car down to 190 g CO ₂ e/km for the 45 MPG hybrid.

Once again it is useful to break these numbers down into direct emissions, indirect emissions and vehicle manufacturing.

From this breakdown we can see direct emissions still dominate vehicles using oil based fuels, but that manufacturing emissions become more and more important for low-carbon vehicles.

We can make these numbers more tangible by choosing an example. Let's assume you drive 10,000 km a year by yourself. In the large car this will result in 5 t CO ₂e, in the medium car 3 t CO ₂e, in the hybrid or small diesel 2 t CO ₂e, in the scooter 1 t CO ₂e and with the solar powered electric car around 700 kg CO ₂ e. The scope to reduce emissions by changing vehicle is clear.

If you are looking at reducing your travel footprint but still want the convenience of owning a vehicle, the main options are petrol, diesel, hybrid, electric or motorbike. Once again we will not discuss biofuels as their availability and carbon intensity vary greatly depending on location and technology used.

Petrol: Modern efficient petrol engines combined with lightweight materials and aerodynamic design can reduce vehicle emissions when compared to older vehicles. Despite this, petrol vehicles still tend to have higher carbon emissions than similar model diesels or petrol hybrids.

Diesel: Compared to a similar petrol car a diesel model will generally have carbon emissions around 15% lower. Diesels are hugely popular in Europe and used by many manufacturers to meet fleet emission targets forced on them by the European Union. Although lower in greenhouse gas emissions diesels generate more local air pollutants, like NOx emissions and particulates, which affect human health. In terms of climate change they also produce significant amounts of black carbon, which has a warming effect. These problems are reduced in new vehicles by filters which reduce particulate emissions by more than 80%.

Hybrid: Since the worldwide launch of the Toyota Prius in 2001 hybrid vehicles have become much more common, and are offered by numerous manufacturers. The hybrid vehicles we most commonly think of are parallel hybrids, which use petrol but also have an electric motor and battery. This motor both charges the battery and powers the car at low speeds. Petrol hybrids reduce emissions by around 20% compared to similar petrol cars, and perform much better in terms of local air pollutants than diesels. Diesel hybrids and plug-in hybrids are also gradually coming to market.

Electric: The carbon intensity of electric car travel depends greatly on the type of electricity used. Based on an electric car that uses 200 Wh/km, emissions vary from 252 g CO ₂e/km for coal generation to 166 g CO ₂e/km for natural gas to as little as 69 g CO ₂e/km for solar power. Vehicle manufacturing emissions make up 58 g CO ₂ e/km of the total in each case. Even allowing for its greater manufacturing footprint, and lower lifetime miles, the solar powered electric car emits 60% less per kilometre than the diesel or hybrid example, making it by far the best option in terms of carbon emissions. The lack of tail pipe emissions also makes electric cars an attractive option for improving local air quality in cities. From a buyer's perspective the main challenges are high purchasing cost, limited range and slow charging speeds.

Motorbikes: If you don't mind being exposed to the weather motorcycles can be a very low-carbon form of travel. In our examples both the motorbike at 153 g CO ₂e/km and scooter at 101 g CO ₂ e/km perform better than driving a hybrid or diesel on your one. This isn't surprising considering the lighter weight and smaller engines of motorbikes, though they do often produce far more local air pollution. The low-cost of purchasing and running motorbikes makes them a very attractive option for many people. Electric motorbikes, scooters and bikes can provide even lower carbon travel, due to smaller manufacturing footprints and lower power needs.
Journey Sharing
Although it is quite obvious, the potential of sharing trips with friends and colleagues is very easy to overlook. Excluding the slight loss in efficiency due to extra weight, having a passenger in a car halves the carbon intensity of travel per passenger. If you had four people in a hybrid car this could result in emissions of less than 50 g CO ₂ e/pkm, which is even lower than driving a solar powered electric by yourself, due to the sharing of total emissions among all four people.

Flying

The only real option for reducing emissions from flying is to fly less. While newer engines, lighter planes and certain types of biofuels do have the potential to improve the carbon intensity of flying, they are not things people have much control over.

The major problem with flying emissions is not the carbon intensity of flying but the great distances covered in short periods. In the example shown earlier a long distance economy flight emits 139 g CO ₂ e/pkm, similar to a small car with average loading of 1.6 people. But a return economy flight from New York to London is roughly 7,000 miles (11,000 km), a distance comparable to an average driver's yearly mileage. So the equivalent of a year's worth of driving emissions can be created in just 15 hours of flying.

Any flight you avoid will significantly reduce your footprint, and if you fly often this will be the simplest way to make reductions. Between family, friends, and holidays this might not be easy, but it will be very effective. If you hope to reduce your personal footprint to a low target, like 4 t CO ₂ e a year, there is very little room for flying at all, and certainly not for long distances. Given the lack of practical low-carbon substitutes for overseas flights this problem is not likely to go away any time soon.

Short flights (less than 3700 km) are often less carbon intensive than long flights (greater than 3700 km) because they generally have higher occupancy and lighter fuel loads. This doesn't hold for very short flights (less than 1000 km) which are in fact more carbon intensive as they spend little time cruising, and are often not very direct. Business class flights for each distance are more than twice as carbon intensive as economy class due the extra space required.

Finally, it is important to note that in addition to its carbon footprint, flying has additional climate effects. Flights cause other positive and negative climate forcings, most notably through contrails, cirrus cloud formation and NOx emissions. Although these effects are much less well understood than those of carbon emissions, research indicates they result in a significant positive forcing (warming effect). This is often accounted for by using a multiplier. We do not use such a multiplier because doing so is inconsistent with the definition of a carbon footprint, and important short lived forcings are excluded from all other footprint calculations.

Public Transport

In most cases buses and trains are a less carbon intensive way to travel than driving, particularly if you often drive alone or in a large car. Just how carbon intensive they are depends on occupancy, fuel efficiency and carbon intensity of energy supply.

The example of US buses we showed earlier was 185 g CO ₂e/pkm for a local bus, 85 g CO ₂e/pkm for an intercity coach and 23 g CO ₂e/pkm for a school bus. Given that these are all diesel bus examples the main difference is occupancy, and to a lesser degree the nature of the route. These figures for diesel buses are roughly transferable to other countries. In places where occupancy is high, buses can generally deliver travel of around 100 g CO ₂e/pkm or better. Well occupied intercity coach travel is often as low as 50 g CO ₂ e/pkm.

For transport that is electrified, whether it be trains, trams or buses, the carbon intensity is largely determined by the source of the electricity used. In our train examples we had 119 g CO ₂e/pkm for intercity rail in the US, 50 g CO ₂e/pkm for the New York Metro and 20 g CO ₂ e/pkm for the Eurostar in France. Although occupancy and the efficiency of electric motors plays a part in these differences, the fuel mix of electricity is the main factor in this variation. In countries with low-carbon electricity like Brazil, France and Norway rail is a very low emission form of transport.

The impressive carbon intensity of public transport makes it a great option for reducing your footprint whenever practical.

Cycling and Walking

In comparing different modes of transport we have not yet considered cycling and walking as alternatives. This is mainly because the assumptions needed to estimate their carbon intensity are so problematic. As a general rule walking and cycling are very low-carbon ways to travel. They make especially good substitutes for short car trips, which are carbon intensive.

When we walk or cycle we use more energy than when resting, and this excess energy generally comes from our diet. By estimating the footprint of food used to supply this energy we can calculate a footprint for walking and cycling. For a person of average weight and average diet this footprint might be something like 40 g CO ₂e/pkm for walking or 20 g CO ₂ e/pkm for cycling, including the manufacturing of the bike.

These estimates however have many problems. They require a number of assumptions about a person's weight, fitness and diet that may not be valid. Even if these assumptions are reasonable at any given moment, in the long run a small amount of walking or cycling each day often reduces body weight, which in turn lowers baseline energy needs. Indeed in some cases constant moderate exercise could even lower your overall energy needs in the longer run.

If you did choose to calculate your cycling or walking emissions based on your diet, this should be done as part of your food footprint in order to avoid double counting. And if you are improving the carbon intensity of your diet in general, this would also serve to lower your walking and cycling footprints.

Summary

In this step we have looked at a typical travel footprint and the distances we travel. We have discussed ways in which we can travel less and compared the carbon intensity of different modes. We have focused on how to reduce your driving footprint, as well as looking at flying, public transport, cycling and walking.

In the next step we will look at how to: shrink your food footprint.

Navigation Menu

Introduction: The Shrink Guide
1: What is a carbon footprint?
2: What is climate change?
3: Carbon targets for your footprint
4: Calculate your carbon footprint
5: Shrink your housing footprint
6: Shrink your travel footprint
7: Shrink your food footprint
8: Shrink your product footprint
9: Shrink your service footprint
10: Take further climate action
Conclusion: Take action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you drive or fly a lot travel could be the largest part of your footprint. Travel footprints are often dominated by car use but just one long flight could cause air travel to be the largest part of your footprint.

# data[].attributes.headline
External costs, Internal costs, Externality

# data[].attributes.subject
External costs, Internal costs, Externality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Internal costs are easy to see and explain. They are costs that a business bases its price on. They include costs like materials, energy, labour, plant, equipment and overheads.

External costs are costs that are NOT included in what the business bases its price on. These include:

the cost of disposing of the product at the end of its useful life

the environmental degradation caused by the emissions, pollutants and wastes from production

the cost of health problems caused by harmful materials and ingredients

social costs associated with increasing unemployment due to increasing automation

Even though external costs are not included in the price of the product they still have to be paid. It is society as a whole that ends up paying external costs through taxes, accident compensation, medical payments, insurance payments, as well as through losses in environmental quality and natural capital.

Products and services that include external costs (e.g. organic produce, clean technology, natural products, renewables) are usually more expensive than those that don't. Consumers will tend to buy the cheapest goods so clean, sustainable products are at a price disadvantage.

One way to include external costs is for governments to add a tax directly to those products or activities that have them. The restructuring of taxes, which is often called 'tax shifting', would mean that good things are not taxed whilst bad things (like pollution) are. In a column in Fortune Magazine, Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw succinctly sums up the idea of tax shifting:

"Cutting income taxes while increasing gasoline taxes would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming - all without jeopardising long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer."

Taxing external costs to society is not new. Cigarettes for example are taxed to cover their external health and social costs. Smokers and cigarette companies rail against these taxes but most people agree that it isn't fair for society to pay these external costs. External costs should be directed at the users.

As well as paying the external cost the other important benefit of adding a tax to harmful and destructive practices (including cigarettes, alcohol, pollution and greenhouse gases) is that it is a financial disincentive. In theory the harmless, non-destructive option, which is much more sustainable, will become the same price or cheaper.

Ideas like carbon taxes, levies on petrol and vehicle use, and other environmental taxes are similar to cigarette and alcohol taxes. By including external costs the product or service can bear it's true cost.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Internal costs are easy to see and explain. They are costs that a business bases its price on. They include costs like materials, energy, labour, plant, equipment and overheads. External costs are costs that are NOT included in what the business bases its price on.

# data[].attributes.headline
World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, says Oxfam | Environment | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, says Oxfam | Environment | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The richest 10% of people produce half of Earth's climate-harming fossil-fuel emissions, while the poorest half contribute a mere 10%, British charity Oxfam said in a report released Wednesday.

Oxfam published the numbers as negotiators from 195 countries met in Paris to wrangle over a climate rescue pact.

Disputes over how to share responsibility for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions and aiding climate-vulnerable countries are among the thorniest and longest-running issues in the 25-year-old UN climate process.

"Rich, high emitters should be held accountable for their emissions, no matter where they live," Oxfam climate policy head, Tim Gore, said in a statement.

"But it's easy to forget that rapidly developing economies are also home to the majority of the world's very poorest people and while they have to do their fair share, it is rich countries that should still lead the way."

The report said that an average person among the richest one percent emits 175 times more carbon than his or her counterpart among the bottom 10%.

Global income deciles and associated lifestyle consumption emissions Photograph: Oxfam

Rich and developing nations remain deeply divided on the issue of "differentiation" - how to share out responsibility for curbing greenhouse gas emissions, which derive mainly from burning coal, oil and gas.

Developing countries say the West has polluted for much longer and should shoulder a bigger obligation for cutting back.

They also demand assurances of finance to help them shift to less-polluting renewable energy, shore up defences against climate impacts such as sea level rise, droughts and superstorms, and to cover damage that cannot be avoided.

"We hope advanced nations will assume ambitious targets and pursue them sincerely. It's not just a question of historical responsibility - they also have the most room to make the cuts and make the strongest impact," Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, told Monday's opening of the summit by world leaders.

Yet many rich nations, led by the United States, reject the idea of a "bifurcated" approach with obligations placed on one group of countries, and not the other.

They point to the risk of carbon emissions - as measured by volume, rather than per capita - from emerging giants such as China and India.

Oxfam said its analysis "helps dispel the myth that citizens in rapidly developing countries are somehow most to blame for climate change."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, says Oxfam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The richest 10% of people produce half of Earth's climate-harming fossil-fuel emissions, while the poorest half contribute a mere 10%, British charity Oxfam said in a report released Wednesday. Oxfam published the numbers as negotiators from 195 countries met in Paris to wrangle over a climate rescue pact.

# data[].attributes.headline
Environmental Impact of Urban vs. Rural Settings #ColgateScene

# data[].attributes.subject
Environmental Impact of Urban vs. Rural Settings #ColgateScene

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental Impact of Urban vs. Rural Settings #ColgateScene

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colgate University Professor William Meyer explores the myths regarding the environmental impacts of cities relative to the impacts of rural lifestyles.

# data[].attributes.headline
11 Ways to Reduce your Holiday Carbon Footprint - Blog

# data[].attributes.subject
11 Ways to Reduce your Holiday Carbon Footprint - Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The winter season is sprinkled with holidays, celebrations, gifts and delicious foods. It can also be wasteful. According to the EPA, household waste in the U.S. increases 25 percent between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day, totaling about 1 million extra tons of waste. What can people concerned about their environmental footprint do to make seasonal celebrations more sustainable?
View the text-only version of this graphic.
Share this on social media:

Facebook | LinkedIn | Pinterest | Twitter

Citation for this content: MPH@GW, the online MPH program from the Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 Ways to Reduce your Holiday Carbon Footprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The winter season is sprinkled with holidays, celebrations, gifts and delicious foods. It can also be wasteful. According to the EPA, household waste in the U.S. increases 25 percent between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day, totaling about 1 million extra tons of waste.

# data[].attributes.headline
The carbon foodprint of 5 diets compared – shrinkthatfootprint.com

# data[].attributes.subject
The carbon foodprint of 5 diets compared – shrinkthatfootprint.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is well understood that meat production has a big carbon footprint.

Numerous studies detail the climate impact of livestock, but just how big is it's impact on a person's foodprint?

This post compares the carbon footprints of five different American diets and finds that when it comes to foodprints vegan's lead the way.

The carbon footprint of different diets

Even since the FAO announced that 18% of global emission result from livestock people have talked about the climate benefits of reducing meat consumption.

More recent studies show that food system emissions could account for as much as quarter of all human emissions. That is 12% from agricultural production, another 9% from farming induced deforestation, and a further 3% from things like refrigeration and freight.

Such studies beg the question, what is the impact of meat on an individual's foodprint?

This analysis tries to answer that question using data from the US. In it we compare five different diets:
Meat Lover, Average, No Beef, Vegetarian and Vegan
For each diet we look solely at the emissions associated with food supply, so we do not include those from consumer's transportation, storage or the cooking of food. Nor do we consider land use change emissions.

Rather than bore you with the methodology let's start with the results and work back through how they were calculated.

The results of our analysis look like this:

A Vegetarian's foodprint is about two thirds of the average American and almost half that of a meat lover. For a Vegan it is even lower. But perhaps most interestingly, eating chicken instead of beef cuts a quarter of emissions in one simple step.

An Average American's diet has a foodprint of around 2.5 t CO ₂e per person each year. For a Meat Lover this rises to 3.3 t CO ₂e, for the No Beef diet it is 1.9 t t CO ₂e, for the Vegetarian it's 1.7 t CO ₂e and for the Vegan it is 1.5 t CO ₂ e. Each of these estimates includes emissions from food that is eaten, wasted by consumers and lost in the supply chain.

In the average diet animal products make up 60% of emissions despite accounting for just a quarter of food energy. For the Meat Lover beef consumption causes almost half of emissions from just a tenth of food energy. In the No Beef diet all the reductions from the Average foodprint come by switching from beef to chicken. The difference between the Vegetarian and Vegan diets arises from dairy consumption being switched to a mix of cereals and vegetables.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing is that although the foodprints vary greatly, three fifths of each diet is identical. In other words, 60% of food energy consumed is the same in each of these four diets.

The share that is constant accounts for 1550 kcal of food energy per day and about 0.7 t CO ₂e of each foodprint. So all the variation depends on the remaining 1,000 kcal per day. The Vegan gets these 1000 kcal for 0.8 t CO ₂ e, the Vegetarian for 1 t, No Beef for 1.2 t, Average for 1.8 t and the Meat Lover for 2.6 t.

The diets we compared

Each of these five diets are variations of the average American diet based on data from the USDA's Economic Research Service.

For each of our diets we assume consumption of around 2,600 kcal of food energy each day, roughly equal to an average American. This should not be confused with total food supply which is around 3,900 kcal each day. In each diet food energy is split up among nine different food groups.

The five diets are all variations on the average diet. We assume the Meat Lover eats more red meat, white meat and dairy in place of some cereals, fruit and vegetables. The No Beef diet is just the average diet with all beef consumption switched to chicken. The Vegetarian switches away from beef and chicken to fruit and vegetables, while also reducing oils and snacks. The Vegan does much the same as the vegetarian while also eliminating dairy through further switching to cereals, fruits and vegetables.

In terms of food energy distribution the diets look like this:

The food energy that remains the same is each diet is roughly 450 kcal of cereals, 80 kcal of fruit, 50 kcal of vegetables, 580 kcal of oils, 220 kcal of snacks and 180 kcal of drinks.

Comparing food group emissions

The reason that these five foodprints vary so much despite being so similar is that the carbon intensity of food consumption differs greatly between the food groups.

To estimate each foodprints we first calculated the carbon intensity of food consumption in each group. This involved estimating the cradle to retail emissions of food production (kg CO ₂e/kg product), converting each to emissions per unit food energy produced, and then adjusting for food waste and supply chain losses. This gives emissions per unit of food consumed (g CO ₂e/kcal). For a more complete explanation see our shrink your food footprint page.

The carbon intensity of food consumption for each food group is as follows:

These figures estimate the emissions produced in the process of supplying a kilocalorie of food energy for each food group. They show on average how carbon intensive it is for Americans to get their energy from the different food groups.

Unsurprisingly red meat is the most carbon intensive way to get food energy, followed by dairy, fruit and chicken. Cereals, oils and snacks are the least carbon intensive. These factors are the reason why foodprints gets smaller as less red meat, dairy and chicken are consumed.

Although the carbon intensity of food production is the main driver in these figures, each is also influenced by how calorific foods are and what scale of supply chain losses and consumer waste they suffer.

For example oils, snacks and cereals are each highly calorific and have relatively low losses and waste, which results in them performing very well. The opposite is true of fruits and vegetables which are less calorific per unit weight but have a very high share of consumer waste and supply chain losses.

Using food groups also hides great variation of carbon intensity within each group. A hot housed tomato can have emissions 5 times higher than one grown in season, potatoes have tiny footprints compared to many other vegetables, and cheese has much higher emission than milk. So by limiting ourselves to just nine food groups we greatly understate the potential that changing diet has to reduce food emissions.

What about my foodprint?

This analysis attempts to show the important role animal products, and red meat in particular, have in determining the scale of a person's foodprint. It's relevance to your own foodprint will depend on what your own diet is like.

Because we use national averages for food consumption, production emissions, food energy content, food losses and food waste our estimates may vary significantly from an individuals diet.

Such caveats aside, this analysis does highlight that a small share of the food we eat can cause the majority of our food emissions. Beef, lamb and cheese are among the most carbon intensive things we can eat, while milk, out of season fruit and other meats can also have relatively high emissions.

Shifting some of your diet away from these foods towards cereals or in-season fruit and vegetables is a very effective way to shrink your foodprint. If your aiming for a very low carbon diet, you won't do much better that a seasonal vegan diet, particularly if you also limit food waste.

For further reading food emissions check out:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The carbon foodprint of 5 diets compared

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is well understood that meat production has a big carbon footprint. Numerous studies detail the climate impact of livestock, but just how big is it's impact on a person's foodprint? This post compares the carbon footprints of five different American diets and finds that when it comes to foodprints vegan's lead the way.

# data[].attributes.headline
The carbon foodprint of 5 diets compared – shrinkthatfootprint.com

# data[].attributes.subject
The carbon foodprint of 5 diets compared – shrinkthatfootprint.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is well understood that meat production has a big carbon footprint.

Numerous studies detail the climate impact of livestock, but just how big is it's impact on a person's foodprint?

This post compares the carbon footprints of five different American diets and finds that when it comes to foodprints vegan's lead the way.

The carbon footprint of different diets

Even since the FAO announced that 18% of global emission result from livestock people have talked about the climate benefits of reducing meat consumption.

More recent studies show that food system emissions could account for as much as quarter of all human emissions. That is 12% from agricultural production, another 9% from farming induced deforestation, and a further 3% from things like refrigeration and freight.

Such studies beg the question, what is the impact of meat on an individual's foodprint?

This analysis tries to answer that question using data from the US. In it we compare five different diets:
Meat Lover, Average, No Beef, Vegetarian and Vegan
For each diet we look solely at the emissions associated with food supply, so we do not include those from consumer's transportation, storage or the cooking of food. Nor do we consider land use change emissions.

Rather than bore you with the methodology let's start with the results and work back through how they were calculated.

The results of our analysis look like this:

A Vegetarian's foodprint is about two thirds of the average American and almost half that of a meat lover. For a Vegan it is even lower. But perhaps most interestingly, eating chicken instead of beef cuts a quarter of emissions in one simple step.

An Average American's diet has a foodprint of around 2.5 t CO ₂e per person each year. For a Meat Lover this rises to 3.3 t CO ₂e, for the No Beef diet it is 1.9 t t CO ₂e, for the Vegetarian it's 1.7 t CO ₂e and for the Vegan it is 1.5 t CO ₂ e. Each of these estimates includes emissions from food that is eaten, wasted by consumers and lost in the supply chain.

In the average diet animal products make up 60% of emissions despite accounting for just a quarter of food energy. For the Meat Lover beef consumption causes almost half of emissions from just a tenth of food energy. In the No Beef diet all the reductions from the Average foodprint come by switching from beef to chicken. The difference between the Vegetarian and Vegan diets arises from dairy consumption being switched to a mix of cereals and vegetables.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing is that although the foodprints vary greatly, three fifths of each diet is identical. In other words, 60% of food energy consumed is the same in each of these four diets.

The share that is constant accounts for 1550 kcal of food energy per day and about 0.7 t CO ₂e of each foodprint. So all the variation depends on the remaining 1,000 kcal per day. The Vegan gets these 1000 kcal for 0.8 t CO ₂ e, the Vegetarian for 1 t, No Beef for 1.2 t, Average for 1.8 t and the Meat Lover for 2.6 t.

The diets we compared

Each of these five diets are variations of the average American diet based on data from the USDA's Economic Research Service.

For each of our diets we assume consumption of around 2,600 kcal of food energy each day, roughly equal to an average American. This should not be confused with total food supply which is around 3,900 kcal each day. In each diet food energy is split up among nine different food groups.

The five diets are all variations on the average diet. We assume the Meat Lover eats more red meat, white meat and dairy in place of some cereals, fruit and vegetables. The No Beef diet is just the average diet with all beef consumption switched to chicken. The Vegetarian switches away from beef and chicken to fruit and vegetables, while also reducing oils and snacks. The Vegan does much the same as the vegetarian while also eliminating dairy through further switching to cereals, fruits and vegetables.

In terms of food energy distribution the diets look like this:

The food energy that remains the same is each diet is roughly 450 kcal of cereals, 80 kcal of fruit, 50 kcal of vegetables, 580 kcal of oils, 220 kcal of snacks and 180 kcal of drinks.

Comparing food group emissions

The reason that these five foodprints vary so much despite being so similar is that the carbon intensity of food consumption differs greatly between the food groups.

To estimate each foodprints we first calculated the carbon intensity of food consumption in each group. This involved estimating the cradle to retail emissions of food production (kg CO ₂e/kg product), converting each to emissions per unit food energy produced, and then adjusting for food waste and supply chain losses. This gives emissions per unit of food consumed (g CO ₂e/kcal). For a more complete explanation see our shrink your food footprint page.

The carbon intensity of food consumption for each food group is as follows:

These figures estimate the emissions produced in the process of supplying a kilocalorie of food energy for each food group. They show on average how carbon intensive it is for Americans to get their energy from the different food groups.

Unsurprisingly red meat is the most carbon intensive way to get food energy, followed by dairy, fruit and chicken. Cereals, oils and snacks are the least carbon intensive. These factors are the reason why foodprints gets smaller as less red meat, dairy and chicken are consumed.

Although the carbon intensity of food production is the main driver in these figures, each is also influenced by how calorific foods are and what scale of supply chain losses and consumer waste they suffer.

For example oils, snacks and cereals are each highly calorific and have relatively low losses and waste, which results in them performing very well. The opposite is true of fruits and vegetables which are less calorific per unit weight but have a very high share of consumer waste and supply chain losses.

Using food groups also hides great variation of carbon intensity within each group. A hot housed tomato can have emissions 5 times higher than one grown in season, potatoes have tiny footprints compared to many other vegetables, and cheese has much higher emission than milk. So by limiting ourselves to just nine food groups we greatly understate the potential that changing diet has to reduce food emissions.

What about my foodprint?

This analysis attempts to show the important role animal products, and red meat in particular, have in determining the scale of a person's foodprint. It's relevance to your own foodprint will depend on what your own diet is like.

Because we use national averages for food consumption, production emissions, food energy content, food losses and food waste our estimates may vary significantly from an individuals diet.

Such caveats aside, this analysis does highlight that a small share of the food we eat can cause the majority of our food emissions. Beef, lamb and cheese are among the most carbon intensive things we can eat, while milk, out of season fruit and other meats can also have relatively high emissions.

Shifting some of your diet away from these foods towards cereals or in-season fruit and vegetables is a very effective way to shrink your foodprint. If your aiming for a very low carbon diet, you won't do much better that a seasonal vegan diet, particularly if you also limit food waste.

For further reading food emissions check out:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The carbon foodprint of 5 diets compared

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is well understood that meat production has a big carbon footprint. Numerous studies detail the climate impact of livestock, but just how big is it's impact on a person's foodprint? This post compares the carbon footprints of five different American diets and finds that when it comes to foodprints vegan's lead the way.

# data[].attributes.headline
Uncovering the Guardians of the Environment | OppenheimerFunds

# data[].attributes.subject
Uncovering the Guardians of the Environment | OppenheimerFunds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stay informed on the latest equities trends with OppenheimerFunds Insights. Read the latest thought leadership on equity.

# data[].attributes.headline
FINAL EXAM REVIEW 3 TRUE OR FALSE. - ppt download

# data[].attributes.subject
FINAL EXAM REVIEW 3 TRUE OR FALSE. - ppt download

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FINAL EXAM REVIEW 3 TRUE OR FALSE. - ppt download

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TRUE Ecological footprints tend to be higher in developed countries than they are in developing country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The validity of expressing environmental impact as a simple product of independent factors, and the factors that should be included and their comparative importance, have been the subject of debate among environmentalists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SageModeler is a free, web-based systems dynamics modeling tool for middle and high school students to construct dynamic models. SageModeler is being developed at the Concord Consortium and the CREATE for STEM Institute at Michigan State University.

# data[].attributes.headline
We Depend on Plastic. Now We’re Drowning in It.

# data[].attributes.subject
We Depend on Plastic. Now We’re Drowning in It.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of Planet or Plastic?-our multiyear effort to raise awareness about the global plastic waste crisis. Learn what you can do to reduce your own single-use plastics, and take your pledge.

Read this story and more in the June 2018 issue of National Geographic magazine.

If plastic had been invented when the Pilgrims sailed from Plymouth, England, to North America-and the Mayflower had been stocked with bottled water and plastic-wrapped snacks-their plastic trash would likely still be around, four centuries later.

If the Pilgrims had been like many people today and simply tossed their empty bottles and wrappers over the side, Atlantic waves and sunlight would have worn all that plastic into tiny bits. And those bits might still be floating around the world's oceans today, sponging up toxins to add to the ones already in them, waiting to be eaten by some hapless fish or oyster, and ultimately perhaps by one of us.

We should give thanks that the Pilgrims didn't have plastic, I thought recently as I rode a train to Plymouth along England's south coast. I was on my way to see a man who would help me make sense of the whole mess we've made with plastic, especially in the ocean.

Because plastic wasn't invented until the late 19th century, and production really only took off around 1950, we have a mere 9.2 billion tons of the stuff to deal with. Of that, more than 6.9 billion tons have become waste. And of that waste, a staggering 6.3 billion tons never made it to a recycling bin-a figure that stunned the scientists who crunched the numbers in 2017.

No one knows how much unrecycled plastic waste ends up in the ocean, Earth's last sink. In 2015, Jenna Jambeck, a University of Georgia engineering professor, caught everyone's attention with a rough estimate: between 5.3 million and 14 million tons each year just from coastal regions. Most of it isn't thrown off ships, she and her colleagues say, but is dumped carelessly on land or in rivers, mostly in Asia. It's then blown or washed into the sea. Imagine five plastic grocery bags stuffed with plastic trash, Jambeck says, sitting on every foot of coastline around the world-that would correspond to about 8.8 million tons, her middle-of-the-road estimate of what the ocean gets from us annually. It's unclear how long it will take for that plastic to completely biodegrade into its constituent molecules. Estimates range from 450 years to never.

Meanwhile, ocean plastic is estimated to kill millions of marine animals every year. Nearly 700 species, including endangered ones, are known to have been affected by it. Some are harmed visibly-strangled by abandoned fishing nets or discarded six-pack rings. Many more are probably harmed invisibly. Marine species of all sizes, from zooplankton to whales, now eat microplastics, the bits smaller than one-fifth of an inch across. On Hawaii's Big Island, on a beach that seemingly should have been pristine-no paved road leads to it-I walked ankle-deep through microplastics. They crunched like Rice Krispies under my feet. After that, I could understand why some people see ocean plastic as a looming catastrophe, worth mentioning in the same breath as climate change. At a global summit in Nairobi last December, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme spoke of an "ocean Armageddon."

And yet there's a key difference: Ocean plastic is not as complicated as climate change. There are no ocean trash deniers, at least so far. To do something about it, we don't have to remake our planet's entire energy system.

"This isn't a problem where we don't know what the solution is," says Ted Siegler, a Vermont resource economist who has spent more than 25 years working with developing nations on garbage. "We know how to pick up garbage. Anyone can do it. We know how to dispose of it. We know how to recycle." It's a matter of building the necessary institutions and systems, he says-ideally before the ocean turns, irretrievably and for centuries to come, into a thin soup of plastic.

In Plymouth, under the gray gloom of an English autumn, Richard Thompson waited in a yellow slicker outside Plymouth University's Coxside Marine Station, at the edge of the harbor. A lean man of 54, with a smooth pate rimmed with gray hair, Thompson was headed for an ordinary career as a marine ecologist in 1993-he was working on a Ph.D. on limpets and microalgae that grow on coastal rocks-when he participated in his first beach cleanup, on the Isle of Man. While other volunteers zoomed in on the plastic bottles and bags and nets, Thompson focused on the small stuff, the tiny particles that lay underfoot, ignored, at the high tide line. At first he wasn't even sure they were plastic. He had to consult forensic chemists to confirm it.

There was a real mystery to be solved back then, at least in academic circles: Scientists wondered why they weren't finding even more plastic in the sea. World production has increased exponentially-from 2.3 million tons in 1950, it grew to 162 million in 1993 and to 448 million by 2015-but the amount of plastic drifting on the ocean and washing up on beaches, alarming as it was, didn't seem to be rising as fast. "That begs the question: Where is it?" Thompson said. "We can't establish harm to the environment unless we know where it is."

In the years since his first beach cleanup, Thompson has helped provide the beginnings of an answer: The missing plastic is getting broken into pieces so small they're hard to see. In a 2004 paper, Thompson coined the term "microplastics" for these small bits, predicting-accurately, as it turned out-that they had "potential for large-scale accumulation" in the ocean.

When we met in Plymouth last fall, Thompson and two of his students had just completed a study that indicated it's not just waves and sunlight that break down plastic. In lab tests, they'd watched amphipods of the species Orchestia gammarellus -tiny shrimplike crustaceans that are common in European coastal waters-devour pieces of plastic bags and determined they could shred a single bag into 1.75 million microscopic fragments. The little creatures chewed through plastic especially fast, Thompson's team found, when it was coated with the microbial slime that is their normal food. They spat out or eventually excreted the plastic bits.

Microplastics have been found everywhere in the ocean that people have looked, from sediments on the deepest seafloor to ice floating in the Arctic-which, as it melts over the next decade, could release more than a trillion bits of plastic into the water, according to one estimate. On some beaches on the Big Island of Hawaii, as much as 15 percent of the sand is actually grains of microplastic. Kamilo Point Beach, the one I walked on, catches plastic from the North Pacific gyre, the trashiest of five swirling current systems that transport garbage around the ocean basins and concentrate it in great patches. At Kamilo Point the beach is piled with laundry baskets, bottles, and containers with labels in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, English, and occasionally, Russian. On Henderson Island, an uninhabited coral island in the South Pacific, researchers have found an astonishing volume of plastic from South America, Asia, New Zealand, Russia, and as far away as Scotland.

As Thompson and I talked about all this, a day boat called the Dolphin was carrying us through a light chop in the Sound, off Plymouth. Thompson reeled out a fine-mesh net called a manta trawl, usually used for studying plankton. We were close to the spot where, a few years earlier, other researchers had collected 504 fish of 10 species and given them to Thompson. Dissecting the fish, he was surprised to find microplastics in the guts of more than one-third of them. The finding made international headlines.

After we'd steamed along for a while, Thompson reeled the manta trawl back in. There was a smattering of colored plastic confetti at the bottom. Thompson himself doesn't worry much about microplastics in his fish and chips-there's little evidence yet that they pass from the gut of a fish into the flesh we actually eat. (See We Know Plastic Is Harming Marine Life. What About Us?) He worries more about the things that none of us can see-the chemicals added to plastics to give them desirable properties, such as malleability, and the even tinier nanoplastics that microplastics presumably degrade into. Those might pass into the tissues of fish and humans.

"We do know the concentrations of chemicals at the time of manufacture in some cases are very high," Thompson said. "We don't know how much additive is left in the plastic by the time it becomes bite-size to a fish.

"Nobody has found nanoparticles in the environment-they're below the level of detection for analytical equipment. People think they are out there. They have the potential to be sequestered in tissue, and that could be a game changer."

Thompson is careful not to get ahead of the science on his subject. He's far from an alarmist-but he's also convinced that plastic trash in the ocean is far more than an aesthetic problem. "I don't think we should be waiting for a key finding of whether or not fish are hazardous to eat," he said. "We have enough evidence to act."

How did we get here? When did the dark side of the miracle of plastic first show itself? It's a question that can be asked about many of the marvels of our technological world. Since helping the Allies win World War II-think of nylon parachutes or lightweight airplane parts-plastics have transformed all our lives as few other inventions have, mostly for the better. They've eased travel into space and revolutionized medicine. They lighten every car and jumbo jet today, saving fuel-and pollution. In the form of clingy, light-as-air wraps, they extend the life of fresh food. In airbags, incubators, helmets, or simply by delivering clean drinking water to poor people in those now demonized disposable bottles, plastics save lives daily.

In one of their early applications, they saved wildlife. In the mid-1800s, piano keys, billiard balls, combs, and all manner of trinkets were made of a scarce natural material: elephant ivory. With the elephant population at risk and ivory expensive and scarce, a billiards company in New York City offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could come up with an alternative.

As Susan Freinkel tells the tale in her book, Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, an amateur inventor named John Wesley Hyatt took up the challenge. His new material, celluloid, was made of cellulose, the polymer found in all plants. Hyatt's company boasted that it would eliminate the need "to ransack the Earth in pursuit of substances which are constantly growing scarcer." Besides sparing at least some elephants, celluloid also helped change billiards from solely an aristocratic pastime to one that working people play in bars.

That's a trivial example of a profound revolution ushered in by plastic-an era of material abundance. The revolution accelerated in the early 20th century, once plastics began to be made from the same stuff that was giving us abundant, cheap energy: petroleum. Oil companies had waste gases like ethylene coming out the stacks of their refineries. Chemists discovered they could use those gases as building blocks, or monomers, to create all sorts of novel polymers-polyethylene terephthalate, for example, or PET-instead of working only with polymers that already existed in nature. A world of possibilities opened up. Anything and everything could be made of plastic, and so it was, because plastics were cheap.

They were so cheap, we began to make things we never intended to keep. In 1955 Life magazine celebrated the liberation of the American housewife from drudgery. Under the headline "Throwaway Living," a photograph showed a family flinging plates, cups, and cutlery into the air. The items would take 40 hours to clean, the text noted-"except that no housewife need bother." When did plastics start to show their dark side? You might say it was when the junk in that photo hit the ground.

Six decades later, roughly 40 percent of the now more than 448 million tons of plastic produced every year is disposable, much of it used as packaging intended to be discarded within minutes after purchase. Production has grown at such a breakneck pace that virtually half the plastic ever manufactured has been made in the past 15 years. Last year the Coca-Cola Company, perhaps the world's largest producer of plastic bottles, acknowledged for the first time just how many it makes: 128 billion a year. Nestlé, PepsiCo, and others also churn out torrents of bottles.

The growth of plastic production has far outstripped the ability of waste management to keep up: That's why the oceans are under assault. "It's not surprising that we broke the system," Jambeck says. "That kind of increase would break any system not prepared for it." In 2013 a group of scientists issued a new assessment of throwaway living. Writing in Nature magazine, they declared that disposable plastic should be classified, not as a housewife's friend, but as a hazardous material.

In recent years the surge in production has been driven largely by the expanded use of disposable plastic packaging in the growing economies of Asia-where garbage collection systems may be underdeveloped or nonexistent. In 2010, according to an estimate by Jambeck, half the world's mismanaged plastic waste was generated by just five Asian countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka.

"Let's say you recycle 100 percent in all of North America and Europe," says Ramani Narayan, a chemical engineering professor at Michigan State University who also works in his native India. "You still would not make a dent on the plastics released into the oceans. If you want to do something about this, you have to go there, to these countries, and deal with the mismanaged waste."

The Pasig River once flowed majestically through downtown Manila, capital of the Philippines, and emptied into pristine Manila Bay. It was a treasured waterway and civic point of pride. It's now listed among the top 10 rivers in the world that convey plastic waste to the sea. As many as 72,000 tons flow downstream each year, mostly during the monsoon. In 1990 the Pasig was declared biologically dead.

The Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission, established in 1999, is working to clean up the river, with some signs of success. Jose Antonio Goitia, the commission's executive director, says he is optimistic that the Pasig could be restored someday, although he acknowledges he has no easy way of doing that. "Maybe the best thing to do is ban plastic bags," he says.

The remaining challenges are clearly visible every day. The river is fed by 51 tributaries, some of them overflowing with plastic waste from squatter settlements that cantilever precariously over creek banks. A tributary near Chinatown, where rickety shanties are wedged between modern buildings, is so choked with plastic debris you can walk across it, forgoing the footbridge. Manila Bay's beaches, once recreational respites for greater Manila's 13 million residents, are littered with garbage, much of it plastic. Last fall Break Free From Plastic, a coalition including Greenpeace and other groups, cleaned a beach on Freedom Island, which is advertised as an ecotourism district; volunteers picked up 54,260 pieces of plastic, from shoes to food containers. By the time I visited a few weeks later, the beach was littered again with bottles, wrappers, and shopping bags.

The scene in Manila is typical of large, overcrowded urban centers across Asia. The Philippines is a densely populated nation of 105 million people that is still struggling with the most basic public health issues, including waterborne diseases such as typhoid and bacterial diarrhea. It's no surprise that it has trouble managing the explosion of plastic garbage. Manila has a metropolitan garbage collection system that stretches across 17 separate local governments-a source of chaos and inefficiency. In 2004 the region was already running out of land to safely dump garbage. The shortage of landfill space, and thus the crisis, continues today.

A small part of the slack is taken up by Manila's informal recycling industry, which consists of thousands of waste pickers. Armando Siena, 34, is one of them. He and his wife, Angie, 31, have lived their entire lives surrounded by trash. They were born on Smokey Mountain, an internationally notorious dump that was officially closed in the 1990s. They now live with their three children near Manila's waterfront in a one-room flat lit by a single bulb, furnished with a pair of plastic chairs, and lacking plumbing, bedding, or refrigeration. The flat is in a garbage-filled slum named Aroma, next to another slum named Happyland.

Every day Siena rides a rickety bicycle beyond Aroma's boundaries, scanning the streets for recyclable rubbish that he can stuff into his sidecar. Plastic soup containers are high-value finds, paying 20 pesos (38 cents) a kilogram. Siena sorts and sells his load to a junk shop owned by his uncle, who trucks the waste to recycling plants on the outskirts of Manila.

Waste pickers like Siena are part of the solution, some activists argue; they just need a living wage. In the Baseco waterfront slum in Manila, a tiny recycling shop operated by the Plastic Bank of Vancouver, British Columbia, pays a premium for bottles and hard plastic collected by waste pickers. It then sells that plastic at a higher price to multinationals, which market their recycled products as socially responsible.

Siegler, the Vermont economist, has worked in enough countries and run enough numbers to be skeptical of such schemes. "There is not enough value in plastics to make that work," he says. "It's cheaper to fund a solid waste management system than to subsidize collecting plastic."

The waste that clogs Manila's beaches and waterways reinforces Siegler's point. Much of it consists of sachets-tear-off packets that once held a single serving of shampoo, toothpaste, coffee, condiments, or other products. They are sold by the millions to poor people like Siena and his family, who can't afford to buy more than one serving at a time. Sachets blow around Manila like leaves falling from trees. They're not recyclable, so no waste picker will retrieve them. Crispian Lao, a member of the National Solid Waste Management Commission, says, "This segment of packaging is growing, and it has become a real challenge for solid waste management."

When Greenpeace cleaned the Freedom Island beach, it posted a tally of the brand names of the sachets its volunteers had collected. Nestlé ranked first, Unilever second. Litterbugs aren't the only ones at fault, says Greenpeace's Abigail Aguilar: "We believe that the ones producing and promoting the use of single-use plastics have a major role in the whole problem." A Unilever spokeswoman in Manila told me the company is developing a recyclable sachet.

After Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared from radar screens in March 2014 while on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, the search for it extended from Indonesia to the southern Indian Ocean. It captivated a global audience for weeks. No sign of the wreckage appeared. On several occasions, when satellite images revealed collections of objects floating on the sea surface, hopes soared that they would turn out to be aircraft parts. They weren't. It was all trash-pieces of broken shipping containers, abandoned fishing gear, and of course, plastic shopping bags.

Kathleen Dohan, a scientist and the president of Earth and Space Research in Seattle, saw opportunity in the horror: The images from space were pushing a problem into view that had long been neglected. "This is the first time the whole world is watching," she told me at the time. "It's a good time for people to understand that our oceans are garbage dumps." Dohan sensed a tipping point in public awareness-and the events since suggest she may have been right.

The most heartening thing about the plastic waste problem is the recent explosion of attention to it, and even of serious, if scattered, efforts to address it. A partial list of the good news since 2014 would include, in no particular order: Kenya joined a growing list of nations that have banned plastic bags, imposing steep fines and jail time on violators. France said it would ban plastic plates and cups by 2020. Bans on plastic microbeads in cosmetics (they're exfoliants) take effect this year in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and four other countries. The industry is phasing them out.

Corporations are responding to public opinion. Coca-Cola, which also produces Dasani water, announced a goal to "collect and recycle the equivalent of" 100 percent of its packaging by 2030. It and other multinationals, including PepsiCo, Amcor, and Unilever, have pledged to convert to 100 percent reusable, recyclable, or compostable packaging by 2025. And Johnson & Johnson is switching from plastic back to paper stems on its cotton swabs.

Individuals are making a difference too. Ellen MacArthur, a British yachtswoman, has created a foundation to promote the vision of a "circular economy," in which all materials, including plastics, are designed to be reused or recycled, not dumped. Actor Adrian Grenier has lent his celebrity to the campaign against the plastic drinking straw. And Boyan Slat, 23, from the Netherlands, is charging ahead with his teenage vow to clean up the largest garbage patch in the North Pacific. His organization has raised more than $30 million to construct an ocean-sweeping machine that is still under development.

All of these measures help at some level-even beach cleanups, futile as they sometimes seem. A beach cleanup hooked Richard Thompson on the plastic problem a quarter century ago. But the real solution, he now thinks, is to stop plastic from entering the ocean in the first place-and then to rethink our whole approach to the amazing stuff. "We've done a lot of work making sure plastic does its job, but very little amount of work on what happens to that product at the end of its lifetime," he says. "I'm not saying plastics are the enemy, but there is a lot the industry can do to help solve the problem."

There are two fundamental ways industry can help, if it wants or is forced to. First, along with academic scientists such as Jambeck, it can design new plastics and new plastic products that are either biodegradable or more recyclable (see You Can Help Turn the Tide on Plastic. Here's How.). New materials and more recycling, along with simply avoiding unnecessary uses of the stuff, are the long-term solutions to the plastic waste problem. But the fastest way to make a big difference, Siegler says, is low tech. It's more garbage trucks and landfills.

"Everyone wants a sexy answer," he says. "The reality is, we need to just collect the trash. Most countries that I work in, you can't even get it off the street. We need garbage trucks and help institutionalizing the fact that this waste needs to be collected on a regular basis and landfilled, recycled, or burned so that it doesn't end up going all over the place."

That's the second way industry could help: It could pony up. Siegler has proposed a worldwide tax of a penny on every pound of plastic resin manufactured. The tax would raise roughly six billion dollars a year that could be used to finance garbage collection systems in developing nations. The idea never caught on. In the fall of 2017, though, a group of scientists revived the concept of a global fund. The group called for an international agreement patterned after the Paris climate accord.

At the Nairobi meeting in December, 193 nations, including the U.S., actually passed one. The United Nations Clean Seas agreement doesn't impose a tax on plastic. It's nonbinding and toothless. It's really just a declaration of a good intention-the intention to end ocean plastic pollution. In that way it's less like the Paris Agreement and more like the Rio de Janeiro treaty, in which the world pledged to combat dangerous climate change-back in 1992. Norway's environment minister, Vidar Helgesen, called this new agreement a strong first step.

Staff writer Laura Parker and photographer Randy Olson last worked together on a feature on the vanishing Ogallala aquifer, which was published in the August 2016 issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We Depend on Plastic. Now We're Drowning in It.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The miracle material has made modern life possible. But more than 40 percent of it is used just once, and it's choking our waterways.

# data[].attributes.headline
Quest To Replace Styrofoam Packaging Started With Fungus : NPR

# data[].attributes.subject
Quest To Replace Styrofoam Packaging Started With Fungus : NPR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can't see the video? Click here.
In 2007, mechanical engineer Eben Bayer and a friend invented a new kind of packaging material. What makes the stuff unusual is that it's fully recyclable: It's made from organic material like wood chips or cornhusks, held together by mycelium, the threadlike structures made by a fungus, such as a mushroom.

Bayer's idea has caught the imagination of a lot of other people. Now the CEO of a company he co-founded, Evocative Design, he was called a tech pioneer by the World Economic Forum several years ago, was on Forbes magazine's 30 under 30 list in 2015 and has been recognized for his work's environmental quality by the Environmental Protection Agency. Large companies like Dell and Ikea have used his packaging to ship their products.

Watch this video, narrated by Bayer, to hear how he developed the idea for his mycelium packaging.
This video is from the Joe's Big Idea series Changing The World, One Invention At A Time. Check out the entire series .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
VIDEO: Inventor Inspired By Childhood Memories Of Fungus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can't see the video? Click here. In 2007, mechanical engineer Eben Bayer and a friend invented a new kind of packaging material. What makes the stuff unusual is that it's fully recyclable: It's made from organic material like wood chips or cornhusks, held together by mycelium, the threadlike structures made by a fungus, such as a mushroom.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nasa animation shows how ‘garbage islands’ have taken over the seas | Daily Mail Online

# data[].attributes.subject
Nasa animation shows how ‘garbage islands’ have taken over the seas | Daily Mail Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Watch humanity ruin the oceans: Nasa animation shows how vast 'garbage islands' have taken over the seas in the last 35 years

World's waste congregates into five 'garbage islands' that swirl around the planet's major ocean gyres

These are in the Indian Ocean, the north and south of the Pacific, and north and south Atlantic Ocean

Nasa's created the animation using data from floating, scientific buoys to map the movement of plastic

8 million tons of plastic bottles, bags, toys and other plastic rubbish ends up in the oceans each year

The ocean is filled with eight million tonnes of garbage - enough to fill five carrier bags for every foot of coastline on the planet.

Carried by sea currents, this waste congregates into five giant 'garbage islands' that swirl around the world's major ocean gyres.

Now, Nasa has created a visualisation of this pollution highlighting the extend to which humanity is ruining the oceans with waste.

The space agency created the time-lapse using data from floating, scientific buoys that had been distributed in the oceans for the last 35 years.

'If we let all of the buoys go at the same time, we can observe buoy migration patterns,' said Greg Shirah from Nasa's Scientific Visualisation Studio.

'The number of buoys decreases because some buoys don't last as long as others.' The buoys on the map are represented by the white dots.

The buoys migrate to five known gyres, the large system of rotating ocean currents. These are located in the Indian Ocean and in the north and south of the Pacific and the north and south Atlantic.

'We can also see this in a computational model of ocean currents called ECCO-2,' said Shirah.

'We release particles evenly around the world and let the modelled currents carry the particles. The particles from the model also migrate to the garbage patches.

'Even though the retimed buoys and modelled particles did not react to currents at the same times, the fact that the data tend to accumulate in the same regions show how robust the result is.'

Around 8 million tons of plastic bottles, bags, toys and other plastic rubbish ends up in the world's oceans each year, scientists claim.

Because of the difficulties in working out the exact amount, since much of it may have sunk, the scientists said the true figure could be as much as 12.7 million tons polluting the ocean each year.

Dr Jenna Jambeck, from the University of Georgia in the US, said we are becoming 'overwhelmed by our waste'.

The team also warned that this 'ocean of plastic' can harm sea life.

Turtles can mistake plastic bags for jellyfish and eat them. The bags then block their stomachs, which causes them to starve to death.

Sea birds also often mistake floating plastic for food; over 90 per cent of fulmars found dead around the North Sea have plastic in their stomachs. It is also feared that it could harm our health to eat fish that have consumed plastic.

The scientists reached their figures by analysing data on the amount of waste generated and how well it is disposed of in 192 coastal countries.

This included litter left on beaches as well as plastic from fly-tipping and badly-managed rubbish dumps.

Their figures are much higher than those from previous studies, which only looked at rubbish floating on the surface and did not factor in the plastic that had sunk to the sea floor or was trapped in ice.

They estimated that between 4.7million and 12.7million tons of plastic made its way into the world's oceans in 2010, with a best estimate of 8million tons.

The figure is expected to rise each year. Between 2010 and 2025, some 155million tons of plastic could be dumped into the ocean - enough to fill 100 bags per foot of coastline.

Piled one on top of the other, the bags would create a wall of rubbish 100ft high.

Co-author Roland Geyer, associate professor of industrial ecology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said: 'Large-scale removal of plastic marine debris is not going to be cost-effective and quite likely simply unfeasible.

'This means we need to prevent plastic from entering the oceans in the first place through better waste management, more reuse and recycling, better product design and material substitution.'

Frank Davis, director of the National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in the US, said: 'The numbers are staggering but the problem is not insurmountable.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nasa animation shows how 'garbage islands' have taken over the seas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
World's waste congregates into five 'garbage islands' that swirl around the planet's major ocean gyres These are in the Indian Ocean, the north and south of the Pacific, and north and south Atlantic Ocean Nasa's created the animation using data from floating, scientific buoys to map the movement of plastic 8 million tons of plastic bottles, bags, toys and other plastic rubbish ends up in the oceans each year The ocean is filled with eight million tonnes of garbage - enough to fill five carrier bags for every foot of coastline on the planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic bags start out as fossil fuels and end up as deadly waste in landfills and the ocean. Birds often mistake shredded plastic bags for food, filling their stomachs with toxic debris. For hungry sea turtles, it's nearly impossible to distinguish between jellyfish and floating plastic shopping bags. Fish eat thousands of tons of plastic a year, transferring it up the food chain to bigger fish and marine mammals. Microplastics are also consumed by people through food and in the air. It's estimated that globally, people consume the equivalent of a credit card of plastic every week, and it's expected that there will be more plastic than fish in the sea by 2050.

The fossil fuel industry plans to increase plastic production by 40% over the next decade. These oil giants are rapidly building petrochemical plants across the United States to turn fracked gas into plastic. This means more plastic in our oceans, more greenhouse gas emissions and more toxic air pollution, which exacerbates the climate crisis that often disproportionately affects communities of color.

10 Facts About Single-Use Plastic Bags

1. Americans use 5 trillion plastic bags a year.

2. Americans use an average of 365 plastic bags per person per year. People in Denmark use an average of four plastic bags per year.

3. It only takes about 14 plastic bags for the equivalent of the gas required to drive one mile.

4. In 2015 about 730,000 tons of plastic bags, sacks and wraps were generated (including PS, PP, HDPE, PVC & LDPE) in the United States, but more than 87% of those items are never recycled, winding up in landfills and the ocean.

5. About 34% of dead leatherback sea turtles have ingested plastics.

6. The plastic typically used in bottles, bags and food containers contains chemical additives such as endocrine disruptors, which are associated with negative health effects including cancers, birth defects and immune system suppression in humans and wildlife.

7. It takes 1,000 years for a plastic bag to degrade in a landfill. Unfortunately, the bags don't break down completely but instead photo-degrade, becoming microplastics that absorb toxins and continue to pollute the environment.

8. Chemical leachates from plastic bags impair the growth of the world's most important microorganisms, Prochlorococcus, a marine bacterium that provides one tenth of the world's oxygen.

9. There were 1.9 million grocery bags and other plastic bags collected in the 2018 International Coastal Cleanup.

10. In 2014 California became the first state to ban plastic bags. As of March 2018, 311 local bag ordinances have been adopted in 24 states, including Hawaii. As of July 2018, 127 countries have adopted some form of legislation to regulate plastic bags.

Ways You Can Help

1. Support the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, which would phase out throwaway plastics, hold the industry responsible for its waste and pause construction on new plastic-making plants. Ask your members of Congress to cosponsor this crucial bill aimed at tackling the plastic pollution crisis head on.

2. Practice waste prevention first and choose to reuse whenever possible. Make sure to always bring a reusable bag when shopping. By regularly washing your bags and drying them thoroughly, you can reuse them over and over.

3. One company, Formosa Plastics, is trying to build a mega-polluting petrochemical plant in Louisiana that would harm a Black community, degrade wetlands, and deepen the plastic pollution crisis. Sign the petition asking President Biden to revoke Formosa Plastics' federal permit, which is currently suspended and under reevaluation by the Army Corps of Engineers.

4. President Biden can address the plastic pollution crisis rapidly through executive action. Demand that he take bold action on plastics for our health, climate and wildlife.

Learn more about how plastic pollution threatens wildlife.

Get the latest on our work for biodiversity and learn how to help in our free weekly e-newsletter.

MORE SUSTAINABILITY INFORMATION

RELATED CAMPAIGNS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. is the third-most populated country in the world, yet we're responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, consumption and waste. If everyone in the world lived the way Americans do today, it would take five Earths to sustain the planet.

# data[].attributes.headline
We Depend on Plastic. Now We’re Drowning in It.

# data[].attributes.subject
We Depend on Plastic. Now We’re Drowning in It.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of Planet or Plastic?-our multiyear effort to raise awareness about the global plastic waste crisis. Learn what you can do to reduce your own single-use plastics, and take your pledge.

Read this story and more in the June 2018 issue of National Geographic magazine.

If plastic had been invented when the Pilgrims sailed from Plymouth, England, to North America-and the Mayflower had been stocked with bottled water and plastic-wrapped snacks-their plastic trash would likely still be around, four centuries later.

If the Pilgrims had been like many people today and simply tossed their empty bottles and wrappers over the side, Atlantic waves and sunlight would have worn all that plastic into tiny bits. And those bits might still be floating around the world's oceans today, sponging up toxins to add to the ones already in them, waiting to be eaten by some hapless fish or oyster, and ultimately perhaps by one of us.

We should give thanks that the Pilgrims didn't have plastic, I thought recently as I rode a train to Plymouth along England's south coast. I was on my way to see a man who would help me make sense of the whole mess we've made with plastic, especially in the ocean.

Because plastic wasn't invented until the late 19th century, and production really only took off around 1950, we have a mere 9.2 billion tons of the stuff to deal with. Of that, more than 6.9 billion tons have become waste. And of that waste, a staggering 6.3 billion tons never made it to a recycling bin-a figure that stunned the scientists who crunched the numbers in 2017.

No one knows how much unrecycled plastic waste ends up in the ocean, Earth's last sink. In 2015, Jenna Jambeck, a University of Georgia engineering professor, caught everyone's attention with a rough estimate: between 5.3 million and 14 million tons each year just from coastal regions. Most of it isn't thrown off ships, she and her colleagues say, but is dumped carelessly on land or in rivers, mostly in Asia. It's then blown or washed into the sea. Imagine five plastic grocery bags stuffed with plastic trash, Jambeck says, sitting on every foot of coastline around the world-that would correspond to about 8.8 million tons, her middle-of-the-road estimate of what the ocean gets from us annually. It's unclear how long it will take for that plastic to completely biodegrade into its constituent molecules. Estimates range from 450 years to never.

Meanwhile, ocean plastic is estimated to kill millions of marine animals every year. Nearly 700 species, including endangered ones, are known to have been affected by it. Some are harmed visibly-strangled by abandoned fishing nets or discarded six-pack rings. Many more are probably harmed invisibly. Marine species of all sizes, from zooplankton to whales, now eat microplastics, the bits smaller than one-fifth of an inch across. On Hawaii's Big Island, on a beach that seemingly should have been pristine-no paved road leads to it-I walked ankle-deep through microplastics. They crunched like Rice Krispies under my feet. After that, I could understand why some people see ocean plastic as a looming catastrophe, worth mentioning in the same breath as climate change. At a global summit in Nairobi last December, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme spoke of an "ocean Armageddon."

And yet there's a key difference: Ocean plastic is not as complicated as climate change. There are no ocean trash deniers, at least so far. To do something about it, we don't have to remake our planet's entire energy system.

"This isn't a problem where we don't know what the solution is," says Ted Siegler, a Vermont resource economist who has spent more than 25 years working with developing nations on garbage. "We know how to pick up garbage. Anyone can do it. We know how to dispose of it. We know how to recycle." It's a matter of building the necessary institutions and systems, he says-ideally before the ocean turns, irretrievably and for centuries to come, into a thin soup of plastic.

In Plymouth, under the gray gloom of an English autumn, Richard Thompson waited in a yellow slicker outside Plymouth University's Coxside Marine Station, at the edge of the harbor. A lean man of 54, with a smooth pate rimmed with gray hair, Thompson was headed for an ordinary career as a marine ecologist in 1993-he was working on a Ph.D. on limpets and microalgae that grow on coastal rocks-when he participated in his first beach cleanup, on the Isle of Man. While other volunteers zoomed in on the plastic bottles and bags and nets, Thompson focused on the small stuff, the tiny particles that lay underfoot, ignored, at the high tide line. At first he wasn't even sure they were plastic. He had to consult forensic chemists to confirm it.

There was a real mystery to be solved back then, at least in academic circles: Scientists wondered why they weren't finding even more plastic in the sea. World production has increased exponentially-from 2.3 million tons in 1950, it grew to 162 million in 1993 and to 448 million by 2015-but the amount of plastic drifting on the ocean and washing up on beaches, alarming as it was, didn't seem to be rising as fast. "That begs the question: Where is it?" Thompson said. "We can't establish harm to the environment unless we know where it is."

In the years since his first beach cleanup, Thompson has helped provide the beginnings of an answer: The missing plastic is getting broken into pieces so small they're hard to see. In a 2004 paper, Thompson coined the term "microplastics" for these small bits, predicting-accurately, as it turned out-that they had "potential for large-scale accumulation" in the ocean.

When we met in Plymouth last fall, Thompson and two of his students had just completed a study that indicated it's not just waves and sunlight that break down plastic. In lab tests, they'd watched amphipods of the species Orchestia gammarellus -tiny shrimplike crustaceans that are common in European coastal waters-devour pieces of plastic bags and determined they could shred a single bag into 1.75 million microscopic fragments. The little creatures chewed through plastic especially fast, Thompson's team found, when it was coated with the microbial slime that is their normal food. They spat out or eventually excreted the plastic bits.

Microplastics have been found everywhere in the ocean that people have looked, from sediments on the deepest seafloor to ice floating in the Arctic-which, as it melts over the next decade, could release more than a trillion bits of plastic into the water, according to one estimate. On some beaches on the Big Island of Hawaii, as much as 15 percent of the sand is actually grains of microplastic. Kamilo Point Beach, the one I walked on, catches plastic from the North Pacific gyre, the trashiest of five swirling current systems that transport garbage around the ocean basins and concentrate it in great patches. At Kamilo Point the beach is piled with laundry baskets, bottles, and containers with labels in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, English, and occasionally, Russian. On Henderson Island, an uninhabited coral island in the South Pacific, researchers have found an astonishing volume of plastic from South America, Asia, New Zealand, Russia, and as far away as Scotland.

As Thompson and I talked about all this, a day boat called the Dolphin was carrying us through a light chop in the Sound, off Plymouth. Thompson reeled out a fine-mesh net called a manta trawl, usually used for studying plankton. We were close to the spot where, a few years earlier, other researchers had collected 504 fish of 10 species and given them to Thompson. Dissecting the fish, he was surprised to find microplastics in the guts of more than one-third of them. The finding made international headlines.

After we'd steamed along for a while, Thompson reeled the manta trawl back in. There was a smattering of colored plastic confetti at the bottom. Thompson himself doesn't worry much about microplastics in his fish and chips-there's little evidence yet that they pass from the gut of a fish into the flesh we actually eat. (See We Know Plastic Is Harming Marine Life. What About Us?) He worries more about the things that none of us can see-the chemicals added to plastics to give them desirable properties, such as malleability, and the even tinier nanoplastics that microplastics presumably degrade into. Those might pass into the tissues of fish and humans.

"We do know the concentrations of chemicals at the time of manufacture in some cases are very high," Thompson said. "We don't know how much additive is left in the plastic by the time it becomes bite-size to a fish.

"Nobody has found nanoparticles in the environment-they're below the level of detection for analytical equipment. People think they are out there. They have the potential to be sequestered in tissue, and that could be a game changer."

Thompson is careful not to get ahead of the science on his subject. He's far from an alarmist-but he's also convinced that plastic trash in the ocean is far more than an aesthetic problem. "I don't think we should be waiting for a key finding of whether or not fish are hazardous to eat," he said. "We have enough evidence to act."

How did we get here? When did the dark side of the miracle of plastic first show itself? It's a question that can be asked about many of the marvels of our technological world. Since helping the Allies win World War II-think of nylon parachutes or lightweight airplane parts-plastics have transformed all our lives as few other inventions have, mostly for the better. They've eased travel into space and revolutionized medicine. They lighten every car and jumbo jet today, saving fuel-and pollution. In the form of clingy, light-as-air wraps, they extend the life of fresh food. In airbags, incubators, helmets, or simply by delivering clean drinking water to poor people in those now demonized disposable bottles, plastics save lives daily.

In one of their early applications, they saved wildlife. In the mid-1800s, piano keys, billiard balls, combs, and all manner of trinkets were made of a scarce natural material: elephant ivory. With the elephant population at risk and ivory expensive and scarce, a billiards company in New York City offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could come up with an alternative.

As Susan Freinkel tells the tale in her book, Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, an amateur inventor named John Wesley Hyatt took up the challenge. His new material, celluloid, was made of cellulose, the polymer found in all plants. Hyatt's company boasted that it would eliminate the need "to ransack the Earth in pursuit of substances which are constantly growing scarcer." Besides sparing at least some elephants, celluloid also helped change billiards from solely an aristocratic pastime to one that working people play in bars.

That's a trivial example of a profound revolution ushered in by plastic-an era of material abundance. The revolution accelerated in the early 20th century, once plastics began to be made from the same stuff that was giving us abundant, cheap energy: petroleum. Oil companies had waste gases like ethylene coming out the stacks of their refineries. Chemists discovered they could use those gases as building blocks, or monomers, to create all sorts of novel polymers-polyethylene terephthalate, for example, or PET-instead of working only with polymers that already existed in nature. A world of possibilities opened up. Anything and everything could be made of plastic, and so it was, because plastics were cheap.

They were so cheap, we began to make things we never intended to keep. In 1955 Life magazine celebrated the liberation of the American housewife from drudgery. Under the headline "Throwaway Living," a photograph showed a family flinging plates, cups, and cutlery into the air. The items would take 40 hours to clean, the text noted-"except that no housewife need bother." When did plastics start to show their dark side? You might say it was when the junk in that photo hit the ground.

Six decades later, roughly 40 percent of the now more than 448 million tons of plastic produced every year is disposable, much of it used as packaging intended to be discarded within minutes after purchase. Production has grown at such a breakneck pace that virtually half the plastic ever manufactured has been made in the past 15 years. Last year the Coca-Cola Company, perhaps the world's largest producer of plastic bottles, acknowledged for the first time just how many it makes: 128 billion a year. Nestlé, PepsiCo, and others also churn out torrents of bottles.

The growth of plastic production has far outstripped the ability of waste management to keep up: That's why the oceans are under assault. "It's not surprising that we broke the system," Jambeck says. "That kind of increase would break any system not prepared for it." In 2013 a group of scientists issued a new assessment of throwaway living. Writing in Nature magazine, they declared that disposable plastic should be classified, not as a housewife's friend, but as a hazardous material.

In recent years the surge in production has been driven largely by the expanded use of disposable plastic packaging in the growing economies of Asia-where garbage collection systems may be underdeveloped or nonexistent. In 2010, according to an estimate by Jambeck, half the world's mismanaged plastic waste was generated by just five Asian countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka.

"Let's say you recycle 100 percent in all of North America and Europe," says Ramani Narayan, a chemical engineering professor at Michigan State University who also works in his native India. "You still would not make a dent on the plastics released into the oceans. If you want to do something about this, you have to go there, to these countries, and deal with the mismanaged waste."

The Pasig River once flowed majestically through downtown Manila, capital of the Philippines, and emptied into pristine Manila Bay. It was a treasured waterway and civic point of pride. It's now listed among the top 10 rivers in the world that convey plastic waste to the sea. As many as 72,000 tons flow downstream each year, mostly during the monsoon. In 1990 the Pasig was declared biologically dead.

The Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission, established in 1999, is working to clean up the river, with some signs of success. Jose Antonio Goitia, the commission's executive director, says he is optimistic that the Pasig could be restored someday, although he acknowledges he has no easy way of doing that. "Maybe the best thing to do is ban plastic bags," he says.

The remaining challenges are clearly visible every day. The river is fed by 51 tributaries, some of them overflowing with plastic waste from squatter settlements that cantilever precariously over creek banks. A tributary near Chinatown, where rickety shanties are wedged between modern buildings, is so choked with plastic debris you can walk across it, forgoing the footbridge. Manila Bay's beaches, once recreational respites for greater Manila's 13 million residents, are littered with garbage, much of it plastic. Last fall Break Free From Plastic, a coalition including Greenpeace and other groups, cleaned a beach on Freedom Island, which is advertised as an ecotourism district; volunteers picked up 54,260 pieces of plastic, from shoes to food containers. By the time I visited a few weeks later, the beach was littered again with bottles, wrappers, and shopping bags.

The scene in Manila is typical of large, overcrowded urban centers across Asia. The Philippines is a densely populated nation of 105 million people that is still struggling with the most basic public health issues, including waterborne diseases such as typhoid and bacterial diarrhea. It's no surprise that it has trouble managing the explosion of plastic garbage. Manila has a metropolitan garbage collection system that stretches across 17 separate local governments-a source of chaos and inefficiency. In 2004 the region was already running out of land to safely dump garbage. The shortage of landfill space, and thus the crisis, continues today.

A small part of the slack is taken up by Manila's informal recycling industry, which consists of thousands of waste pickers. Armando Siena, 34, is one of them. He and his wife, Angie, 31, have lived their entire lives surrounded by trash. They were born on Smokey Mountain, an internationally notorious dump that was officially closed in the 1990s. They now live with their three children near Manila's waterfront in a one-room flat lit by a single bulb, furnished with a pair of plastic chairs, and lacking plumbing, bedding, or refrigeration. The flat is in a garbage-filled slum named Aroma, next to another slum named Happyland.

Every day Siena rides a rickety bicycle beyond Aroma's boundaries, scanning the streets for recyclable rubbish that he can stuff into his sidecar. Plastic soup containers are high-value finds, paying 20 pesos (38 cents) a kilogram. Siena sorts and sells his load to a junk shop owned by his uncle, who trucks the waste to recycling plants on the outskirts of Manila.

Waste pickers like Siena are part of the solution, some activists argue; they just need a living wage. In the Baseco waterfront slum in Manila, a tiny recycling shop operated by the Plastic Bank of Vancouver, British Columbia, pays a premium for bottles and hard plastic collected by waste pickers. It then sells that plastic at a higher price to multinationals, which market their recycled products as socially responsible.

Siegler, the Vermont economist, has worked in enough countries and run enough numbers to be skeptical of such schemes. "There is not enough value in plastics to make that work," he says. "It's cheaper to fund a solid waste management system than to subsidize collecting plastic."

The waste that clogs Manila's beaches and waterways reinforces Siegler's point. Much of it consists of sachets-tear-off packets that once held a single serving of shampoo, toothpaste, coffee, condiments, or other products. They are sold by the millions to poor people like Siena and his family, who can't afford to buy more than one serving at a time. Sachets blow around Manila like leaves falling from trees. They're not recyclable, so no waste picker will retrieve them. Crispian Lao, a member of the National Solid Waste Management Commission, says, "This segment of packaging is growing, and it has become a real challenge for solid waste management."

When Greenpeace cleaned the Freedom Island beach, it posted a tally of the brand names of the sachets its volunteers had collected. Nestlé ranked first, Unilever second. Litterbugs aren't the only ones at fault, says Greenpeace's Abigail Aguilar: "We believe that the ones producing and promoting the use of single-use plastics have a major role in the whole problem." A Unilever spokeswoman in Manila told me the company is developing a recyclable sachet.

After Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared from radar screens in March 2014 while on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, the search for it extended from Indonesia to the southern Indian Ocean. It captivated a global audience for weeks. No sign of the wreckage appeared. On several occasions, when satellite images revealed collections of objects floating on the sea surface, hopes soared that they would turn out to be aircraft parts. They weren't. It was all trash-pieces of broken shipping containers, abandoned fishing gear, and of course, plastic shopping bags.

Kathleen Dohan, a scientist and the president of Earth and Space Research in Seattle, saw opportunity in the horror: The images from space were pushing a problem into view that had long been neglected. "This is the first time the whole world is watching," she told me at the time. "It's a good time for people to understand that our oceans are garbage dumps." Dohan sensed a tipping point in public awareness-and the events since suggest she may have been right.

The most heartening thing about the plastic waste problem is the recent explosion of attention to it, and even of serious, if scattered, efforts to address it. A partial list of the good news since 2014 would include, in no particular order: Kenya joined a growing list of nations that have banned plastic bags, imposing steep fines and jail time on violators. France said it would ban plastic plates and cups by 2020. Bans on plastic microbeads in cosmetics (they're exfoliants) take effect this year in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and four other countries. The industry is phasing them out.

Corporations are responding to public opinion. Coca-Cola, which also produces Dasani water, announced a goal to "collect and recycle the equivalent of" 100 percent of its packaging by 2030. It and other multinationals, including PepsiCo, Amcor, and Unilever, have pledged to convert to 100 percent reusable, recyclable, or compostable packaging by 2025. And Johnson & Johnson is switching from plastic back to paper stems on its cotton swabs.

Individuals are making a difference too. Ellen MacArthur, a British yachtswoman, has created a foundation to promote the vision of a "circular economy," in which all materials, including plastics, are designed to be reused or recycled, not dumped. Actor Adrian Grenier has lent his celebrity to the campaign against the plastic drinking straw. And Boyan Slat, 23, from the Netherlands, is charging ahead with his teenage vow to clean up the largest garbage patch in the North Pacific. His organization has raised more than $30 million to construct an ocean-sweeping machine that is still under development.

All of these measures help at some level-even beach cleanups, futile as they sometimes seem. A beach cleanup hooked Richard Thompson on the plastic problem a quarter century ago. But the real solution, he now thinks, is to stop plastic from entering the ocean in the first place-and then to rethink our whole approach to the amazing stuff. "We've done a lot of work making sure plastic does its job, but very little amount of work on what happens to that product at the end of its lifetime," he says. "I'm not saying plastics are the enemy, but there is a lot the industry can do to help solve the problem."

There are two fundamental ways industry can help, if it wants or is forced to. First, along with academic scientists such as Jambeck, it can design new plastics and new plastic products that are either biodegradable or more recyclable (see You Can Help Turn the Tide on Plastic. Here's How.). New materials and more recycling, along with simply avoiding unnecessary uses of the stuff, are the long-term solutions to the plastic waste problem. But the fastest way to make a big difference, Siegler says, is low tech. It's more garbage trucks and landfills.

"Everyone wants a sexy answer," he says. "The reality is, we need to just collect the trash. Most countries that I work in, you can't even get it off the street. We need garbage trucks and help institutionalizing the fact that this waste needs to be collected on a regular basis and landfilled, recycled, or burned so that it doesn't end up going all over the place."

That's the second way industry could help: It could pony up. Siegler has proposed a worldwide tax of a penny on every pound of plastic resin manufactured. The tax would raise roughly six billion dollars a year that could be used to finance garbage collection systems in developing nations. The idea never caught on. In the fall of 2017, though, a group of scientists revived the concept of a global fund. The group called for an international agreement patterned after the Paris climate accord.

At the Nairobi meeting in December, 193 nations, including the U.S., actually passed one. The United Nations Clean Seas agreement doesn't impose a tax on plastic. It's nonbinding and toothless. It's really just a declaration of a good intention-the intention to end ocean plastic pollution. In that way it's less like the Paris Agreement and more like the Rio de Janeiro treaty, in which the world pledged to combat dangerous climate change-back in 1992. Norway's environment minister, Vidar Helgesen, called this new agreement a strong first step.

Staff writer Laura Parker and photographer Randy Olson last worked together on a feature on the vanishing Ogallala aquifer, which was published in the August 2016 issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We Depend on Plastic. Now We're Drowning in It.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The miracle material has made modern life possible. But more than 40 percent of it is used just once, and it's choking our waterways.

# data[].attributes.headline
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES - Fashion Revolution : Fashion Revolution

# data[].attributes.subject
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES - Fashion Revolution : Fashion Revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We love fashion, but we don't want our clothes to come at the cost of people or our planet.

# data[].attributes.headline
USA - Fashion Revolution : Fashion Revolution

# data[].attributes.subject
USA - Fashion Revolution : Fashion Revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to Fashion Revolution USA! Join us in asking #whomademyclothes throughout the 50 states and beyond.

Fashion Revolution USA is proud to be a part of the international mission of Fashion Revolution focused on programming, events, and educational resources. Our mission is to educate and engage people in the US about the social and environmental impact of their clothing purchases, so that they demand a more sustainable fashion industry and circular economy for all.

Whether you care about labor rights, human rights or the environment, you are a key variable to help fix the problems that currently exist. Every action counts and every action has ripple effects that create positive change in the industry. It's time for you to be that ripple of change.

Currently, our short term approach is to provide open-source resources to any and all interested individuals within the US. Our regional contacts, outlined below, are excited to provide you with opportunities to get involved with Fashion Revolution USA both during Fashion Revolution Week in late April and throughout the year. Long term we're looking forward to establishing a more formalized presence in the US, and we will announce news on this as it arrives!

East Coast (NY, PA, NJ, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME): Shannon Welch

DC: Joelle Firzli

Midwest (IL, WI, IN, IA, MN, OH, SD, ND, MI, NE, MI and CO): Ashleyn Przedwiecki

South (TX, OK, AR, KS, LA, MS): Megan Stoner

South West (AZ, NM, NV, UT): Neha Purohit

South East (FL): Colleen Coughlin

West Coast: Nicholas Brown

Puerto Rico: Zaida Goveo

Social Media and Blog Inquiries: Mackenzie Mock and Irene San Segundo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Fashion Revolution USA! Join us in asking #whomademyclothes! Welcome to Fashion Revolution USA! Join us in asking #whomademyclothes throughout the 50 states and beyond. Fashion Revolution USA is proud to be a part of the international mission of Fashion Revolution focused on programming, events, and educational resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
#1 Will you wear it 30 times?

The rapid turnover of trends characterising Fast Fashion means clothes are disposable. Along with the deflation of clothing prices this has put the supply chain under unprecedented pressure leading directly to outrages like Rana Plaza and Tazreen (the 2012 Dhaka fashion factory fire that killed over 100). Just asking yourself if you will wear a prospective item 30 times is a great place to start shopping smarter and more intentional.

#2 Break the cycle:

The traditional spring/summer autumn/winter of international fashion weeks is just for show. Zara, the Spanish fast fashion behemoth broke the mold, introducing mini seasons every week. 50-100 new micro seasons a year is the new normal. So slow down your fashion cycle.

#3 Spread your fashion $:

The global fashion industry is worth $2.5 trillion. Shouldn't this be shared? Look for producer centric brands like People Tree run to rigorous Fairtrade standards with longstanding producer groups who get a fair share of the profits.

#4 Detox your wardrobe:

Fashion is the world's second most polluting industry after oil. Notably, Azodyes are still the most used synthetic dyes despite being toxic. 10% of the world's biggest fashion brands have committed to phasing out toxic substances through Greenpeace's Detox programme. Check the list

#5 Join the Fashion Revolution:

Be the change you want to see in your wardrobe (to paraphrase Gandhi). Fashion Revolution ( fashionrevolution.org ) represents millions of consumers who want change and also commemorates Rana Plaza by putting pressure on the brands to increase transparency and empowers consumers to be inquisitive about #whomadetheirclothes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1 Will you wear it 30 times? The rapid turnover of trends characterising Fast Fashion means clothes are disposable. Along with the deflation of clothing prices this has put the supply chain under unprecedented pressure leading directly to outrages like Rana Plaza and Tazreen (the 2012 Dhaka fashion factory fire that killed over 100).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Academy Award® winner Tilda Swinton narrates this documentary from acclaimed filmmaker Brian Hill (Songbirds) focusing on the efforts of everyday people all over the world who are making a difference in the fight against global warming. From Indian middle school students organizing demonstrations and major recycling efforts to a London PR executive helping companies to become more environmentally responsible to citizen lobbyists in Appalachia protesting the strip-mining that is destroying their communities and livelihood to Papua New Guineans who refuse to allow commercial logging on their rainforest land to one man in Togo intent on teaching his nation's young people to respect and replenish the gifts of the Earth, these are stories of ordinary humans doing extraordinary things by finding solutions to help save the planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Academy Award® winner Tilda Swinton narrates this documentary from acclaimed filmmaker Brian Hill (Songbirds) focusing on the efforts of everyday people all over the world who are making a difference in the fight against global warming.

# data[].attributes.headline
The 7 Most Epic Climate Change Documentaries – UN CC:Learn blog – Medium

# data[].attributes.subject
The 7 Most Epic Climate Change Documentaries – UN CC:Learn blog – Medium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climate change is real and its effects are already visible - even more so, when you watch them play out on the big screen. The effects of human impact on the planet are obvious with increased greenhouse gas emission, the melting of ice sheets, and the potential of the megafauna's extinction.

Fortunately, nowadays you don't have to leave your couch to learn about these changes and people working to build a better future. Netflix and National Geographic channel are chock-full of documentaries that promise to entertain as they educate - it's not all doom and gloom, and as a bonus, you'll get some incredible nature and wildlife footage.

We have compiled a list of the Seven most spectacular releases below. Check out the trailers or watch them in full on platforms such as Netflix and YouTube.

1. True North (2018)

True North consists of 16 11-minute episodes, led by John Iadarola - who co-hosts The Young Turks' ThinkTank channel and investigative reporter and filmmaker Chavala Madlena - who has worked with The Guardian and BBC. Alongside a retinue of scientists, cartographers, and other associates, Iadarola and Madlena report from remote Arctic locates in order to ascertain how climate change is affecting local populations and ecosystems.

What makes True North unique is that it's not a conventional docudrama miniseries. It's more about several smaller, short anecdotal stories that build up to the larger topic of climate change (definitely the editors' pick).

For more information click here | Trailer: https://youtu.be/oGJZUm6w_KY

2. An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

An Inconvenient Truth has arguably done more to raise awareness on the subject of climate change than any other documentary. Director Davis Guggenheim takes what started out as a simple presentation by former presidential candidate Al Gore and turns it into an impassioned educational movie. The documentary was a huge hit, winning two Academy Awards, two Oscars and grossing $24 million in the US box office. Even better, at the same time, it opens many people's eyes up to the urgency to address the issue of Climate change.

More info on the website | Trailer: https://youtu.be/Bu6SE5TYrCM

3. Before the Flood (2016)

The documentary has been described as highest-profile environmental film since Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' and was summed up by The Wrap as a "straightforward, elegantly presented survey of the science on climate change" along with constructive suggestions on how to reduce the impacts.

Before the Flood 's special feature is unarguably the number of major casts including Oscar-winning and movie star Leonardo DiCaprio, the Pope, Barack Obama and a host of others. There in, Obama praises the Paris Agreement for being one of the first things to bring all of humanity to consensus on a single matter and expresses optimism that new technologies in the coming decades will go a long way in combating the climate change problem.

For more information click here | Trailer: https://youtu.be/6UGsRcxaSAI

4. Years of Living Dangerously (2016)

The first season of this made-for-TV documentary series focuses on the problems and causes of climate change. Most importantly, this docuseries eight-episode run highlights the solutions that people around the world are working on according to Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Terminator actor and former governor of California and one of the show's producers.

Years of Living Dangerously features some of Hollywood's most influential stars, reveals emotional and hard-hitting accounts of the effects of climate change from across the planet

For more information, click here |Trailer: https://youtu.be/gmGbUuoc-_A

Poised by the success of Al Gore's movie ( An Inconvenient Truth), Leonardo DiCaprio lends his support to the movement in a big way, as he co-wrote and narrated this insightful documentary about the challenges posed by climate change. Through interviews with experts in many scientific fields, as well as prominent activists and politicians, the film seeks to convince viewers, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the planet is in danger and that action needed to be taken immediately if we are to have any chance of reversing the negative consequences.

For more information, click here | Trailer: https://youtu.be/7IBG2V98IBY

The documentary follows James Balog (who himself was a skeptic when it comes to belief in climate change), to the arctic ice caps of Greenland, Alaska and Iceland. He accompanies scientists who are trying to keep a record of the effects of the world's rising temperatures. In a captivating photographic journey, Balog himself begins to see the foolhardiness of his belief as the harsh realities are revealed on this breath-taking journey.

Jeff Orlowski's documentary received an Oscar nomination for the images that were captured while James Balog and his team recorded the melt rate in Greenland, Iceland and Alaska. The resulting film is at once visually stunning and haunting.

For more information, click here | Trailer: https://youtu.be/eIZTMVNBjc4

7. A Beautiful Planet (2016)

Narrated by Jennifer Lawrence, A Beautiful Planet is the result of a collaboration between IMAX and NASA that showcases the view of earth from the perspective of those on board the International Space Station. This magnificent documentary is surely to leave you in awe of our beautiful blue planet, as humanity tries to rescue it from ourselves. There's also a more serious intention here, like all of the others on this list. The movie highlights the changes our planet has gone through over the years and explains negative effects that humans have had on it.

For more information, click here | Trailer: https://youtu.be/QJpLjXbGIkQ

Have you watched any of these documentaries? Are there others you'd recommend? Share your thoughts with us in the Comment section and Facebook or Twitter; we'd like to hear from you!

***

Never have I felt so proud about myself than when I took a couple of hours off, over last weekend to watch and review these documentaries for you. I went through them so effortlessly. Watching these documentaries has ultimately made me realize that climate change becomes an increasingly serious problem, and that it is the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced - and it is also our greatest opportunity.

We have the solutions we need, but it takes the contribution of all. Inspired by what I saw, my first resolution is to plant a tree every year for the rest of my life. First, grab some popcorn and start watching!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 7 Most Epic Climate Change Documentaries - UN CC:Learn blog - Medium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change is real and its effects are already visible - even more so, when you watch them play out on the big screen. The effects of human impact on the planet are obvious with increased greenhouse gas emission, the melting of ice sheets, and the potential of the megafauna's extinction.

# data[].attributes.headline
Water Temperature - Environmental Measurement Systems

# data[].attributes.subject
Water Temperature - Environmental Measurement Systems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is Water Temperature?

Water temperature is a physical property expressing how hot or cold water is. As hot and cold are both arbitrary terms, temperature can further be defined as a measurement of the average thermal energy of a substance ⁵. Thermal energy is the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules, so temperature in turn measures the average kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules ⁵. This energy can be transferred between substances as the flow of heat. Heat transfer, whether from the air, sunlight, another water source or thermal pollution can change the temperature of water.

Water temperature has been defined as the "abiotic master factor" by JR Brett due to its effect on aquatic organisms ¹⁵. What does that mean for lakes, rivers and oceans?

Why the Temperature of Water is Important

Temperature is an important factor to consider when assessing water quality. In addition to its own effects, temperature influences several other parameters and can alter the physical and chemical properties of water. In this regard, water temperature should be accounted for when determining ⁷:

- Metabolic rates and photosynthesis production
- Compound toxicity
- Dissolved oxygen and other dissolved gas concentrations
- Conductivity and salinity
- Oxidation reduction potential (ORP)
- pH
- Water Density

Water Temperature and Aquatic Life

Temperature fluctuations can also affect the behavior choices of aquatic organisms, such as moving to warmer or cooler water after feeding, predator-prey responses and resting or migrating routines ¹⁶. Some species of sharks and stingrays will even seek out warmer waters when pregnant ¹⁶.

Plants are also affected by water temperature. While some aquatic plants tolerate cooler waters, most prefer warmer temperatures ¹⁷. Tropical plants in particular will show restricted growth and dormancy in water temperatures below 21°C ¹⁷. While dormancy is appropriate for surviving a cold winter, warmer temperatures are required for most plants to flourish.

Compound Toxicity and Water Temperature

In addition to its effects on aquatic organisms, high water temperatures can increase the solubility and thus toxicity of certain compounds ¹. These elements include heavy metals such as cadmium, zinc and lead as well as compounds like ammonia 19,20. Water temperature can not only increase the solubility of toxic compounds, but it can also influence an organism's tolerance limit ¹⁹. Mortality rates for zinc are significantly higher at temperatures above 25°C than at temperatures below 20°C ¹⁹. This occurs because tissue permeability, metabolic rate and oxygen consumption all increase with increased water temperature ¹⁹. In one study on labeo bata fish, the 24 hour 50% lethal concentration (LC50) at 15°C was 540 mg/L, while at 30°C, the LC50 dropped to 210 mg/L ¹⁹.

Ammonia is known for its toxicity at high pH levels, but temperature can also influence acute and chronic criteria concentrations ²¹. At low temperatures and a neutral pH, the following equation remains shifted to the left, producing the nontoxic ammonium ion:

NH3 + H2O <=> NH4+ + OH-

However, for every 10°C increase in temperature, the ratio of unionized ammonia to ammonium doubles ²¹. In 2013, the EPA determined that the criterion maximum concentration for freshwater species is 17 mg/L Total-Ammonia-Nitrogen (including both NH3 and NH4+) due to its potential jump in toxicity at a higher pH and temperature ²¹.

Dissolved Oxygen and Water Temperature

The solubility of oxygen and other gases will decrease as temperature increases ⁹. This means that colder lakes and streams can hold more dissolved oxygen than warmer waters. If water is too warm, it will not hold enough oxygen for aquatic organisms to survive.

Conductivity and Water Temperature

Water temperature can affect conductivity in two ways. As conductivity is measured by the electrical potential of ions in solution, it is affected by the concentration, charge and mobility of those ions ¹¹.

Ionic mobility is dependent on viscosity, which is in turn dependent on temperature ¹³. Viscosity refers to a liquid's ability to resist flow ²³. The more viscous it is, the less fluid it is; molasses and mercury are more viscous than water. The inverse relationship between temperature and viscosity means that an increase in temperature will decrease viscosity ¹⁴. A decrease in the viscosity of water increases the mobility of ions in water. As such, an increase in temperature thus increases conductivity ¹¹.

Conductivity increases approximately 2-3% per 1°C increase in temperature, though in pure water it will increase approximately 5% per 1°C ¹¹. This variation is why many professionals use a standardized comparison of conductivity, known as specific conductance, that is temperature corrected to 25°C ¹⁰.

The second way that temperature can affect conductivity is through ionic concentration. Many salts are more soluble at higher temperatures ²². As a salt dissolves, it breaks down into its respective ions. As warm water can dissolve several minerals and salts more easily than cold water, the ionic concentration is often higher ⁹. The increased mineral and ion content can be noticed in natural hot springs, which tout their "healing" abilities ⁵⁰. These dissolved solutes are often referred to as Total Dissolved Solids, or TDS ¹². TDS refers to all ion particles in solution that are smaller than 2 microns ²⁴. These salts and minerals enter the water from rocks and sediment in contact with it. As they dissolve and the ionic concentration increases, so will the conductivity of water.

Oxidation Reduction Potential and Water Temperature

Oxidation Reduction Potential, known as ORP, is also temperature dependent. The effect that temperature has on ORP values depends on the chemical species (atoms, molecules and ions) present in the solution ²⁵. Temperature-dependence data charts are usually available for calibration solutions, but not for field samples ²⁵.

This lack of data is due to the difficulty in identifying and measuring every redoxing species that could be present in any given water source. As these species are difficult to know and quantitatively define in environmental studies, most ORP electrodes will not automatically compensate for temperature. However, temperature can still alter a reading and should be recorded with each measurement considered when analyzing the data ²⁶.

pH and Water Temperature

pH is calculated by the number of hydrogen ions in solution. At a pH of 7, the hydrogen and hydroxyl ions have equal concentrations, 1 x 10-7 M, keeping the solution neutral ²⁷. However, these concentrations only hold true at 25°C. As the temperature increases or decreases, the ion concentrations will also shift, thus shifting the pH value ²⁷. This response is explained by Le Chatelier's Principle. Any change to a system at equilibrium, such as adding a reactant or altering the temperature, will shift the system until it reaches equilibrium again ²⁸.
The equation:

H20 H+ + OH-

is an exothermic reaction ²⁸. That means if the temperature of water increases, the equation will shift to the left to reach equilibrium again. A shift to the left decreases the ions in water, increasing the pH. Likewise, if the temperature were to decrease, the equation would shift to the right, increasing the ionic concentration and decreasing pH.

However, that does not mean that temperature changes will make a solution more acidic or basic. Because the ratio of hydrogen and hydroxyl ions remains the same, the acidity of water does not change with temperature ²⁸. Instead, the entire pH range shifts, so that neutral water will have a value other than 7. Pure water will remain neutral at 0°C (pH is 7.47), 25°C. (pH is 7.00) or 100°C. (pH is 6.14).

Density and Water Temperature

Water temperature and water density are directly related. As the temperature of water increases or decreases, it will alter the density of water. This is a unique relationship in that unlike most materials, the density of pure water decreases approximately 9% when it freezes ²⁹. This is why ice expands and floats on water. Pure water is also unique in that it achieves its maximum density, 1.00 g/ml, at 4°C ²⁹. Water at temperatures above and below this, including superheated and supercooled water, will float on 4°C water.

Freshwater Temperature Points

The maximum density point is particularly important in freshwater. If water was most dense at its freezing point (0 °C) then it would sink to the bottom, freezing a body of water from the bottom up, killing all of the organisms living within it ²⁹. Instead, this property ensures that the bottom of a body of water will remain at least 4°C, and thus unfrozen ³⁰. The temperature/density relationship thus creates a water convection pattern as it cools. As surface water temperature approaches the maximum density temperature, it sinks and is replaced by warmer, lighter water ⁴². This process continues until the water is uniformly cool. Any water that is colder than this point will float on top of the denser water. This convection pattern allows water both warmer and colder than 4°C (and at potentially different dissolved oxygen concentrations) to intermix ³⁰. This process occurs seasonally in holomictic (mixing) lakes, as the water temperature (and thus other parameters) reach equilibrium ¹⁴.

Saltwater Temperature Points

It is important to note that salinity not only affects water density but it can shift the maximum density and freezing points of water. As the salt concentration increases, both maximum density and the freezing point will decrease ¹⁴. Average seawater has a salinity level of 35 PPT (parts per thousand) and has a shifted maximum density of -3.5°C ¹⁴. This is more than a 7° difference from freshwater and is below seawater's freezing point of 1.9°C ¹⁴. However, this maximum density is never reached ³⁹. Instead, the process on convection simply circulates the cooling water until the entire surface water column reaches the freezing point ⁴². As the phase boundary between liquid and solid requires the proper pressure as well as temperature, ice only beings to form on the surface ³⁰.

Ice Formation

It is common knowledge that freshwater begins to freeze at 0°C. Salt water, however, has a lower freezing point. That is why salt is used in winter to de-ice roads and sidewalks. Average seawater has a salinity level of 35 PPT (parts per thousand), which shifts the freezing point to -1.9°C ¹⁴.

The density of pure water ice at 0°C is 0.9168 g/ml, nearly 9% lighter than liquid water at 0°C, which has a density of 0.99987 g/ml ¹⁴. That does not sound like a large difference, but it is enough to keep ice floating on top of water and allows aquatic organisms to survive the winter. This drop in density occurs because the hydrogen bonds in water create an open hexagonal lattice, leaving space between the molecules ⁴².

New sea ice can taste salty due to the trapped brine that has not yet escaped. Older ice structures, called multiyear ice, have no brine left and are fresh enough to drink once melted ⁴¹.

The temperature/density relationship also contributes to stratification.

Thermal Stratification

Stratification is the division of a water column into strata, or layers, of water with different properties. These divisions are usually defined by temperature and density, though other parameters such as salinity and chemical distinctions can also be used ³¹. Stratification occurs because work (force and displacement) is required to mix liquids of different densities ¹⁴. Thermal stratification is usually seasonal, with clear delineations between layers during the summer, narrower layers in winter, and a "turnover" in the spring and fall when temperature is fairly uniform throughout the water column ³². As seasons progress, sunlight, wind, ambient temperature and ice (in winter) cause the lake to restratify ³².

When referring to temperature and density strata within a lake, the layers are usually called the epilimnion, metalimnion and hypolimnion from top to bottom ¹⁴. The upper layer, the epilimnion, is exposed to solar radiation and thermal contact with the atmosphere, keeping it warmer. The epilimnion will extend as far as sunlight and wind will allow, and is usually deeper in lakes with greater surface areas ¹⁴.

Lakes that completely mix at least once per year are known as holomictic lakes ¹⁴. There are six types of holomictic lakes, with definitions based on average temperature and how frequently temperatures align ¹⁴. These lakes and their dividing factors can be seen in this flow diagram:

Lakes that do not mix completely are called meromictic lakes ¹⁴. These lakes have a lower strata that remains isolated throughout the year. This bottom layer is known as the monimolimnion, and is usually divided from the collective layers above it (mixolimnion) by a halocline (salinity-based cline) ³¹. Meromictic conditions can occur in a holomictic lake when unusual weather conditions cause the lake to stratify before it has time to completely mix ¹⁴.

Pressure and Water Temperature Points

Pressure does not directly alter water temperature. Instead, it shifts the freezing, boiling and maximum density points. The temperature at which boiling and freezing occur will only hold true at sea level ³.

As warned in some recipes, cooking times are longer at higher elevations, due to a shift in water's boiling point. This is due to the effect of atmospheric pressure. At a lower pressure (higher altitude), water will boil at a lower temperature. On the other side of the scale, at higher pressures (such as in a pressure cooker), water will boil at a higher temperature ³⁴. Atmospheric pressure does not affect the temperature of the water itself, but only its ability to become vapor, thus shifting the boiling to the left or right.

What Factors Influence Water Temperature?

Water temperature can be affected by many ambient conditions. These elements include sunlight/solar radiation, heat transfer from the atmosphere, stream confluence and turbidity. Shallow and surface waters are more easily influenced by these factors than deep water ³⁷.

Sunlight

The greatest source of heat transfer to water temperature is from sunlight ³⁶. Sunlight, or solar radiation, is a form of thermal energy ⁴⁵. This energy is then transferred to a water's surface as heat, increasing the temperature of the water. This heat transfer is due to water's relatively low albedo ⁴⁴. Albedo is the determined quality of a surface's ability to reflect or absorb sunlight. Water's low albedo means that it absorbs more energy than it reflects ⁴⁴. The result is a daily fluctuation in water temperature based on the amount of sunlight received by the water.

If a body of water is deep enough to stratify, sunlight will only transfer heat through the photic zone (light-reaching). Most of this energy (greater than half) is absorbed in the first 2 m of the water ¹⁴. This energy will continue to be absorbed exponentially until the light is gone. The photic zone varies in depth but can be up to 200 m deep in the oceans ⁴⁶. The depth of the photic zone is based on the amount of solids and other light-scattering elements present in the water. The temperature of water below the photic zone is generally only altered when the water is mixed ³⁷. Thus shallower bodies of water tend to warm quicker and reach higher temperatures than deeper water bodies ¹.

Atmosphere

Atmospheric heat transfer occurs at the water's surface. As heat always flows from a higher temperature to a lower temperature, this transfer can go both ways ⁶. When the air is cold, warm water will transfer energy to the air and cool off. This conduction can often be seen as fog or a "steaming" river ¹⁴. If the air is hot, cold water will receive the energy and warm up. The extent of this transfer is based on the thermal inertia and specific heat of water ¹⁴. Water temperature fluctuations are more gradual than air temperature fluctuations ¹⁴.

Turbidity

Confluence

Groundwater, streams and rivers can alter the temperature of the body of water into which they flow. If a spring or groundwater source is colder than the river it flows into, the river will become cooler. Recalling the rules of heat transfer (energy flows from hot to cold), the river loses energy to the cooler water as it warms it up ⁶. If the inflow is large or fast enough, the equilibrium temperature of the water will be close to the temperature of the inflow ¹. Glacial fed streams will keep conjoining rivers cooler near the source of the flow than further downstream ¹.

Man-made Influences

Man-made influences on water temperature include thermal pollution, runoff, deforestation and impoundments.

Thermal Pollution
Thermal pollution is any discharge that will dramatically alter the temperature of a natural water source ⁴⁸. This pollution commonly comes from municipal or industrial effluents ¹. If the temperature of discharge is significantly warmer than the natural water, it can negatively affect water quality. There are several significant consequences of thermal pollution, including diminished dissolved oxygen levels, fish kills and influxes of invasive species ⁴⁸.

Runoff from parking lots and other impervious surfaces are another form of thermal pollution. Water that flows off of these surfaces absorb much of their heat and transfer it to a nearby stream or river, elevating the temperature ⁹.

Deforestation
It is not only manmade additions that can affect water temperature. Water that is shaded by vegetation and other objects will not absorb as much heat as sunlit water ¹⁴. When trees or riparian canopies are removed, a body of water can become unusually warm, altering its natural cycle and habitats ⁴⁸.
Impoundments
Impoundments such as dams can drastically affect water temperature cycles. While a dam does not directly contribute heat to the water, it can affect the natural patterns of water temperature warming and cooling ⁹. An operational dam without a sliding gate assembly can alter the water temperatures downstream of the dam, which can affect local fish population behaviors.

Typical Temperatures

Water temperature can vary from frozen ice to near boiling, so what determines a "typical" temperature? Typical temperatures are dependent on 1) type of water body 2) depth 3) season 4) latitude 5) surrounding environment. While a specific body of water can have a general pattern that it follows annually, there is no definitive "typical" temperature for water. Even a specific body of water can vary due to any of these sources; a lake might freeze over one winter, but it might not freeze the following year due to a warm winter. It follows the same warming cooling pattern both years, but it does not reach the same temperatures. Any "unusual" temperatures must be taken in context.

Rivers and streams tend to experience greater, more rapid and temperature fluctuations than lakes and oceans ¹⁴. Likewise broad, shallow lakes will be warmer than their deeper counterparts. Due to the shifting angle of solar radiation and the effects of atmospheric heat transfer, water temperatures will vary seasonally ⁴⁴. As solar radiation is more intense near the equator, water at lower latitudes wills to be warmer than water at higher latitudes ⁴⁴. Shaded streams will not be as influenced by solar radiation as their exposed counterparts and can remain cooler. Bodies of water that are influenced by groundwater flow or a glacial fed stream will also be cooler ¹.

Oceanic temperatures also vary by season, latitude, depth, ocean currents and convection ⁵¹. Surface water will vary more with season and latitude than deeper waters, and show diurnal (daily) fluctuations due to solar radiation and wind ⁵³. This diurnal variation can be as great as 6 degrees Celsius ⁵³. Due to its massive size and the high specific heat of water, the ocean has an equally large heat capacity ¹⁴. This means that fluctuations between seasons or due to unusual events will only have a slight impact ⁵¹. Studies have shown the ocean has warmed approximately 0.1 degrees Celsius in the past century ⁵². While this number seems small, it is quite considerable in regards to the size of the ocean.

The temperature of the ocean plays an important role in atmospheric conditions across the globe. Hurricanes, cyclones, thunderstorms and other weather events can form depending on the temperature of the ocean ⁵³. Monsoons can occur when there is a large temperature differential between land and sea, causing cyclical precipitation and storms ³⁵. Hurricanes and cyclones develop over warm water, where the heat can be rapidly transferred to the air via convection ⁵⁴. In a similar vein, lake-effect snow and other heavy precipitation conditions can form when cold air flows over a large, warmer body of water ⁵⁵. The ocean also interacts with the atmosphere to create El Niño and La Niña events. El Niño describes the warming of the Pacific Ocean due to a lack of wind, which alters the depth of the thermocline. This warming in turn affects weather and temperature patterns across the globe ³⁵. La Niña is the opposite condition of the ocean, where temperatures are cooler than normal, typically with reverse impacts on the weather ³⁵. These events are irregular, occurring ever 2-7 years. They can last anywhere from 9 months to a couple years, depending on the strength of the episode ³⁵.

Unique Conditions

Other unique water bodies are heliothermic lakes. These lakes are usually saline, meromictic lakes, which means that when they stratify, only the upper layer of the water will mix ¹⁴. As discussed in the stratification section, the layers are separated by a halocline, with the mixolimnion remaining fairly fresh and the lower monimolimnion containing a higher salt concentration ¹⁴. When this stratification falls within the photic zone, unusual events happen. Sunlight that reaches the monimolimnion heats the water. This heat cannot escape because the density of the saline lower layer is not significantly affected by increasing temperatures ¹⁴. The result is a heat trap at the halocline, where temperatures can easily reach 50°C and higher ¹⁴. Hot Lake in Washington is one example of a heliothermic lake, where the halocline remains near 30°C even when the lake is covered in ice ¹⁴.

Consequences of Unusual Levels

Water that is too warm is usually considered to be more dangerous to aquatic life than cold water. However, both can affect growth, disease tolerance and survival rate ⁸. Water that is too cold will affect the biological processes and metabolic rates of aquatic organisms ¹⁴. On the other side of the scale, water that is too warm can cause excessive respiration rates, stressing fish. Warm water also cannot hold as much dissolved oxygen as cold water, so there is less oxygen available for uptake by organisms ¹⁴. Each fish species has its own comfort range. Temperatures outside of this range can be detrimental to growth and survival. Salmon and trout prefer to swim in colder rivers, while largemouth and smallmouth bass can tolerate much warmer waters for both growth and spawning ⁸.

The Importance of Monitoring

Water temperature's impact on a variety of other parameters make it a subtle, but vital, factor in determining water quality.

What are the Units?

A temperature in degrees Celsius can be converted to Fahrenheit or Kelvins by the following equations ³:

°F = (1.8*°C) + 32
K = °C + 273.15

Cite This Work

Fondriest Environmental, Inc. "Water Temperature." Fundamentals of Environmental Measurements. 7 Feb. 2014. Web. < https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/water-quality/water-temperature/ >.

Additional Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water Temperature - Environmental Measurement Systems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Water temperature is a physical property expressing how hot or cold water is. As hot and cold are both arbitrary terms, temperature can further be defined as a measurement of the average thermal energy of a substance 5.

# data[].attributes.headline
Partnering with Scientists & Educators — The Endocrine Disruption Exchange

# data[].attributes.subject
Partnering with Scientists & Educators — The Endocrine Disruption Exchange

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
TEDX - The Endocrine Disruption Exchange

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TEDX partners with scientists to support research and teaching, foster collaborations, and provide resources for...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We've spent the last three decades bringing you breakthrough research and education so you can make smart, healthy decisions. Learn more about us and the work we do to keep you and your family safe.

Who We Are Areas of Focus

We've spent the last three decades bringing you breakthrough research and education so you can make smart, healthy decisions. Learn more about us and the work we do to keep you and your family safe.

Who We Are Areas of Focus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've spent the last three decades bringing you breakthrough research and education so you can make smart, healthy decisions. Learn more about us and the work we do to keep you and your family safe. Who We Are Areas of Focus We've spent the last three decades bringing you breakthrough research and education so you can make smart, healthy decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Not able to attend an in-person workshop? You can access our professional development anytime and anywhere through our online courses.

About Our Online Workshops

PLT currently offers several online courses:

These online workshops are self-paced courses composed of several 20-30 minute learning experiences, called "coursels." Each coursel has been designed using best practices in online learning and teacher professional development (review The 5+ Guiding Principles of Teacher Professional Development for more information). They prepare educators to integrate environmental education materials into their instruction.

Each online course provides a high-quality professional development experience.

Focus on learning outcomes important to today's educators

Authentic tasks and project-based learning, including modeling activities and lesson planning

Easy-to-use content focused on planning and preparation

Connections to resources such as relevant online tools, supplemental content, and local and state resources

Videos of educators modeling PLT activities and tips for how to adapt activities for your students and context

Interactive simulations demonstrating key concepts in PLT activities (available in the K-8 online workshop)

Interaction with the instructor, with clearly articulated expectations for completing the course

Is Online Learning for You?

PLT's online courses are designed for educators who are comfortable with self-directed learning. Each online course can be accessed whenever and wherever you are with an internet connection. A basic knowledge of computers and web browsers is useful to be successful.

Learn More!

Watch this video slide show A Closer Look at PLT's Online Workshops: What's included, and how to get started.

For a sneak peek into PLT's newest curriculum online, check out this Introduction to PLT's E-Units for Grades K-2, 3-5, and 6-8.

And here are screenshots from our Early Childhood, K-8, and GreenSchools courses to give you a flavor of the online training experience:

Learn more about our online professional development and for detailed information regarding each of our online workshops, visit shop.plt.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not able to attend an in-person workshop? You can access our professional development anytime and anywhere through our online courses. PLT currently offers several online courses: These online workshops are self-paced courses composed of several 20-30 minute learning experiences, called "coursels."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Communities directly affect pollutant emissions as populations increase and citizens engage in activities like driving cars. Common outdoor air pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This measure encompasses both point and nonpoint source emissions.

# data[].attributes.headline
United States - Maps - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

# data[].attributes.subject
United States - Maps - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
United States - Maps - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This entry focuses on the number of births per woman in a population. The most commonly used metric is the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) - or often simply 'fertility rate' - which measures the average number of children per woman.¹

The global average fertility rate is around 2.3 children per woman today. Over the last 50 years the global fertility rate has halved. And over the course of the modernization of societies the number of children per woman decreases very substantially. In the pre-modern era fertility rates of 4.5 to 7 children per woman were common. At that time the very high mortality at a young age kept population growth low. As health improves and the mortality in the population decreases we typically saw accelerated population growth. This rapid population growth then comes to an end as the fertility rate declines and approaches 2 children per woman.²

The first section of the entry presents the global empirical perspective on the number of children per woman. The long second section presents the academic research that answers the question why the number of children per woman declined. Particularly important are 1) the empowerment of women in society and in relationships - through education, labor force participation, and strengthened women's rights - and 2) the increased well-being and status of children.

All our interactive charts on Fertility Rate

In the past people had many more children than today. The number fluctuated over time and there were some differences between countries, but for much of our history, the average woman had at least five children, and often more. Two centuries ago this was true for the US, the UK, Russia, India, China and many other countries for which we have data.

The metric demographers use to measure offspring per parent is the Total Fertility Rate . The TFR is defined as the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if the woman were to experience the current age-specific fertility rates throughout her lifetime.³ It is a metric that captures the fertility rate in one particular year rather than over the life course of a generation of women - it is a period, not a cohort metric. [More information on the measurement you find the relevant section here].

From 1950 onwards we have very good data from the UN Population Division. The chart here shows the average across the world: the global Total Fertility Rate. Up to 1965 the average woman in the world had more than 5 children. Since then we have seen an unprecedented change. The number has halved. Globally, the average per woman is now below 2.5 children.

You can also add any country or world region to the chart here by clicking on ' Add country '.
Why has the global fertility rate fallen so rapidly?
We discuss in detail the reasons for this change in this section. In brief, the three major reasons are the empowerment of women ( increasing access to education and increasing labour market participation), declining child mortality, and a rising cost of bringing up children (to which the decline of child labor contributed).
What does declining global fertility mean for the population?
As a consequence of the declining global fertility rate, the global population growth rate has declined, from a peak of 2.3% per year in 1963 to less than 1% today. In our discussion on the global population rate, we explain that we are therefore in the transition to a new balance where rapid population change will come to an end.
"The big global demographic transition that the world entered more than two centuries ago is then coming to an end: This new equilibrium is different from the one in the past when it was the very high mortality that kept population growth in check. In the new balance it will be low fertility that keeps population changes small."

The previous chart shows the global average, the following chart shows the decline of fertility rates for all countries in the world from 1950 to today.
This chart is a bit unusual, but once you wrap your head around it, it reveals a lot of information.

If you look at the red line you see the countries of the world ordered descending by the fertility rate in the period between 1950 to 1955. Rwanda, Kenya, the Philippines and also other countries that are not labelled in this chart had a fertility rate higher than 7 children per woman. China had a fertility rate of just over 6 and India a fertility rate of just under 6. On the very right of the red line you see that in 1950-55 there was only one country in the world with a fertility rate below 2: tiny Luxembourg. The width given to each country in this chart corresponds to the share of that country's population in the total global population at that point in time - this is why China and India are so very wide. All countries in the world are plotted, but because the space is limited not all countries are labelled.

What we can see then is that in the 1950s, the world is clearly divided between countries with high and countries with low fertility rates. On the right-hand side of the chart we see countries where women have fewer than 3 children - in these countries the fertility rate had declined already in the decades before. As we will see below fertility rates were high in all countries in the distant past.

Looking at the orange line, you see that until 1975-80 some countries substantially reduced their fertility: China's fertility rate fell to 3 (this was largely before the introduction of the 'one child policy'). And other countries maintained very high fertility levels. In Yemen, the fertility rate was 8.9 children per woman in 1985. The global average was still close to 4 children per woman.

Since then the world has changed substantially. The blue line shows how. Globally, the fertility rate has fallen to below 2.5 children per woman and low fertility rates are the norm in most parts of the world: The huge majority of the world population - 80% - now live in countries with a fertility rate below 3 children per woman.⁴ On the other end of the spectrum there are a few countries - home to around 10% of the world population - where women on average have still more than 5 children.

We also see convergence in fertility rates: the countries that already had low fertility rates in the 1950s only slightly decreased fertility rates further, while many of the countries that had the highest fertility back then saw a rapid reduction of the number of children per woman.

Comparing the red, orange and blue lines also makes it possible to see the change in single countries: In Iran for example, the fertility rate in 1985 was 6.3 children per woman; today in 2022, women in Iran have a similar number of children as do women in the US or Sweden (1.7 children per woman). In Thailand (chart here), the fertility rate in 1950 was 6.3, in 1985 it was 2.5, and today it is 1.3 children per woman.

I have also made a second version of this chart where I included the projections for the 21st century. The UN expects global fertility to fall further in most countries so that the global fertility rate rate will be just below 2 children per woman by the end of the century.

The decline of the fertility rate is one of the most fundamental social changes that happened in human history. It is therefore especially surprising how very rapidly this transition can indeed happen.

This visualization shows the speed of the decline of fertility rates. It took Iran only 10 years for fertility to fall from more than 6 children per woman to fewer than 3 children per woman. China made this transition in 11 years - before the introduction of the one-child policy.

We also see from the chart that the speed with which countries can make the transition to low fertility rates has increased over time. In the 19th century it took the United Kingdom 95 years and the US 82 years to reduce fertility from more than 6 to less than 3.
This is a pattern that we see often in development: those countries that first experience social change take much longer for transitions than those who catch up later: Countries that were catching up increased life expectancy much faster, they reduced child mortality more quickly and were able to grow their incomes much more rapidly.

The UN data shown above only shows the change from 1950 onwards. By then the richest countries had already experienced substantial decreases of the fertility rate and it would be a mistake to believe that these countries did not see high fertility rates in the past.

This table shows fertility rates in Europe before 1790. Back then one woman gave on average birth to 4.5 to 6.2 children. The population of a society does not increase when every woman is replaced on average by two children. As the tables presents fertility rates when the population in these countries did not yet grow rapidly we can infer that on average 2.5 to 4.2 children died per woman.

Age of Marriage of Women and Marital Fertility in Europe before 1790⁵

Country or Region

Mean age at first marriage

Births per married women

Percentage never married

Total fertility rate

The following map shows the estimates published by Gapminder from the year 1541 onwards for countries where data is available. Fertility rates were estimated to be very high across the entire planet until very recently.

Here we show only data backed up with published estimates within the academic literature or United Nations Population Division. Gapminder also publishes long-run estimates for all countries - but stresses that these estimates come with high uncertainty. The full dataset can be found here.

The stacked area chart shows the number of births globally. In 1950, 97 million children were born, in 2022 the world saw 134 million births - these are around 367,000 births every day.

In addition to the total fertility rate a second commonly used measure is the birth rate. The birth rate is expressed as the annual number of births per 1,000 people in the population.

What explains the change in the number of children women have?

Women's empowerment, the increasing well-being and status of children, technological and economic changes, changing norms, and opportunities for family planning matter for the reduction of the total fertility rate that I documented above. Below I will review both the theoretical explanations of how each of these aspects impacted the number of children women have and also present the empirical research that investigates these explanations.

What makes precise accounting difficult is that the different explanations of declining fertility are not mutually exclusive. But my sense from reading the literature is that over the long-run the two first explanations - women's empowerment and the increasing well-being and status of children - have been the two most important factors in most places.

The level of education in a society - of women in particular - is one of the most important predictors for the number of children families have. Before I am looking at the data and the empirical evidence in the research literature that establishes why increasing education is leading to a declining number of children per woman we should ask why and how exactly women's education is linked to the choice about children. We should look at the theory.

The choice for having a child is a question of opportunity costs and education changes them
Much of the theoretical work in recent decades on how families decide how many children they want rests on the models of the economist Gary Becker.⁶ His framework models the demand for children in the way the demand for other goods in life are modeled, the demand for children is tied to the 'prize' of a child.

Prize, in this framework, is thought of as a much broader concept then just the monetary costs parents incur. It includes the direct costs of the child - much of which are monetary costs, such as the costs for childcare or schooling for example -, but it also includes the indirect costs such as the opportunity cost in time that is needed for pregnancy and upbringing of the child.

In many societies mothers spending more time with their children than fathers and so the opportunity costs in particular are mostly born on the mother's part.

In the framework of Becker it can be understood why improving the education of women leads women to want fewer children. It is because the opportunity costs of better educated women are higher that they are less likely to want a large number of children: Women who are better educated have to turn down more opportunities than women who are less well educated and so the 'prize' they have to pay for having children is higher.

These effects of education on the fertility rates - which can amplify the effect on women's opportunity costs - is the topic of the following section.
Positive feedback via the health of children
There is evidence, which we discuss in our entry on child mortality, that better education of mothers is having a positive impact on better health and lower mortality of the children. Further below I will review the evidence that lower child mortality in turn leads to a decrease of the total fertility rate. Taken together these two pieces of evidence suggest that better education of women reinforces the direct effect it has on fertility through an additional indirect effect via better child health.
Positive feedback via contraceptives
Education is also important for the knowledge and use of contraceptives and the ability of better educated women to reduce the gap between the desired and the actual number of children is an additional positive feedback effect by which better education reduces the number of children. Chicoine (2012) finds evidence for the importance of education in this regard.
Positive feedback via lower fertility
The shortest loop of positive feedback runs through fertility itself. Education is not only reducing fertility, lower fertility also allows for better education. Better education of women thereby reinforces itself, both within as well as across generations.
Evidence for this two-way reinforcing relationship can be found in the historical transition to lower fertility in Prussia which was studied by Becker, Cinnirella and Woessmann (2010).⁷

The effect that better education has on lower fertility can reinforce itself also over subsequent generations. As the fertility rate declines the education system faces smaller and smaller cohorts of school children for which it can better provide. And additionally parents with fewer children also have more opportunities to nurture and support each child. This is a kind of demographic dividend on education.
Better education makes it possible for social norms to change
In both historical and contemporary episodes of declining fertility researchers have found strong evidence that social norms are important in reducing the number of children that parents desire - I will present some of this evidence below. Education seems to be a key prerequisite for these changes to take hold.

Amartya Sen discusses this in his book 'Development As Freedom'⁸ with regard to India. He writes: "There is, in fact, much evidence that the sharp decline in fertility rates that has taken place in the more literate states in India has been much influenced by public discussion of the bad effects of high fertility rates especially on the lives of young women, and also on the community at large. If the view has emerged in, say, Kerala or Tamil Nadu that a happy family in the modern age is a small family, much discussion and debate have gone into the formation of these perspectives. Kerala now has a fertility rate of 1.7 (similar to that in Britain and France, and well below China's 1.9), and this has been achieved with no coercion, but mainly through the emergence of new values-a process in which political and social dialogues have played a major part. The high level of literacy of the Kerala population, especially female literacy, which is higher than that of every province of China, has greatly contributed to making such social and political dialogues possible (more on this in the next chapter)." In 2016 - 17 years after Sen wrote this paragraph - the fertility rate in Kerala is still 1.7 children per woman.

Empirical findings on the link between women's education and the number of children
A great number of studies confirms that higher education of women is associated with lower fertility. Studies look at this relationship on both the social and on the individual level. While some studies achieve to only show a statistical correlation, others also establish a causal relationship between rising education and a decreasing number of children.

I am discussing a series of these studies below, but to understand how women's education and the total fertility rate are related the visualization shows how these two aspects have changed over 6 decades. Each arrow in this plot shows for one country how the average number of children per woman (on the y-axis) and the years of education of women in the reproductive age (on the x-axis) have changed. It is possible to adjust the time slider below the chart and if you put start and end point to the same year you'll see a straightforward correlation.

What we see in the arrow-plot is that when women had on average fewer than 2 years of education back in the 1950s the fertility rate was between 5 and 8 children. Six decades later most women are much better educated and often have 8 or more years of education on average: As we would expect from the theory above this meant that they have much fewer children, where women have more than 8 years of education the fertility rate is less than 4 children per woman and mostly lower than 2.

You can select certain countries using the 'select countries' button in the top left - have a look at Iran: in 1950, when Iranian women had on average only a third of a year of schooling, they had on average 7 children. Sixty years later, in 2010, when Iranian women had on average 9 years of schooling they had on average 1.8 children (yes, women in Iran have today a similar number of children to women in the US).

In countries where women today still have only little access to education the fertility rates are still high. In Niger, the country with the highest reported fertility rate in 2010, women in the reproductive age had only 1.3 years of education on average. This is why, if you are concerned about population growth, you should be an advocate for giving women access to education.

Macro studies: Where women are better educated they tend to have fewer children
The correlation above is in line with what we should expect based on Becker's theory, but it is still a correlation only and far from conclusive evidence that there is a causal link between education and the number of children that women have.

Several studies go one stop further and are not only looking at two variables, but instead manage to additionally control for possibly confounding variables. These macro studies are often especially interesting because they can study historical changes where micro data - on individual families - is not available.

Becker, Cinnirella, and Woessmann (2013)⁹ study Prussia before the demographic transition in the 19th century and find that higher education of women is associated with lower fertility. After controlling for several other factors and after additionally employing instrumental-variable techniques the authors suggest that this relationship is indeed causal.

In another macro studies study that focuses on the decline of fertility rates in several countries over the period from 1870 to 2000 Fabrice Murtin (2013)⁠¹⁰ investigates empirically which drivers are associated with the reduction of the number of children per woman. The author also looks at changes in health and prosperity, but ultimately finds that it is improving education that is the 'main socioeconomic determinant of the demographic transition'. To give an indication of the effect size the author writes: "When average years of primary schooling grow from 0 to 6 years, fertility should decrease by about 40% to 80%." The two-variable-association of education and fertility rates in the arrow plot is in the same ballpark - countries in which women's education increased from close to 0 to around 6 years, experienced a decline of around 40%.

Micro studies: Women who are better educated tend to have fewer children
Micro studies are not aggregating the measured aspects on the societal level - such as the country level - and instead allow to track the circumstances and behaviors of individuals. This is particularly helpful in our question because it is so difficult to disentangle the causal relationship between fertility and education - while better education is possibly related to lower fertility, it would also be reasonable to expect that the other way around, lower fertility increases the opportunities for women to receive better education and that this is the reason we see a correlation.

Micro studies can shed light on these seemingly intractable problem, particularly when they are set up as randomized evaluations. Duflo, Kremer, and Dupas (2015)¹¹ conducted such a large randomized evaluation in western Kenya over a period of 7 years in which they found that subsidies to education decreased the rate of pregnancies in adolescent girls. Because we can study the effect of the policy intervention in this evaluation, we can see that the relation in question is not driven by an impact of the number of children on the education of women.

Luke Chicoine (2012)¹² studied the impact of another policy change, this time in Kenya, that lengthened primary school by one year from 1985 onwards and finds that the additional education of women lowered the number of children they had. The author emphasizes that the increased early use of modern contraceptives of better educated women was instrumental to make this reduction of fertility possible.

Brievora and Duflo (2004)¹³ studied the link between education and the number of children women want by investigating the impact of a school construction program in Indonesia between 1973 and 1978. The authors again find that a better education of women is associated with a lower number of children.

And in yet another careful micro-study, Osili and Long (2008)¹⁴ investigated the introduction of universal primary education in Nigeria and equally find that an increase of women's education by one year reduces early fertility by 0.26 births.

The evidence from these micro studies is exceptionally clear and suggests that increasing education for women is indeed leading to a decrease of the fertility rate.

And if we go beyond the country averages shown in the previous visualization we also see that within societies there is a strong correlation between women's education and the number of children they have. In this visualization I show the evidence for all the countries in the world where the fertility rate is still above 5 children per woman. In these countries too it is true that more highly educated women have substantially fewer children. Those mothers with secondary education have typically fewer than 5 and often fewer than 4 children. Those with higher tertiary education have always fewer than 4 and sometimes even fewer than 2 children. A substantial reason why the fertility rates in these countries are so very high is just that very few women actually have secondary or even tertiary education - as is shown in the column on the left in all countries more than 90% of women have no tertiary education.

The increasing labor force participation of women is a second aspect of women's rising empowerment in society and this change too tends to lead to a decline of the number of children that women have. This change is so closely linked to the rising education of women discussed before that it is indeed impossible to separate from that. A substantial part of the increased opportunities that better education offered were realized in the labor market and it can be argued that the best way to understand how education matters for fertility rates is to view it together with women's increasing labor force participation.

The theoretical argument for why women want fewer fewer children as their chances in the labor market are increasing can be explained with reference to the same framework proposed by Gary Becker that I laid out above: As women increasingly participate in the labour market their opportunity costs for having children are rising so that they seek to have fewer children.

There is again a two-way relationship: In addition to the reasons to expect that increasing labor force participation of women leads women to have fewer children, it is also obvious to consider that the reverse is true. And indeed there is strong evidence that the decline of fertility rates increased women's participation in the labor market, we review this evidence here. This two-way-relationship leads to a cycle which can enforce itself: As women decide to have fewer children and are increasingly participating in the labor market they have yet more reason to have fewer children.

Women's labor force participation increased for several reasons. Beginning with the industrialization, labor markets underwent historical changes which made the increasing labor force participation of women possible. In the poorer economies of the past the huge majority of workers were working in the agricultural sector. Work on the farms was physically extremely demanding and men had a strong comparative advantage in this labour market over women. With the shift away from agriculture towards manufacturing and services and an increasing importance of education due to technological change this comparative advantage of men was eroded and over the long-run the labour force participation of women increased.

The close link between economic growth, structural transformation, education, and population growth are the focus of the Unified Growth Theory. The link between the increasing demand for female labor, which increased the opportunity costs of fertility, and thereby lead to a falling number of children per woman are a key component of this literature.¹⁵

In addition to the technological changes from which women benefitted, women's rights activists successfully fought for the possibility for women to work in professions from which women were previously banned without good reasons and once were allowed to become teachers or doctors the opportunities in the labor market increased even more.

We review the reasons for the increasing labor force participation of women in this post.

Studies that explore the historical decline from high fertility rates in largely agrarian economies to low fertility rates in industrialized countries are published in the already mentioned literature on the Unified Growth Theory. The economist Oded Galdor, one of the leading authors in this field, provides an overview in his book that bears the name of the theory as the title.¹⁶

There is also more recent empirical evidence from developing countries that increasing labor force participation of women contributed to the decline of the fertility rate. Jensen (2012)¹⁷ investigated this by conducting a study in India where the researchers provided three years of recruiting help to young women in randomly selected villages. The intervention thereby exogenously increased the labor market opportunities of these women. The author found that in response, young women chose to either enter the labor market or obtained more education. Both of these decisions meant that they postponed having children and, crucially, they also reported to want fewer children.

In a scatter plot of today's labor force participation of women and the fertility rate we do not see a close correlation between the two measures however. Part of the explanation for this is that women's labor force participation is not only high in rich countries today, but also in poor countries - the relationship to income is U-shaped.

But if we look at the change over time then we see indeed that the fertility rate declined as the participation of women in the labor market increased. The chart here shows the average annual change in fertility and female labor force participation across the world, from 1960 to the most recent year. Despite some outliers and some clear differences by region, we can see that most countries are in the upper-left quadrant - that is, in most countries female labor force participation has gone up at the same time that fertility has gone down.

Since the burden of child-birth and mostly also of the upbringing of children is borne by women, it is not surprising that fertility rates tend to be high where women have a lower social status and few opportunities outside the household. It is only when greater importance is given to the interests of women that this changes. Women's better education and women's increased employment opportunities both changed the role of women in society and increased the social status of women in society. With more outside-options to having a large number of children women opted increasingly to take advantage of these options and consequentially the total fertility rate declined. This can lead to virtuous cycles since lower fertility rates give women the freedom to do things other than childbearing and this in turn leads to a decline of fertility rates.

The good thing about this is that these changes are desirable in their own right. This makes clear that one of the best strategies to achieve lower fertility rates is to work towards reducing gender inequality and supporting women's empowerment and a rise of women's power, status, and education relative to men.

Rapid population growth has been a temporary phenomenon in countries around the world. Rapid population growth starts when the health of the population improves and the mortality rate in a population decreases while the birth rate stays as high as before. Rapid population growth then comes to an end when after some time the birth rate follows the decline of the mortality rate. The model of the demographic transition formalizes this relationship between mortality, fertility, and population growth. Is the regularity of this co-movement of mortality and fertility rates just a coincidence?

The theoretical and empirical literature suggests that these changes regularly coincide with additional changes - such as those discussed above - and that the link is therefore partly driven by changes of third factors. But the literature additionally suggests that there is a important direct and causal effect of declining mortality - particularly of children - on the number of children parents are having. The sections below discuss first the theoretical reasoning and then the empirical evidence.

In an environment with high child mortality women will give birth to more children than they want to insure against the loss of children
The theoretical argument for the link between high mortality - particularly at a young age - and families' decisions for a certain number of births becomes understandable when one considers how families who want a certain number of children are forced to think in a high mortality environment. If parents have a certain target for a number of surviving children then the number of children the women gives birth to will need to be higher when the level of child mortality is higher.¹⁸ Two mechanisms are at work - none of which have a particular pleasant name in the demographic literature:¹⁹

"Child replacement": Parents that experience the death of a child might deliberately decide for an additional birth in order to "replace" a child that has died.

"Child hoarding": Demographers speak of hoarding when a family decides to have more births than their desired number of children in order to protect themselves against the possibility of future high mortality in the family.⁠ The motivation for 'hoarding' is best understood in contrast to the motivation for replacement. Replacement is the response to the experience of a child death while hoarding is the response to the expectation of child mortality. This thinking becomes understandable when one considers that in pre-modern societies more than one third of all children die before they are five years old.

Of these two effects only hoarding can explain why a decline of fertility follows a decline of child mortality in the way it is described by the model of the demographic transition. As child mortality decreases, parents gradually learn that the risk of child death is decrease and see that hoarding is not needed anymore. Finally in the absence of child mortality parents can decide directly the number of children that they want. Consistent with the model of the demographic transition there might be a time lag between declining mortality and declining fertility as parents will only in retrospect learn that the environment has changed and the risk of child death is declining.

Empirical findings on the relationship between child mortality and the number of children
Some empirical research studies the link in question on the aggregate level, and we will turn to this below, but there is also research that studies decisions at the household level and asks whether there is evidence for the two mechanisms laid out above.

There are a number of publications that find evidence for child replacement. A recent one is the study by Reher et al. (2017)²⁰ which studies European countries through the demographic transition. And there is also empirical evidence for child hoarding: Raaj Say (1991)²¹ and Sebnem Kalemli-Ozcan (2003)²² both find evidence for the importance of hoarding and therefore for the reduction of child mortality rates as a driver of decreasing fertility rates.

Several macro studies look at the relationship and provide evidence:
Luis Angeles (2010)²³ investigates the relationship in a large set of developed and developing countries from 1960 onwards and finds a large effect. Crucially the author finds a lag of about 10 years for the decline of child mortality to translate into declining fertility.
Palloni and Rafalimanana (1999)²⁴ investigate the effect of declining child mortality on fertility in Latin American countries between 1920 and 1990 and while they find that lower child mortality leads to lower fertility rates the authors caution that this effect "may be too small to support the hypothesis that changes in child mortality are of more than modest importance in the process of fertility decline in Latin America in the late twentieth century".

In this visualization, we can see correlation that we expect. Countries with high child mortality rates tend to have much higher fertility rates, while countries with low child mortality rates experience lower fertility rates. All countries in which the child mortality rate is higher than 9% have fertility rates around or higher than 4 children per woman.

When you press the 'play'-button in the bottom left of the chart you can see how these demographic aspects changed over time: Countries start out in the top-right corner when children die frequently and women give birth often. But as child health improves and fewer children die we see in country after country that the fertility rate falls and countries move into the bottom left corner of the chart. Consistent with the explanation of hoarding we see that women do not immediately reduce the number of birth and only after a lag of some years will the fertility rate adjust to the lower mortality rate.

An aspect emphasized already is that the high number of children in the past is not an accident. Families wanted many children because they needed many children.

In the agricultural, poor economies of the past children were contributing to the household productively from a young age on. Child labour was very common as we show in our entry on child labor.

This changed when the economy modernized. Hazan and Berdugo (2002)²⁵ document that with technological progress and the structural change of the economy away from agriculture children's wages were falling relative to the wage adults and argue that this declining importance of child labor contributed to the decrease in the number of children that parents want.
Technological changes were closely tied to political changes and indeed economic and technological development, with the shift from a low tech to a high tech economy, amplified the changing moral perspective on child labour and contributed to a decreasing employment and thereby to a declining demand for children.

Döpke (2004)²⁶ studies how government policies affected the decline of the fertility rate and finds that the increasing restrictions for child labor in particular were crucial because they increased the opportunity costs of having children as parents did not benefit from the child's contribution to the household. The fact that restrictions in child labor had an effect on fertility rates is also strongly suggesting that indeed the importance of child labor before was an important incentive for the high number of children parents had before.
Döpke also argues that child labor restrictions and public provision of education were crucial for the rapid growth of the East Asian economies. These government policies were important for the reduction of the number of children per woman and the fast economic growth in the region.

In today's rich economies children have vastly more education than in the poor agrarian economies of the past. The basic argument for why the increase of education contributed to the decline of fertility rates derives again from the seminal work of Becker (1960) who argued that because of the costs of bringing up a child parents have to make a decision between the number of children they want (quantity) and the resources they want to spend on each child (quality). Limited resource force parents to decide to either have many children - but then have few resources (time & money) available for each child - or to have fewer children and then to be able to have more resources available for each child. This tradeoff is described in the literature as parents' choice between the "quantity" or the "quality" of their children.²⁷

The argument in a nutshell is that educating children is very costly and since parents have limited resources the increasing costs of having children forced them to have fewer children.

Lower child mortality increases the incentives to invest more resources into children

A first extension of the argument linking fertility rates and children's education explains that this association is partly driven by the decline of child mortality. The model developed by Soares (2005),²⁸ argues that declining child mortality changes parents incentive in the quantity-quality-tradeoff described above. In the high mortality environment of the past, investments in the education of children had low returns since there was a high risk that the child does not survive. Parents therefore did not want to spend resources in educating children who are at a high risk of premature death and therefore might not benefit from that education. With little incentive into the uncertain future of their children, parents instead hoped to maximize the contribution from children to the household by increasing the quantity of children.

Falling child mortality then changed the incentives of the quantity-quality-tradeoff: The reductions in mortality - of children in particular, but over the life course more generally - increased the incentive for parents to invest in the education of their children ('quality') and with limited resources to spend on education they are thereby compelled to give up the goal of maximizing the number of children ('quantity'). Lower child mortality increases the incentives to invest more resources into each child and with limited resources parents therefore chose to have fewer children
Technological and structural change increased the importance of education
Falling mortality of children is of course not the only reason why children in societies with better living conditions are better educated.
Technological change killed many of the low-skill, routine tasks that kept our ancestors busy and meant that workers in a modern economy need a much higher level of education. The economic change driven by technological improvements meant that the returns to education increased and these in turn increased the incentives to invest in the education rather than the number of children, as Becker, Murphy, and Tamura (1990) argue.²⁹ This tilted the quantity-quality tradeoff yet further away from a high number of children.

Conclusion on education
Rich societies moved far away from their past after more than a century of this development. Today children are an economic drain rather rather than an asset. This is essentially because in the modern high-skilled economy we require a massive investment in education over many years that only pays off with a long delay. With respect to child labor and children's education technological change powerfully changed the status of children.

The rising investments of parents in their children do not only have monetary costs. Additionally the rising importance of children could have increased the time and effort of parents in raising their children.

We have no empirical data that could give us an idea of how parents' effort and time investment in their children changed since the 18th or 19th century. And so we have to resort to qualitative assessments here. The social historians Alter and Clark write³⁰ about the view in their profession "Most historians agree that attitudes about children changed by the nineteenth century. Europeans developed a more romantic view of childhood and of domestic life in general. Educational theorists like Froebel and Pestalozzi emphasized that early childhood is a special time in which play stimulates learning. Women were expected to stay at home to create a refuge for children from the competition and conflict of the world of work."

And while we lack data on how much time parents spent with their children, the much higher working hours in the past make it reasonable to believe that parents had less time with their children and over the course of modernization the parents' time investment increased. For the period since 1960 Gauthier et al (2004)³¹ document that the time parents spend with children increased substantially in a sample of 16 industrialized countries for which they examined the data.

In popular accounts, it is often argued that in the past and in poor economies parents aim for a large number of children as they will depend on them for support in old age. This argument cannot have played a large role before the onset of the demographic transition as the stagnation of population growth implies that on average only two children will reach the reproductive age.

But even for the time thereafter and more generally there is surprisingly little evidence for this argument given how well it is known. In reviewing the literature Bloom and Luca (2016)³² conclude that "the empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis is surprisingly scarce."

In a study in Indonesia Cameron and Cobb-Clark (2001)³³ find only very limited importance of the transfers of children to their parents and emphasize that instead the elderly are mostly relying on their own labor income even at an old age.

During the period of the demographic transition when mortality was low and fertility high however there is some evidence for the importance of children for old-age support from the US where Sundstrom and David (1988)³⁴ documented the importance of children for the old-age support of the parents before the civil war.

Also Billari and Galasso (2009)³⁵ examine the effect of a pension reform in the 1990s in Italy and find evidence that pensions and children are to some extent substitutes when it comes to support in old age.

Overall however the demand for children arising out of a need for support in old age is likely to be less important than other factors examined here.

The following plot shows the close relation between the income level (measured by GDP per capita) and the total fertility rate. Shown are not just country averages of the fertility rate and income, the visualization is also showing the within-country inequality. Each population is split into 5 quintiles, from the poorest 20% to the richest 20%. Unfortunately there is no data available to do this perfectly and I had to combine income and wealth data to approximate the relationship: The fertility rate by the wealth quintile in each country is plotted against the respective income quintile in each country. The match is imperfect because I am assuming that each household is in the same income and wealth quintile and this is only an approximation of reality.

The reflex of many economists when thinking about the fertility rate is to point to income as the likely determinant. And sure enough, between countries and over time we see that higher incomes are associated with lower fertility. But good things come together - richer countries are also healthier and better educated - and so this correlation between high incomes and low fertility alone is surely not evidence that it is increasing income that is responsible for the decrease in fertility.

In fact we have already explored several third factors. Most obviously, a higher level of education of a population is a factor that contributes to higher prosperity and a lower number of children. And a second set of changes - technological change, lower child labour, and the structural change of the economy - comes along with economic growth and lowers the demand of parents for children, as we have seen.

But still there might also be a direct effect of increasing prosperity on the declining demand for children. Higher incomes make different, more varied lifestyles possible, which might convince prospective parents to have fewer or no children. With respect to the increasing prosperity in Europe over the last century the historians George Alter and Gregory Clark write:³⁶ "New products and new lifestyles in the growing metropolitan societies created by the Industrial Revolution expanded choices. Wealthy families responded by consuming more of these new products and services instead of producing children."

The correlation that we see in this visualization is therefore partly driven by a direct link between income and the number of children parents want, but to a large extent also by changes that correlate with prosperity and fertility rates.

The change of fertility are a prime example for changing social norms. In many places around the world the practice of having more than 5, 6, 7, or 8 children, which was the norm for millennia, was replaced by the norm of having 2 children or fewer.

We have explored socio-economic and technological changes that contributed to the declining rate of fertility, but there is also evidence for the importance of cultural changes which had a direct impact on how this norm changed.

The influences on social norms are hard to study as social changes can be rarely separated into causes and consequences. But sometimes there are possibilities to investigate how social norms change. A number of researchers looked at the effect of new media becoming available:

Television is not only providing entertainment, it also exposes the viewers to very different ways of life. For rural, poor, illiterate populations television is the primary way to be informed about the ways of life of people that live very differently. The lives depicted in television shows are in stark contrast to the reality back home. They are often in urban settings and feature female characters with higher education that work outside the household and who have smaller families

The researchers La Ferrara, Chong, and Duryea (2012)³⁷ studied the impact of television on the fertility rate in Brazil. Brazil has their own format of soap operas called 'telenovelas' which are hugely popular in the country.
The authors focus on the 8pm telenovelas of Globo - Brazil's largest network - which are watched by the "vast majority of the Brazilian population" according to the authors. They analyzed 115 novelas aired by Globo between 1965 and 1999 and found that 72% of the main female characters (age 50 and lower) had no children at all, 21% had only one child, so that only 7% had more than one child. These are much fewer children than the average in Brazil over the same time: The fertility rate in 1965 was 5.7 children per woman and fell to 2.4 in 1999.

The researchers were able to identify the effect of the telenovelas as the TV network was only gradually expanded through the country. The entry in each new area allowed the researchers to study the impact of television again and again.

After controlling for socio-economic variables the authors find that the exposure to coverage by Globo is associated with a decrease in the probability of giving birth of 0.5 percentage points, which is 5 percent of the mean. To put this in perspective the authors explain that this size of the effect corresponds to that of an increase of women's education by 1.6 years.

This effect was strongest for the poorer, less educated women for which the difference to the lifestyles shown on TV is largest.

To illustrate the direct impact of telenovelas on norms the authors also study how the names parents give to their children change and found that the names of the telenovela's main characters increased in popularity.

Similarly, Jensen and Oster (2009)³⁸ studied the effect of the introduction of cable television on women's status in rural India. They find that getting access to cable TV "leads to approximately a 3.7-percentage-point decrease in the likelihood of pregnancy", a small but not negligible effect.

And for the US, Kearney and Levine (2015)³⁹ similarly reported in the American Economic Review that the MTV show "16 and pregnant" led to a 4.3 percent reduction in teen births.

All these effects are not large when compared to the very substantial reductions of the number of births per woman over the long run. But it should be kept in mind that these studies look at very isolated aspects of how social norms have changed and as such they already indicate just how important social norms and information about different life styles are parents' decision on the number of children they want.

The role of social norms in lowering the fertility rate might not be only at work in poorer world regions today, but might have actually contributed to the decline of the fertility rate of the countries which first underwent the demographic transition.

The decline of the fertility rate started in France earlier than in other countries. Even countries where the populations were richer and more educated at the time had a higher fertility rate than the French population.⁴⁰ This scatterplot shows that by 1870 the fertility rate in France was much lower than in countries in which the population was better educated.

The fact that France was the first European region in which women started to have fewer children is shown in the map. All of the European regions that experienced a 10% decline of the fertility rate were in France.
But the claim is not only that France was special in first experiencing this decline, but also the origin of social norms that lead to declines elsewhere. An indication for the cultural diffusion of social norms originating in France is the empirical finding that language barriers mattered for the timing of the decline of the total fertility rate.

Alter and Clark⁴¹ summarize several findings of this research which support this claim: "In Spain, for example, regional differences in fertility followed the boundaries between areas that spoke dialects of Spanish or different languages, such as Basque or Catalan (Leasure, 1963). In France fertility decline was later in Breton-speaking départements. Belgium, divided into Flemish- and French-speaking regions, shows most clearly the importance of linguistic borders. Lesthaeghe (1977) studied seventy Walloon villages matched to neighboring Flemish villages with identical economic conditions. Fertility fell first in the Walloon village in sixty-two of the pairs, and the fertility decline began twenty years earlier on average in the Walloon village (Lesthaeghe, 1977). Flemish couples in the city of Leuven were more likely to have small families if a migrant from Wallonia lived nearby (Van Bavel, 2004)."

Ron J. Lesthaeghe⁴² has suggested that the cultural change towards lower numbers of children might not only be due to socio-economic changes, but might have been also driven by the spread of Enlightenment ideas and the simultaneous turning away from the pro-natalist doctrines of the Christian religion in Europe. Alter and Clark write "Enlightenment ideas about reason and humankind's role in nature, as well as opposition to religious authorities, made birth control within marriage ethically and socially acceptable."

Earliest date of a 10% decrease in fertility in Europe⁴³

Many religious teachings are asking the believers to have a large number of children. The Christian Bible for example teaches to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it".⁴⁴

This visualization shows the children per woman plotted against the share of children that die in the first 5 years of life. Each country here is colored according to the largest religious group in that country. The obvious relationship here is that in countries where more children survive, fertility is lower. Which religion dominates in a country has no clear relation to the fertility level - and even if does have some importance the correlation is much weaker than that with the health of children. Countries with a majority Christian population have fertility rates as high as 6.2 (DR Congo) and as low as 1.4 (Portugal) children per woman. Across countries fertility rates vary within and not between religions.

And what is true between countries is even more obvious for the change over time. Religious background cannot explain the rapid change in the level of fertility that we saw. Explanations that refer to the cultural background of a population regularly run into this problem that they can hardly explain the very fast socio-economic changes over time. Despite the ascribed values of a particular religion we have seen changes that are at odds with these: In Catholic Italy the fertility declined from 2.6 in 1966 to 1.2 at its lowest rate in 1997, and in Muslim Iran the fertility declined from 6.6 children per woman in 1982 to 1.8 in 2005!

As it is so often the case with explanations for social phenomena, the importance of culture is easily overestimated.

While the big differences between countries today and changes over time are not determined by religion it would be wrong to say that religion has no importance for the number of children women have.⁴⁵ There is evidence that, everything else being equal, religious people have more children, so that religion matters for differences at the same socio-economic level. Still, the differences between religions within the same country are much smaller than the differences between different countries in different socio-economic conditions. We can see how much more living conditions matter than the religion.

And then there have been some small highly religious sub-populations in which religious teaching had a very substantial effect on fertility rates. The highest total fertility rate that I found for any population in human history was for the Hutterites - a group of Christians with origins in Tyrol - where, in the early twentieth century, married Hutterite women in North America had on average 10.4 children.⁴⁶

Family planning refers to all active efforts to choose the number of children a woman or family wants. While the changes discussed before changed the incentives for having a larger or smaller number of children, family planning is focussed on the decision making and implementation of that decision on the personal level.

Family planning involves the use of contraception as well as counseling by experts.

Why family planning is highly important today is to consider the share of pregnancies that are unwanted. The number of pregnancies that are unintended is very high. For the year 2012 - the last year for which we have data - it is estimated⁴⁷ that 85 million pregnancies were unwanted. These are 40 percent of all 213 million pregnancies in that year.

Of these 85 million pregnancies 50 percent ended in abortion, 13 percent ended in miscarriage, and 38 percent resulted in an unplanned birth. This means that 32 million children are born unplanned every year.

A second way of looking at this is to study the discrepancy between the wanted fertility rate and the actual fertility rate:

Access to family planning and safe and confidential access to modern methods of contraception can reduce the number of unintended births.

Women's empowerment and the increased status of children reduce the number of children that parents want. But a goal of lower fertility is irrelevant if there are no means to achieve it. Methods of contraception give parents the chance to get the actual fertility closer to their desired fertility.

Today there is a range of methods of contraception available which are referred to as "modern methods":⁴⁸

oral hormonal pills,

the intra-uterine device (IUD),

the male condom,

injectables,

the implant (including Norplant),

vaginal barrier methods,

female and male sterilization,

the female condom

and emergency contraception.

This map shows where women have access to these methods.

Better education of women matters again as research shows that better education can increase the understanding and acceptance of contraceptive methods and the ability to use contraception effectively.⁴⁹ In a study of the decline of the fertility rate in Bangladesh van Ginneken and Razzaque (2003)⁵⁰ find that "of the several demand factors (indicators of socio-economic status) studied, women's education has the largest impact on the fertility decline." and more concretely that "a very important role in the fertility decline is played by changes in attitudes towards feasibility and acceptability of birth control."

Martha Bailey (2010)⁵¹ studied the timing of legal access to birth control across US states and finds that the availability of the Pill substantially accelerated the post-1960 decline in marital fertility. Based on her analysis Bailey argues 40 percent - or even more - of the total change in the marital fertility rate in the decade between 1955 and 1965 can be attributed to the availability of the Pill. And again, this driver of lower fertility rates is complementing other factors discussed above that contributed to lower fertility rates. Goldin and Katz (2002) argue that the availability of modern contraceptive methods contributed to the increased opportunities of women.⁵²

With the development of low-cost, safe methods of contraception have become more widely available in recent decades. But as the map shows there is still a substantial unmet need for contraception in many parts of the world. The share of married women of reproductive age who do not want to become pregnant but are not using contraception is higher than 20% in many parts of the world. If one takes into account which substantial impact the availability of modern contraceptive methods had in many parts of the world it seems likely that meeting this "unmet need" is a promising way to further decrease the rate of unintended pregnancies.

In this chart we see the relationship between fertility rates and the use of contraception. This is shown as the average children per woman versus contraception prevalence (based on the use of any method of contraception). Here we see a negative relationship: in countries where contraception use is low, the number of children per woman is higher. As contraception becomes more widely used, the number of children per woman declines.

We can also see this when we compare the unmet need for contraception with fertility rates: the average children per woman is high where the unmet need for contraception is also high.

Joshi and Schultz (2013)⁵³ analyze the impact of a family planning program that was implemented in Matlab, Bangladesh in 1977. The authors find that villages that were part of the program experienced an additional decline of fertility by about 17%. This effect persisted for at least two decades and additional positive effects on the health and nutritional status of the children.

Family planning advice surely can work as the impressive case of Iran shows, in 1982 Iran had a fertility rate of 6.6 children per woman and only 2 decades later - after this and that advice - the fertility rate was down below 2 children per woman.

A common claim-and one originated by the Chinese Government-is that China's one-child policy has prevented approximately 400 million Chinese births. The view of many has been that this policy shaped a population age structure that contributed to economic growth (through the effect of the " demographic dividend ") and even contributed to global efforts to address climate change. But was the policy necessary to drive down fertility?

But is it really? The chart shows fertility in China since 1945. The striking decline and rebound of fertility around 1960 is due to the Great Leap Forward famine. But otherwise fertility in China was over 5 and even as high as 7 children per woman in the 1950s and 60s. Then, fertility started to decline - and as we see from the chart this decline started in 1970, long before the introduction of the one-child-policy. China promoted family planning policy in the 1960s and 70s, but the one-child policy was phased in between 1978 and 1980. By the time of the introduction of the one-child-policy, fertility in China had already more than halved. The huge reduction in fertility happened irrespective of the one-child-policy. Until 1980 child mortality - which we saw is an important determinant of fertility - had already halved from 12% (in 1969) to 6%.

In 2013 the researchers Wang Feng, Yong Cai, and Baochang Gu examined what China's fertility rate would have been in the absence of the one-child policy.⁵⁴

Using data from countries that had a similar birth rate to China's in 1970, they compared the trajectories of change in those countries with that of China. The study found that "in other countries without a one-child policy the birth rate also declined, and it declined below the level predicted for China." Additionally, the researchers estimated what China's fertility would have been without the one-child policy by using the UN's 2011 population projection model. The results showed that China's fertility rate, which was already on a rapid decline in 1970, would have continued to decline after 1980 and by 2010 "fertility would have fallen to its currently observed level." The continuation of the decline is due to the continuations of improving living conditions in China over this period.

Also shown in the chart is the evolution of fertility in Taiwan. Taiwan - which is claimed by China as part of China - never introduced a one-child-policy. Yet, Taiwan experienced the same decline that China did. From around 7 children per woman to fewer than two. Today the fertility in Taiwan is even lower than in China. In fact the fertility is close to 1 child per woman - just the aim that China had and never reached despite this being the planned outcome of the Chinese government. The point here is that economic and social development is truly important and ultimately what influences women's decision about how many children they want to have.

We have already seen that as a country develops - child mortality declines and incomes grow - the fertility declines rapidly.

The demographers Mikko Myrskylä, Hans-Peter Kohler & Francesco Billari studied what happens at very high levels of development. To measure development they relied on the Human Development Index - a measure published by the UN that combines with equal weight indicators of a country's health, material living standards and level of education.

In their study - published in Nature in 2009⁵⁵ - they found "a fundamental change in the well-established negative relationship between fertility and development as the global population entered the twenty-first century."

This visualization shows their finding. Again, we can see the strong negative association between a country's level of development and the fertility level. But at very high levels of development-HDI over 0.85 or even 0.9-this association is reversed. While causality cannot be established in this relationship, it is evident that after a given point, higher development is associated with increasing fertility. Not only do the authors show this relationship cross-sectionally, but also over time: after reaching the lowest Total Fertility Rate at HDI values between 0.85 and 0.9, fertility then increases again as countries advanced to the highest development levels.

It is a finding with important consequences. The authors note that this reversal "has the potential to slow the rates of population aging, thereby ameliorating the social and economic problems that have been associated with the emergence and persistence of very low fertility".

For an interactive version of this visualization, see here.

The relationship between fertility and HDI through time (1980, 2000, 2014)⁵⁶

Data Quality & Definition

The number of births in a population is measured in different period and cohort measures:

The total fertility rate (TFR)⁵⁷

- or simply Fertility Rate - is defined as the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if:

1. The woman were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and

2. The woman were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life.

It is expressed as children per woman.

The definition of the crude birth rate (CBR) - or simply birth rate - is "the number of live births occurring among the population of a given geographical area during a given year, per 1,000 mid-year total population of the given geographical area during the same year".⁵⁸

The age-specific fertility rate (ASFR) "measures the annual number of births to women of a specified age or age group per 1,000 women in that age group."⁵⁹

The net reproduction rate (NRR) is defined as "the average number of daughters a hypothetical cohort of women would have at the end of their reproductive period if they were subject during their whole lives to the fertility rates and the mortality rates of a given period. It is expressed as number of daughters per woman".⁶⁰

Civil registration systems register vital events - births, deaths, fetal deaths, marriages and divorces - for governments. As such they are a key source for vital statistics and fertility measures. As the following map shows the civil registration coverage of births is incomplete in many countries in Africa and Asia.

A second aspect about country level data of fertility to keep in mind is that there can be considerable heterogeneity within countries, which are hidden in the mean fertility which were discussed in this entry. The mean Total Fertility Rate for India in 2010 was 2.6 ( UN Data): But this average hides the fact that the fertility in many Southern Indian regions was below 1.5 (which is similar to the mean fertility in many European countries), while the fertility in Northern India was still higher than 5 children per woman (which is as high as the mean of the African countries with the highest fertility).
⁶¹

Data: Number of annual births, the Crude Birth Rate (CBR), Total fertility (TFR), Net Reproduction Rate (NRR) among other measures.

Geographical coverage: The entire world - countries and world regions.

Time span: From 1950 onwards.

Available at: Online here

The League of Nations records are available via Northwestern University and these records include population figures, birth rates, and death rates. They are available by world region and country (a global total is missing however).

Data: The data is detailed and includes Data fertility rates (by age (ASFR), cohort and period) and mean ages at childbearing.

Geographical coverage: More than 70 countries

Time span: Mostly the 2nd half of the 20th century although data for the 1st half of the century is available for some countries

Available at: Human Fertility Database and Human Fertility data website

Data: Birth rates

Geographical coverage: Various countries around the world

Time span: From 1750 onwards

Available at: Published in three volumes covering more than 5000 pages.

⁶²
At some universities you can access the online version of the books where data tables can be downloaded as ePDFs and Excel files. The online access is here.

These statistics - originally published under the editorial leadership of Brian Mitchell (since 1983) - are a collection of data sets taken from many primary sources, including both official national and international abstracts dating back to 1750.

Data: The total fertility rate

Geographical coverage: Data is available for a great number of countries.

Time span: Data goes back to 1800

Available at: The data documentation and the spreadsheets available for download can be found here.

The documentation includes a discussion of the quality of the available Data fertility.

Data: Total fertility rate and on the crude birth rate

Geographical coverage: Entire world, by country and world region

Time span: Data is available only for the last decades.

Available at: Data for total fertility rate is here, and data for crude birth rate is here.

Data: Fertility and related data.

Geographical coverage: More than 90 countries - here is the list of countries.

Time span: Data is available from the early 1990s onwards

Available at: Online here

For the time preceding the DHS data timeframe the World Fertility Survey is available at Princeton University here.

The UN's World Fertility Report 2012 is online here. The Eurostat website 'Statistics Explained' publishes up-to-date statistical information on fertility here. For a comparison of the latest available data of different data sets, see Wikipedia here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This entry focuses on the number of births per woman in a population. The most commonly used metric is the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) - or often simply 'fertility rate' - which measures the average number of children per woman.1 The global average fertility rate is around 2.3 children per woman today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earth and environmental science classes are changing. Long perceived as low-level courses with little to engage or challenge students, they are becoming vital, rich, invigorating courses. As more humans recognize ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the tragedy of the commons game, students act as fishermen and simultaneously decide how many hours to fish. A fisherman's catch depends on the number of hours he fishes and the total number of hours fished by all. The more the group fishes, the more the available stock of fish diminishes and the fewer fish one can catch each hour.

Teach students about common pool resources and how self-interested use can cause harm to others (by creating negative externalities) and result in a tragedy of the commons. Explore how regulations, such as taxes or subsidies, can mitigate the over-use of natural resources.

In this game, the fishery returns to full health after each period, so the societal cost of overfishing is borne in the current period: the overall level of fishing this period determines the returns from an hour fishing. For a game where over-exploitation of a common-pool resource this period reduces future ability to benefit from a common-pool resource, see MobLab&rsqup;s Commons: Fishery game.

References

1. Ostrom, Elinor. "Tragedy of the Commons." The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2008).

2. Adams, William M., Dan Brockington, Jane Dyson, and Bhaskar Vira. "Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool resources." Science 302, no. 5652 (2003): 1915-1916.

3. Related Course Guides:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the tragedy of the commons game, students act as fishermen and simultaneously decide how many hours to fish. A fisherman's catch depends on the number of hours he fishes and the total number of hours fished by all. The more the group fishes, the more the available stock of fish diminishes and the fewer ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The CLEAN Collection is a high-quality and rigorously reviewed collection of climate and energy educational resources aligned with the Climate Literacy and Energy Literacy frameworks, and the Next Generation Science Standards.

Through peer-review, scientists and educators ensure scientific accuracy, pedagogic effectiveness, and classroom readiness for each resource.

Explore the Collection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
teach the earth incorporating societal issues climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NGSS & CLEAN at a Glance " The CLEAN Collection is a high-quality and rigorously reviewed collection of climate and energy educational resources aligned with the Climate Literacy and Energy Literacy ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Satisfy your curiosity with the Australian Academy of Science-verified by Australia's top scientists, it's content you can trust.

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools: Highlights from the 2018Honerees (PDF)

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools: Highlights from the 2018Honerees (PDF)

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The aim of U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools (ED-GRS) is to inspire schools, districts, and institutions of higher education (IHEs) to strive for 21st-century excellence by highlighting promising school sustainability practices and resources that all can employ. To that end, the award recognizes schools, districts, and IHEs that:

1. reduce environmental impact and costs;

2. improve the health and wellness of schools, students, and staff; and

3. provide effective environmental and sustainability education

Combined progress in ALL three of these areas, known as Pillars, serves as the basis for recognition.

This award conveys no ED funding to states, districts, schools, or IHEs. ED has limited authorities in the areas of school facilities and grounds, health, and curriculum. Most policies and practices in these areas fall within the purview of state and local education authorities. Thus, this school sustainability initiative is a well-intended federal communications and outreach tool structured as a recognition award. It is not a certification or tracking program, though some states may choose to connect it to existing state-based certification programs.

The award uses a small number of honorees each year to communicate practices and resources that all schools can employ. To this end, ED-GRS launched Green Strides, an effort to connect all schools with the resources these honorees are using in the three 'Pillars' of the award. Annual Highlights Reports detail honorees' replicable practices. Social media and newsletters share resources and practices in the areas of school facilities, health, and environment. An annual Green Strides Tour brings further attention to the honorees and their practices.

Another key function of the award is helping to facilitate state and local collaboration around school facilities, health, and environmental education. States are asked to show ED how their nominees are progressing in all three Pillars and encouraged to work with partners to develop their selection process. How each state does that is entirely up to the individual state. There is no required federal application.

Honored schools, school districts, and IHEs are announced each spring. The selectees are invited to a fall ceremony in Washington, D.C. where they receive a sustainable plaque; are the subject of media attention; and feel their efforts celebrated. Other schools, in turn, learn about and adopt their practices. States are encouraged to offer additional state recognition titles and events, and to partner with private sector to offer cash prizes, amplifying the impact of their award implementation.

What's New

Note: Schools, districts, colleges and universities do not apply for the award to ED, but to their state education authorities.

ED's award is called "U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools" and has "District Sustainability Award" and "Postsecondary Sustainability Award" categories. "Green Ribbon Schools" without the "U.S. Department of Education" is not ED's award, but instead is a separate program overseen by another organization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
awards; educational innovation; excellence in education; recognition (achievement); school effectiveness;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An overview of U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools (ED-GRS) a recognition award for schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions that save energy, reduce costs, feature environmentally sustainable learning spaces, protect health, foster wellness, and offer environmental education to boost academic achievement and community engagement.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ohio DNR Division of Mineral Resources Management

# data[].attributes.subject
Ohio DNR Division of Mineral Resources Management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Natural Resources Conservation Service is the Federal agency that works in partnership with the American people to conserve and sustain natural resources on private lands.

# data[].attributes.body
EPA curriculum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roads create a grid-like pattern on the landscape in a remote section of Argentina's Mendoza Province. This area has an arid climate and receives anywhere from 4 to 20 inches (100-500 mm) of precipitation per year. These conditions cause much of the soil to be dry and reddish, as shown in this Overview.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Habitable Planet - Online Textbook PDFs

# data[].attributes.subject
The Habitable Planet - Online Textbook PDFs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Habitable Planet - Online Textbook PDFs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The online textbook provides a background to understand and discuss the natural functioning of the different Earth systems; it introduces humans as part of the overall ecosystem and explores what is needed to sustain human life; and it looks at the effects that human actions have on different natural systems. The online textbook also includes full-color images of related figures, glossary terms, and a bibliography for further reading.

# data[].attributes.headline
High School Science Essential Curriculum - Environmental Science

# data[].attributes.subject
High School Science Essential Curriculum - Environmental Science

# data[].attributes.headline
Dougherty, Mr. | Science / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE: Course Content & Syllabus

# data[].attributes.subject
Dougherty, Mr. | Science / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE: Course Content & Syllabus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dougherty, Mr. | Science / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE: Course Content & Syllabus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
with an empirical approach. In this class there will be an emphasis on hands-on activities and laboratory exercises that will promote problem solving, refine laboratory procedure, and reinforcereading, writing and math skills. In this course students will be involved in outdoor field studies and will be encouraged and rewarded for the exploration of personal avenues of interest in science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Declare is a targeted way to connect with future customers. We offer an expanded point-of-entry into groundbreaking regenerative projects and a powerful platform to connect with consumers. Benefits of Declare:

Visibility
Declare serves a dedicated market of highly-visible:
* Living Building Challenge projects
* Architecture firms
* Corporations
* Municipalities

These groups use the Declare Database and Living Building Challenge Red list to make specification decisions.

Transparency
Consumers value transparency. Declare is a tool to show customers that your product is one that they can trust.

The tiring materials specification process just became much easier. We offer a free resource to help you make product selections. The Declare Database is:

Transparent
By offering a platform for public disclosure that surpasses any other materials label, Declare rises above the greenwash and enables a deep connection between suppliers and consumers.

Simple
Declare takes complex chemical analysis and raw material source location information and provides it to consumers in an easy-to-use nutrition label.

Free
Spreading the use of healthy materials is important to us. The Declare Database is free for everyone.

ILFI has partnered with Toxnot to provide a more robust material reporting platform and streamlined Declare product submission process. Declare manufacturers can create a dynamic bill of materials for a product, contact suppliers, link supplier and testing data, screen product materials against multiple chemical of concern lists, contact ILFI for feedback on product applications, and seamlessly submit products for Declare through Toxnot.
Learn more about Toxnot
Declare has been approved as a compliance pathway for the LEED v4 Building Product Disclosure and Optimization Credit, Option 1. The LEED v4 credit calls for the chemical inventory of a product to at least 1000ppm; Declare labels that achieve a declaration status of "Red List Free" or "Declared" fulfill the credit disclosure requirements.

Additionally, any fully disclosed "LBC Compliant" label and any "LBC Compliant" label using the I10-E4 Proprietary Ingredients Exception, with a minimum disclosure threshold of 99.9%, meets the LEED v4 Building Product Disclosure and Optimization Credit, Option 1 reporting requirements.
Learn more about using Declare Labels for USGBC's LEED v4 Material Ingredients Credit, Option 1.
The Red List contains the worst in class materials prevalent in the building industry.

The commonly-used chemicals on the Red List are:

polluting the environment

bio-accumulating up the food chain until they reach toxic concentrations

harming construction and factory workers

+ Learn More about the Red List
To meet the increasing demands for transparent building materials in international markets, the Institute has partnered with capacity-building organizations to provide outreach and support to international markets. The Declare International Partner program provides local resources and expertise, along with label translation services, to manufacturers and suppliers in select markets:

The International Living Future Institute has collaborated with approved third-party assessors to provide manufacturers with the opportunity for third-party verification of Declare label claims. This optional program offers an additional level of confidence and risk mitigation through the review of all ingredients, supply chain information, and Declare label claims.

Interested in receiving third-party verification? Contact one of the Institute's approved assessors:

The Declare license is valid for a 12-month period. After this period manufacturers pay a renewal fee and either confirm that the information contained within the Product Declaration Form has not changed or submit a new form.

To support the growth and continued improvement of the Declare program the tiered pricing structure has been updated as of January 1, 2017. We continue to offer three pricing tiers.
Additional Details:

Renewal pricing will remain at 1/2 the price of a new label.

Manufacturers wishing to submit a product with 5 or more manufacturing locations may take advantage of bulk label pricing. To qualify for bulk pricing, all 5+ manufacturing locations must be submitted with the original application. Only additional labels for the same product are eligible for bulk label pricing. The first label for the product will be charged the full fee, with subsequent chemically identical labels charged 1/2 the fee. All renewals will be calculated per the standard renewal rate.

All renewals must be submitted or requested within 30 days of the label expiration date to secure renewal pricing. Renewal requests submitted later than 30 days past expiration will be subject to the full label fee.

All labels that are not resubmitted or renewed within 30 days will be removed from the database.

Label updates requested or processed after the manufacturer has approved the draft label and the label has been published will be subject to a label redraft fee. Any changes to product chemistry will require the resubmission of the product and will be held to the full new label fee.

Manufacturers that successfully remove proprietary ingredients or Red List chemicals from their product in order to move to a higher Declaration Status will receive label updates free of charge. Any changes in product chemistry or supply chain that result in a higher Declaration status will be offered free of charge, this includes a fee waiver for one additional new label for optional product offerings when the original label must remain in place. Updates must be submitted within the original Declare label cycle.

50% of the above fees if there are no changes to the product

100% of the above fees if changes have been made

Changes to product formulation invalidate the Declare label and require the manufacturer to resubmit documentation and pay another product license fee. The fee is waived if the change is to remove a Red List ingredient.
View the following forms before registering + Declare Terms & Conditions Ready to submit your product to Declare? Access to Declare tools through Toxnot requires an ILFI Premium Membership.
Do you still have questions about Declare? Take a look at our Frequently Asked Questions page to see if we can help clarify any points.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Declare is a targeted way to connect with future customers. We offer an expanded point-of-entry into groundbreaking regenerative projects and a powerful platform to connect with consumers. Benefits of Declare: Visibility Declare serves a dedicated market of highly-visible: * Living Building Challenge projects * Architecture firms * Corporations * Municipalities These groups use the Declare Database and Living Building Challenge Red list to make specification decisions.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Young Island on Earth May Reveal Clues to How Water Shaped Mars - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.subject
A Young Island on Earth May Reveal Clues to How Water Shaped Mars - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NASA has closely studied the island, created four years ago by a volcanic eruption in the Pacific. Recently, one of its scientists was able to travel there to take on-the-ground measurements.

An aerial view of the new island in the Pacific. Credit Credit By Jay Amster Via Sea Education Association | Sea Semester

Four years ago, an underwater volcano erupted in the South Pacific, creating a new island. And NASA took notice.

The island's evolution could hold clues to how water might have shaped similar features on Mars billions of years ago, NASA officials believed, so the space agency began collecting satellite photos to track how the elements were carving and clawing away at the land.

The images yielded insights into how the island was eroding, but the story they told was limited. NASA could wring more information from those photographs with measurements taken from the ground, but James Garvin, the chief scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., could not justify the cost of sending a team. Then an opportunity presented itself.

Image

Birds soar over the beach of a four-year-old island, with the much-older Hunga Ha'apai island in the background. Credit Dan Slayback

The Sea Education Association, a study abroad program, was planning to take a group of college students and faculty and staff members to the island, and NASA was welcome to hitch a ride.

Dr. Garvin jumped at the chance, sending along Dan Slayback, a research scientist for NASA who had been working on the effort to track the island's progression.

Dr. Slayback sailed on that trip last fall, finding an island of black rock that was, to his surprise, also teeming with life.

"It was very dramatic," he said. "Just beautifully dramatic."

The island, part of Tonga, is about 500 acres in size and about 1,300 miles northeast of New Zealand. It has not yet been named, but is unofficially referred to as Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai, a combination of the names of the two older, uninhabited islands it sits between. (A land bridge connects all three.)

Its most prominent features are a turquoise lake and a croissant-shaped ridge - the remnants of a cone made from hardened ash - that stretches about 400 feet high and about a mile across, Dr. Slayback said.

After spending years staring at satellite photographs of the island, he was overwhelmed to finally see the breathtaking landscape up close in early October. He was also eager to get to work.

People walking along the coast of the new island. Credit Credit By Jay Amster Via Sea Education Association | Sea Semester

The satellite photos reveal how the island has eroded over time, but their level of detail is limited without three-dimensional points of reference as context. So, with the help of the students, Dr. Slayback roamed the island with a finely tuned GPS device, recording the location of various features visible in the photographs with an accuracy of a few inches.

Those measurements will allow the NASA team to refine the models it had created and more narrowly track erosion going forward, Dr. Garvin said.

"Instead of a map with a resolution the size of a chair that you'd sit at your desk in, we have a map of the topography, the three-dimensionality, of this new island that's good to the size of a few fingers," he said.

With those finer models, scientists can better compare the changing shape of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai to volcanic shapes and erosion patterns on Mars to better understand the degree to which water was present there and the role it might have played in shaping the landscape.

Beach morning glories growing on the island created four years ago by the eruption of an underwater volcano. Credit Dan Slayback

In addition to helping Dr. Slayback with the measurements, the students and faculty collected rock samples and documented the vegetation growing on the island. They were also surprised to find a thriving bird population.

"The number of birds, the number of bird eggs, the number of baby chicks was astounding," Rachel Scudder, the chief scientist for the Sea Education Association, said. "There were places where we could not actually get up to the wall of the caldera for fear of stepping on baby chicks."

The birds included nesting sooty terns and at least one barn owl, Dr. Slayback said. The group also found grass and beach morning glories sprouting from soil-like patches on the island's otherwise barren, rocky surface.

They came across signs of human life, too: Garbage was strewn about parts of the island. Most was likely churned up last year by Tropical Cyclone Gita, though some of the trash might have been left behind by visitors from nearby islands, according to Jeffrey Wescott, an anthropology professor with the program. The students filled and removed about a dozen bags of trash, most of it plastic bottles.

Therese Ohman and Cutter Thompson, students on a study abroad program, removed trash found on the island. Credit via Sea Education Association

The volcanic eruption that birthed the island occurred in December 2014, sending ash as high as 30,000 feet into the air and disrupting flights. The island was formed in part when that ash fell back to earth and hardened after mixing with warm water, Dr. Garvin said.

When the island was created, the NASA team thought it might not survive much longer than a decade. (That was part of the reason it could not justify sending a team there.) Now, after sampling rocks from the island, visiting it and watching it weather the elements, the team expects it to remain for anywhere from a few decades to hundreds of years.

"Right now, things look good," Dr. Garvin said. "The island may be cementing itself."

Niraj Chokshi is a general assignment reporter based in New York. Before joining The Times in 2016, he covered state governments for The Washington Post. He has also worked at The Atlantic, National Journal and The Recorder, in San Francisco. @nirajc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Young Island on Earth May Reveal Clues to How Water Shaped Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASA has closely studied the island, created four years ago by a volcanic eruption in the Pacific. Recently, one of its scientists was able to travel there to take on-the-ground measurements. Four years ago, an underwater volcano erupted in the South Pacific, creating a new island. And NASA took notice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Movies Archives - The Story of Stuff Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Story of Stuff, originally released in December 2007, is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By converting our sims to HTML5, we make them seamlessly available across platforms and devices. Whether you have laptops, iPads, chromebooks, or BYOD, your favorite PhET sims are always right at your fingertips.Become part of our mission today, and transform the learning experiences of students everywhere!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Numerous simulations and animations can be found on the Internet to illustrate key principles. Perhaps the easiest way to locate these resources is enter the name of the concept and the term "animation" when performing a search. For example, mitosis and animation.

Best Simulation sties

Simulations & Animations

Animation Directories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Numerous simulations and animations can be found on the Internet to illustrate key principles. Perhaps the easiest way to locate these resources is enter the name of the concept and the term "animation" when performing a search. For example, mitosis and animation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Administers the Ohio Environmental Education Fund and Clean Diesel School Bus grant and an environmental science and engineering scholarship program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We often talk about leaving the world a better place for our children. But our kids are not standing idly by while we wonder how to clean up the mess we've made. Energetic, adept with technology, and enthusiastic to create change, kids already have the tools to become stewards of the planet's ecological health. And they are ready to start now.

Meanwhile, part of our job, as parents and educators and mentors, is to groom our kids to shape the world they want to know. But depending on their age, the tactics will need to vary. Experts from the Green School in Bali, Indonesia, an international school for students from preschool through grade 12 nestled in the jungle, and Antioch University New England, weigh in on raising the next generation of environmental activists.

Take Them Outside

Environmental awareness starts when you take your kids blueberry picking or fishing or allow them to collect twigs to kindle your campfire. "Early life experiences in the wild lead to a lifetime love of nature," says David Sobel, codirector of the Center for Place-based Education at Antioch University New England and the author of several books on childhood and nature. Studies show that most environmental activists attribute their ecological values to both time spent outdoors as a child and to an adult who taught them respect for nature.

Sobel strongly encourages parents to allow their kids to take advantage of available green space. Picnic in the park. Collect flowers. Hike through the woods. Strike up a conversation about growing crops and caring for livestock with a vendor at your local farmers' market. With older kids, who tend to be less interested in exploring the world with their parents, look for after-school programs that offer ample outdoor time, or recreational groups they can join to bike, surf, or orienteer in the company of their peers.

Exploring nature in your backyard or neighborhood park is fundamental to inspiring a future environmentalist, way before tackling conversations about the fate of planet earth. "Too often we see parents talk about their own environmental anxiety, like ice caps melting or mosquito-borne diseases spreading, but they jump over basic access to wild nature and allowing kids to love the outdoors," Sobel says. "That's counterproductive."

Enlist the Little Ones' Help with the Cat or the Basil

Kids have a natural sense of empathy, notes Glenn Chickering, the head of Green School's middle and upper school. As a result, they're inclined to treat animals and plants with respect and compassion. To build on this instinct, invite your kids to help take care of a pet, your houseplants, or a sidewalk sapling. Work with them to grow a favorite fruit or vegetable in the garden or on a windowsill or to attract bees and butterflies to the yard. Tasks like these set kids up to grow up feeling a responsibility to protect and care not just for nature in their own realm but also for the wildlife and wild places they might never see.

Explore Problems-and Solutions-with Your Tween

Around fourth and fifth grade, a child's sense of the world expands. They're ready to discuss the human impact on nature and to investigate what's harming our environment.

"At that stage of life, children want to understand how, for example, building a farm or a city or a golf course might impact animals," Chickering says. "But they also want to find solutions. They want to know who's working on a problem, and they want to help." So, for example, if you take your kid to the beach and notice bleached coral, you might start by researching the threats to reefs, then work together to find an organization dedicated to helping them and look into how you can get involved. It's important to make kids feel empowered early on, Chickering adds.

Give your tween an easy win by auditing your own home and habits together. Strategize together a way your household can reduce waste and use less fossil fuels. You can also get crafty with your recycling efforts, to encourage kids to be more aware of our disposable culture. At Green School, for example, fifth-graders have saved natural resources by creating a neck pillow from recycled material, a notebook from the blank pages of previously discarded notebooks, and a bamboo skateboard.

Seek Out Volunteer Science Projects

There are plenty of opportunities for older kids to get involved in neighborhood conservation efforts, whether that's through helping with trail maintenance, ecological restoration, or the control of invasive plant species. Many regional and national organizations also offer opportunities to get involved in broader efforts, such as the National Park Service's Youth Conservation Corp.

Citizen science projects, where members of the public help collect environmental data that support a scientific study, also offer great opportunities for kids to get involved. Some may even tap into a teenager's passion for, say, surfing-as with an ocean acidification project in San Diego run by the Scripps Institute-or photography, as with projects like Nature Groupie 's effort to photograph vernal pools in New Hampshire.

Encourage Big Thinking

Of course, some kids are ready to change the world even before we grown-ups are ready to let them. But as their parents and teachers, it's our job to encourage their passions. You can find inspiration by checking out child-led projects at Young Voices for the Planet.

A set of sisters who attend the Green School successfully campaigned to rid Bali of plastic bags, a goal they set upon when they were 10 and 12, respectively. They started with a petition to ban plastic bags and set a goal of collecting one million signatures. A combination of perseverance, naiveté, and charm got them in the door of the manager of Bali's airport, who authorized them to collect signatures behind customs and immigration. After a year and a half of requests to meet with Bali's governor, Mangku Pastika, he finally agreed and then vowed to make the island plastic-bag free.

"We have learned that kids can do anything," Melati Wijsen said of the campaign in a 2015 TED talk she gave with her sister. "We can make things happen....Kids have a boundless energy and a motivation to be the change the world needs."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We often talk about leaving the world a better place for our children. But our kids are not standing idly by while we wonder how to clean up the mess we've made. Energetic, adept with technology, and enthusiastic to create change, kids already have the tools to become stewards of the planet's ecological health.

# data[].attributes.body
Environmental Education for Appalachia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rural Action's Environmental Education program connects students and teachers in Appalachian Ohio with outdoor learning opportunities.
We collaborate with schools to meet science, language arts, math, and social studies standards through environmental education.

The Environmental Education team helps young people develop a sense of place and gives them tools to make informed decisions about their natural resources. Our programs introduce students to academic and professional paths related to natural resources. We offer:

Environmental education workshops for educators, including our annual Inquiry Conference.

Summer day camps - the longer summer days spent in the creeks with the crawdads and salamanders

Southeast Ohio Young Naturalists Club: next events are February 19th and March 18th, 2017

Environmental education programs for schools, tied closely to academic standards

Youth Climate Action Team, an environmental leadership program led by Rural Action and Camp Oty'Okwa

Birds in the Hills, a family fun festival May 5-7, 2017. Listen to our podcasts from last year.

Ecotours like our Birds, Bikes, and Brews Tour

Internship and volunteer opportunities

Environmental Education Staff

Joe Brehm | Environmental Education Program Director: My obsession with the outdoors started when my dad took my brothers and me for walks through the woods near my childhood home near Zanesville when we were old enough to walk. We tracked deer, raccoons, foxes, and learned to be comfortable outside.

My first formal study of the natural world began with a butterfly monitoring project, where I learned just how many different kinds of wildflowers, insects, and trees Ohio harbors. I have spent countless hours since then studying and exploring wilderness areas both large and small. While hiking or walking virtually anywhere, I make frequent and abrupt stops to inspect animal tracks, scat, birds, vernal pools, etc.

I earned a Bachelor's degree in Anthropology from the University of Montana, and went on to earn my Master's of Science in Environmental Studies at Ohio University. I have coordinated Rural Action's long-standing Environmental Education program since May of 2010 and thoroughly enjoy sharing my passion for the natural world with others. We strive to connect students, teachers, and community members with outdoor classrooms in the region and the hands-on learning opportunities they offer.

The Ohio Stream Restore Corps Three members of the Ohio Stream Restore Corps-Rural Action's AmeriCorps program -serve in Environmental Education each year, bringing a unique set of skills and expanding the reach of the program.

Funders + Sponsors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rural Action's Environmental Education program connects students and teachers in Appalachian Ohio with outdoor learning opportunities. We collaborate with schools to meet science, language arts, math, and social studies standards through environmental education. The Environmental Education team helps young people develop a sense of place and gives them tools to make informed decisions about their natural resources.

# data[].attributes.headline
National Environmental Education Week | NEEF

# data[].attributes.subject
National Environmental Education Week | NEEF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NEEF invites you to join us in the nation's largest celebration of environmental education as we get set for the 14th annual National Environmental Education Week (EE Week). Each year, NEEF partners with educators, students, government agencies, businesses, communities, nonprofit organizations, and others to inspire environmental learning and encourage stewardship of our essential resources: land, air, and water.

# data[].attributes.headline
Environmental Education in Wisconsin - Environmental Science Activities

# data[].attributes.subject
Environmental Education in Wisconsin - Environmental Science Activities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental Education in Wisconsin - Environmental Science Activities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These activities have been supplied by Wisconsin educators. For a more comprehensive list of resources related to this topic (websites, videos, books) download the Wisconsin Environmental Science Digital Resource Library.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Administers the Ohio Environmental Education Fund and Clean Diesel School Bus grant and an environmental science and engineering scholarship program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is soil made of? Why is it important? And how can we nurture soil for the benefit of humans and our ecosystems? Learn about soil with the help of Soil 101, a 2015 animation from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. More from their site:

Healthy soils are the foundation of the food system. Our soils are the basis for agriculture and the medium in which nearly all food-producing plants grow. Healthy soils produce healthy crops that in turn nourish people and animals. Indeed, soil quality is directly linked to food quality and quantity.

Soils supply the essential nutrients, water, oxygen and root support that our food-producing plants need to grow and flourish. They also serve as a buffer to protect delicate plant roots from drastic fluctuations in temperature.

A healthy soil is a living, dynamic ecosystem, teeming with microscopic and larger organisms that perform many vital functions including converting dead and decaying matter as well as minerals to plant nutrients (nutrient cycling); controlling plant disease, insect and weed pests; improving soil structure with positive effects for soil water and nutrient holding capacity, and ultimately improving crop production. A healthy soil also contributes to mitigating climate change by maintaining or increasing its carbon content.

How can you be the solution to soil pollution? Reduce, reuse, recycle, and more. This video summarizes seven simple ways to help:

Watch Soil Life in Action: Bioturbation with and without soil fauna next.

Additional related videos include Inside the Compost Cycle: Turning waste to nutrient-rich soil, Vermicomposting: How worms can reduce our waste, and Transforming Human Poop Into Eco-Friendly Fertilizer.

Plus: Growing kidney bean & spinach plants, soil cross-section time lapses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Soil 101 from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about soil with the help of Soil 101, a 2015 animation from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bear Cam - live from Brooks Falls in Katmai National Park | Explore.org

# data[].attributes.subject
Bear Cam - live from Brooks Falls in Katmai National Park | Explore.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bear Cam - live from Brooks Falls in Katmai National Park | Explore.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Watch LIVE as hundreds of Alaskan Brown Bears descend on a mile-long stretch of the Brooks River to feast on the largest Sockeye Salmon run in the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Monitor our planet's vital signs, such as sea level height, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and Antarctic ozone. Trace the movement of water around the globe using the gravity map from NASA's GRACE satellites. Spot volcanic eruptions and forest fires using the carbon monoxide vital sign. Check out the hottest and coldest locations on Earth with the global surface temperature map.

"Eyes on the Earth" displays the location of all of NASA's operating Earth-observing missions in real time and lets you compare them in size to a scientist or a school bus. Get a sneak peek at upcoming missions and learn how NASA is planning to study our Earth in the future.

With the "Latest Events" feature, you can explore geo-located satellite images of recent Earth events, including algal blooms, super storms and wildfires.

Credits

Producers:
Kevin Hussey, Randal Jackson and Michael Greene

Technical Director:
Kevin Hussey

Software Engineers:
Kristine Nguyen, Davit Stepanyan, Kit Petrie, Stephen Hurley, Charles Mattei, Anton Kulikov, Viet (Jon) Nguyen, Erik Boettcher, Clay Hooker and Clement Shimizu (The Elumenati)

3D Art Director:
Brian Kumanchik

3D Artists:
Brian Kumanchik, Matthew Garcia and Christian Lopez

Science Data Processing:
Charles Thompson, Jeff Hall and Shigeru Suzuki

Information Architects:
Justin Moore, Andrea Boeck and Bergen Moore (Moore Boeck) and Randal Jackson

Artistic Designers:
Justin Moore and Andrea Boeck (Moore Boeck)

Researchers and Technical Writers:
Randal Jackson, Amber Jenkins, Laura Faye Tenenbaum, Holly Shaftel, Jason Craig and Doug Ellison

Copyright 2016, by the California Institute of Technology. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. United States Government Sponsorship acknowledged. Any commercial use must be negotiated with the Office of Technology Transfer at the California Institute of Technology.

This software is subject to U.S. export control laws and regulations and has been classified as EAR99. By accepting this software, the user agrees to comply with all applicable U.S. export laws and regulations. User has the responsibility to obtain export licenses, or other export authority as may be required before exporting such information to foreign countries or providing access to foreign persons.

Omnity spherical display capabilities provided by The Elumenati.

Constellation segments provided by Stellarium.

ZLib compression technology provided by ComponentAce under the following license:

Copyright (c) 2006-2007, ComponentAce
http://www.componentace.com
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of ComponentAce nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Monitor our planet's vital signs, such as sea level height, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and Antarctic ozone. Trace the movement of water around the globe using the gravity map from NASA's GRACE satellites. Spot volcanic eruptions and forest fires using the carbon monoxide vital sign.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rainforest Action Network - Fighting for People and Planet

# data[].attributes.subject
Rainforest Action Network - Fighting for People and Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rainforest Action Network - Fighting for People and Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rainforest Action Network preserves forests, protects the climate and upholds human rights by challenging corporate power and systemic injustice through frontline partnerships and strategic campaigns.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ohio DNR Forestry: Project Learning Tree

# data[].attributes.subject
Ohio DNR Forestry: Project Learning Tree

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An ecological deficit occurs when the Ecological Footprint of a population exceeds the biocapacity of the area available to that population. A national ecological deficit means that the nation is importing biocapacity through trade, liquidating national ecological assets or emitting carbon dioxide w…

# data[].attributes.headline
Classroom Activities – Earth Overshoot Day

# data[].attributes.subject
Classroom Activities – Earth Overshoot Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Footprint Calculator: Measure your own Ecological Footprint with an online Footprint calculator (desktop computer required, available in several languages). The calculator tells you how many Earths would be required if everyone on the planet lived like you, and then suggests ways to reduce your Ecological Footprint. footprintcalculator.org

Footprint Drawing: Suggest ways to reduce your Ecological Footprint in a drawing like the one by the seventh grader at left.

Footprint Futures: Global Footprint Network's university-levelcurriculum. www.footprintnetwork.org/2016/05/01/footprint-futures

Tasty Leftovers: Create a sandwich with leftovers. If you are in Italy, take a picture and win: foodrightnow.it/la-tua-ricetta-contro-lo-spreco

Create your own activity: Email us at socialmedia@footprintnetwork.org to tell us what you will do about your Ecological Footprint.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Footprint Calculator: Measure your own Ecological Footprint with an online Footprint calculator (desktop computer required, available in several languages). The calculator tells you how many Earths would be required if everyone on the planet lived like you, and then suggests ways to reduce your Ecological Footprint.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global Footprint Network is a research organization that is changing how the world manages its natural resources and responds to climate change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Home .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform

# data[].attributes.subject
Home .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Featured

"SDG Acceleration Actions" are initiatives voluntarily undertaken by countries and other stakeholders to contribute to a speeded up implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Learn more

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we are offering more webinars and online learning opportunities for stakeholders and the public. Learn more

Scientists, experts and policy makers addressing the Covid-19 crisis around the world. Updates and analysis from experts belonging to the 10-Member Group to support the Technology Facilitation Mechanism and the Independent Group of Scientists for the Global Sustainable Development Report. Learn more

Latest News

Upcoming Events

Sustainable Development Goals

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the world's best plan to build a better world for people and our planet by 2030. Adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, the SDGs are a call for action by all countries - poor, rich and middle-income - to promote prosperity while protecting the environment. They recognize that ending poverty must go hand-in-hand with strategies that build economic growth and address a range of social needs including education, health, equality and job opportunities, while tackling climate change and working to preserve our ocean and forests.

The Division for Sustainable Development Goals (DSDG) in the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) provides substantive support and capacity-building for the SDGs and their related thematic issues, including water, energy, climate, oceans, urbanization, transport, science and technology, the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), partnerships and Small Island Developing States. DSDG plays a key role in the evaluation of UN systemwide implementation of the 2030 Agenda and on advocacy and outreach activities relating to the SDGs.

Click here to learn more about the SDGs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
December 2022 - You are accessing an archived version of our website. This website is no longer maintained or updated. The Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform has been migrated here: https://sdgs.un.org/

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Awesome Biodiversity Infographics - SavingSpecies

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Awesome Biodiversity Infographics - SavingSpecies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is the nature of science? How can forms of reasoning in science offer leverage in understanding the world in which we live? What cognitive challenges do we need to overcome in order to develop deep and scientific views of the world?

# data[].attributes.headline
7 Rs for sustainable fashion | TreeHugger

# data[].attributes.subject
7 Rs for sustainable fashion | TreeHugger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Public Domain Unsplash

Use these recommendations to create a wardrobe that feels as great as it looks.
Is building a more sustainable wardrobe one of your goals for 2019? Perhaps you want to get away from buying fast fashion and start investing in higher quality pieces that fit you perfectly. If so, you should become familiar with the 7 Rs for sustainable fashion.

While the following concepts are likely familiar to anyone who's done reading on this topic, I love the way it is presented by Kelly Drennan, founding executive director of Toronto-based Fashion Takes Action. Drennan wrote an article on this topic last year and said,

"Most of us can easily list off the 3 Rs - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - as they've been part of school curriculum for over three decades now, but our global fashion consumption problem is so off the charts, it's time for a few more Rs - Research, Repurpose, Repair & Rent!"

What follows is the 7 Rs, along with a mix of Drennan's and my recommendations for sources that can you help you explore each of these Rs. Be patient and work at incorporating these into your wardrobe gradually.

1. Reduce

The most important concept on this list is to buy less. This leads to less clutter in our closets. We can see what we own and take better care of it. We are more likely to wear the pieces we have because they don't get forgotten. Drennan writes, "Try shopping for VALUE instead of COST. Investment pieces that can be worn through the seasons for many years have a cost per wear that makes them more inexpensive than fast fashion!"

2. Reuse

Wear your own clothes for longer and learn how to wash them properly to extend their life. Be an #OutfitRepeater. Host a clothing swap with friends or use a bartering app. Buy clothes second-hand when you need them, either at thrift, vintage or consignment stores, or using online sites like Poshmark, ThredUp, and The Real Real.

3. Recycle

I used to think that I could only donate clothes in wearable condition, but Drennan advises donating everything to thrift stores, regardless of its state. She explains why:

"The fact is, EVERYTHING can go into the bins. That's right. Even your holey-toed socks, underwear and stained linens. Not because there is a market to resell these items, but because there is a market to recycle them. And while that market might be small, we have the power to make it great."

The idea is that, by inundating thrifters with recyclable textiles, the industry and government will be forced to come up with better solutions as quickly as possible. Some recycling technologies do exist, but there hasn't been enough investment yet to help them grow significantly.

4. Research

When you have to buy something new, take time to research and compare brands' standards for production. Many brands share this information on their websites, but a careful reading will reveal whether or not it's true or just greenwashing. See if they mention specific factory locations, adhere to respectable certifications, and pay fair wages to workers. Read reviews on repairability and durability. Companies like Everlane and Patagonia do a great job at being transparent about production. You can find lots of other great fashion providers that have been profiled on TreeHugger over the years. Visit the sustainable fashion category.

5. Repurpose

Get creative with your old clothing. We live in the Pinterest era where ideas for old fabric uses abound. "Unused or ripped leather can be turned into clutches, bags and totes. T-shirts can be repurposed into totes, pillow cases, necklaces, and even braided carpets! Old wool sweater scraps can be mixed with new wool roving and made into wool dryer balls," Drennan says.

Look, too, for brands that sell repurposed clothing. You can find these in person at makers' markets and artisanal shows. If you're buying outdoor gear, check out the mainstream retailers that are selling repurposed pieces at reduced prices. The Renewal Workshop is one great business leading this effort.

6. Repair

Always try to repair your clothing and shoes before deciding to throw them out. This is a big problem with fast fashion. Because the pieces are so cheap, it's hardly worth the cost to repair, nor can the shoddy construction withstand a repair job, so many people don't bother. It's a good reason to opt for higher quality clothing.

Develop a relationship with local tailors and cobblers, or learn how to do repairs yourself. Dust off the sewing machine, take a class, and start experimenting.

7. Rent

The clothing rental market is one of 3 trends in sustainable fashion that Triple Pundit says to watch for in 2019. I believe it! Lately I've been seeing all kinds of mentions of rental businesses and fashion libraries across North America and Europe. This notion is not really that far removed from other things that we rent in our society these days, like housing and transportation.

3P's article offers a staggering quote from Tulerie's website, a fashion rental app launched last year:

"The average garment should be worn at a minimum 30 times, even though most can withstand 200 wears.... How do we fulfill our adoration for the fashion industry and stand behind the necessary eco-conscious movement? Closet sharing."

Check out Rent the Runway, Tulerie, Boro, Fresh Fashion Library, Mia Bella (for babies), Kleiderei, Lena, Le Tote (to name a few). See: These clever companies offer clothes on a subscription basis for more info.

Use these recommendations to create a wardrobe that feels as great as it looks.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Use these recommendations to create a wardrobe that feels as great as it looks. Is building a more sustainable wardrobe one of your goals for 2019? Perhaps you want to get away from buying fast fashion and start investing in higher quality pieces that fit you perfectly.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cartoons Ecology Biology Environment Wildlife Nature

# data[].attributes.subject
Cartoons Ecology Biology Environment Wildlife Nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cartoons Ecology Biology Environment Wildlife Nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ANIMAL CARTOONS NATURE CARTOONS ENVIRONMENT CARTOONS CLIMATE CARTOONS GLOBAL WARMING CARTOONS POLLUTION CARTOONS

# data[].attributes.headline
Econ Rules » Documentary: The Lightbulb Conspiracy

# data[].attributes.subject
Econ Rules » Documentary: The Lightbulb Conspiracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Light Bulb Conspiracy is a documentary by Cosima Dannoritzer about the lightbulb industry and how firms in the industry have colluded to create planned obsolescence in their products. The success of the companies involved has led to planned obsolescence becoming a strategy many firms, industries and economies today. The idea made it into the mainstream during the Great Depression of the 1930s, as it helped countries pull themselves out of their economic funks. It is shocking documentary that sheds light how industries work today and why we have some issues we have today.
As you watch the Lightbulb Conspiracy think about the following questions and write down responses afterward:

1) What is the purpose of planned obsolescence? Would governments have any reason to support such an idea?

2) How are consumers impacted by planned obsolescence?

3) Does such an idea allow for sustainable development ? Explain.

4) They mention that the lightbulb firms created a "cartel". What does this mean? Should such an organization be allowed? Explain.

5) How might Phonebloks.com help solve some of the concerns with planned obsolescence? (See the second video embedded below.)

6) How does NIST's Clean Up the Reef Day demonstrate the ills of planned obsolescence? What actions could we take right now to deal with the consequences of such consumption?

Check out what Hawaii did in to deal with some of the woes of planned obsolescence. Better yet look at what France's government has just done.

Another solution economists have put forth is called the circular economy. Check out the video below to see what it is all about and how it will deal with planned obsolescence.

You can watch the documentary below:

The following two tabs change content below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Light Bulb Conspiracy is a documentary by Cosima Dannoritzer about the lightbulb industry and how firms in the industry have colluded to create planned obsolescence in their products. The success of the companies involved has led to planned obsolescence becoming a strategy many firms, industries and economies today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
STEM Resource Finder | Concord Consortium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The STEM Resource Finder is a collection of the Concord Consortium's best resources for science, math, and engineering education. Our curated collections offer lesson plans and units for your class based on these resources. All for free!"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bird watchers of all ages count birds to create a real-time snapshot of where birds are. Count birds anytime, anywhere, with eBird "