EarthTalk®
by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss
Dear EarthTalk: Is global warming making parts of the world uninhabitable? – L.G., via email
Global warming refers to the long-term rise in the Earth’s average temperature, due primarily to human activities like burning fossil fuels, deforestation and industrial processes. Understanding its impact on the habitability of specific regions is crucial as the climate crisis intensifies, as is assessing the risks to human health, economic stability and social structures.
Current climate conditions show a worrying trend of ever-increasing temperatures, more frequent and severe heat waves and unpredictable weather patterns. Projections indicate that if these trends continue, many regions, particularly tropical and subtropical ones, could become uninhabitable. Indeed, parts of South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa are at risk of extreme heat levels beyond human survivability. In areas where heat and humidity combine, it could surpass the threshold for human survival, making outdoor activities and even basic survival impossible without significant adaptation.
The health risks associated with global warming are particularly acute in these vulnerable regions. Extreme heatwaves, like those already occurring in parts of India and the Persian Gulf, can lead to widespread illness and death. Higher temperatures also exacerbate air pollution, increasing respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Climate change also facilitates the spread of diseases by altering the habitats of carriers like mosquitoes, heightening the risk of diseases like malaria and dengue fever. Vulnerable populations, including the elderly and those with preexisting conditions, are particularly at risk.
Economic losses due to climate change may also disproportionately concentrate in specific areas. Low-lying coastal regions, as in Bangladesh, the Pacific Islands and parts of the Southeastern U.S., are facing rising sea levels that could displace millions of people. The resulting loss of infrastructure, agricultural land and freshwater resources could lead to severe economic downturns and increased social instability. Climate-induced displacement is already forcing populations to migrate, leading to conflicts over resources in both the affected areas and the regions they move to.
Reducing carbon emissions is critical to mitigate these impacts. Transitioning to renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency and protecting forests are especially needed. Adaptation measures, like building resilient infrastructure and developing early warning systems for extreme weather events, will also be necessary. International cooperation and policy changes are essential to effectively address the global nature of climate change and protect the most at-risk regions.
CONTACTS: Heat is testing the limits of human survivability. Here’s how it kills, www.cnn.com/2024/07/29/climate/heat-survivability-health-death-intl/index.html; ; https://whyy.org/articles/un-ipcc-climate-change-report-uninhabitable-planet-code-red/;
Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that bee populations are healthier in and around organic farms than elsewhere and if so, why? -- Martin Mason, St. Louis, MO
According to experts from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, bees are responsible for a third of the world’s food production. Flowering plants, which make up about 75 percent of agricultural crops, depend on pollinators like bees for seed production, thus ensuring the success of future crop generations. Concerningly, this critical insect faces a multitude of health threats.
Bees are mainly threatened by constant exposure to synthetic pesticides. Neonicotinoids, for example, are common insecticides that affect the receptors in a bee’s nervous system. Consuming the nectar of treated plants, even in small amounts, can impair bees’ motor skills and foraging behaviors. Other conventional insecticides including diazinon, acephate and pyrethrin are also correlated with declining bee health.
Regardless of whether farms use synthetic pesticides, pests and pathogens such as Deformed Wing Virus are constant threats to bee health. The Varroa mite, which feeds on the blood and bodies of bees, affects nearly every hive in the U.S. As such, colonies untreated by either organic or non-organic beehive-specific pesticides can expect to survive for three years maximum against infestation before collapse.
Farming monocultures also pose a threat to pollinators, as the nutritional makeup of nectar and pollen varies between crops. When bees are exposed to a single crop, they can suffer from malnutrition and weakened immune systems. Monocultures also tend to be heavily affected by parasites.
Starting in 2006, the rate of Colony Collapse Disorder—the sudden flight of honey bees from seemingly healthy hives—has drastically increased to 31 percent of hives annually. Experts haven’t yet identified a singular cause, rates trend lower on farms that meet the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Organic Program standards, suggesting that organic farms may be healthiest for their pollinators.
Primarily, bees inhabiting organic farms are exposed to fewer toxic substances; USDA’s organic standards prohibit the majority of synthetic pesticides and promote integrated pest management (IPM) techniques such as crop rotation which improves upon natural biodiversity. Organic farms also tend to implement more cover crops and multi-functional insectary hedge rows, benefitting bees nutritionally.
While nation-wide all-organic polycultures may be economically infeasible, techniques such as implementing hedge-rows can promote bee health even when coupled with synthetic pesticides. Ultimately, however, an absence of toxic chemicals provides the greatest health benefits; as such, bee populations tend to be healthier in and around organic farms as opposed to conventional farms.
CONTACTS: Alphonse Avitable, co-author of The Beekeeper’s Handbook; British Ecological Society, https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.13447
Dear EarthTalk: Where do we stand in jettisoning coal as an electricity source? – K.N. via email
Before dinosaurs roamed the earth, large plants grew and died in swampy forests. In the eons that followed, layers of rock and dirt covered the plants, and heat and pressure turned them into a substance high in carbon and hydrocarbons: Coal. The history of coal mining is a dark tale of child labor, black lung disease and an untold number of miners blown up in mining accidents. Research started in 1980 found that acid rain was caused by burning coal, and thus coal’s negative impact on ecosystems became clearer as well. This spurred industries into action and $1 billion was spent on air pollution control equipment.
Yet, 44 years later, coal remains the world’s largest source of electricity generation, with coal demand hitting a historic high in 2022. In 2023, two-thirds of coal-burning plants in the works were in China, which accounts for 60 percent of global coal usage. Despite the known risks, it has proven challenging to get away from this energy source, partially due to the difficulties presented by clean energy sources.
Solar power, or light from the sun that is converted into energy by photovoltaic cells, is restricted by geography—its use is impacted by weather, clouds and tree cover. Wind power may not be cost-competitive in areas that lack wind, and ideal sites to set up wind turbines are often in remote areas. Hydropower, which takes advantage of the movement of waterways, can be less practical in areas where wind slows the current or drought dries up reservoirs. Despite this, technological advances and advocacy against climate change bring greater hope to improvements implementation of renewable energy sources.
The COP28 and G7 agreements are a formal capture of that hope. COP28, which occurred at the end of 2023, resulted in a call from the United Nations for governments to speed up their transition away from fossil fuels. G7 followed shortly after, as the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom came together and signed a deal to end the use of full-strength power plants between 2030 and 2035. Critics argue that too much leeway is given to countries heavily reliant on coal, but it is a strong signal from industrialized democracies that the transition away from coal should be a priority.
Consumers can help the movement away from coal by opting for renewable energy sources, either by selecting them from your utility’s offerings or installing your own solar panels (or wind turbines) where you live or work. If electricity generated by burning coal is the only option where you live, make your home and office as energy efficient as possible and do your best to reduce the amount of electricity you use.
CONTACTS: Global Coal Energy Statistics and Facts, https://www.statista.com/topics/3255/coal-energy-industry-worldwide/; Renewable Energy Types, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/renewable-energy-types.
Dear EarthTalk: What’s the story with so-called “deadbeat dams” causing ecosystem problems across the country? -- George H., Seattle, WA
The invention of dams was certainly one of humanity’s most innovative feats of engineering. Able to harness power from the water currents, reserving water and effectively controlling floods, dams have been crucial to civilizations since 3,000 B.C. Modern dams are made of concrete and steel, built to withstand tons of water pressure. But over time, many dams have fallen into disrepair and no longer serve their intended purposes. These dams lost to time are called “deadbeat dams.”
Deadbeat dams disrupt surrounding ecosystems by altering water temperature and hindering fish migration patterns. When dams impede river the flows, water temperatures increase, decimating fish sensitive to temperature changes and prevent fish migrations, further damaging their chances of survival.
Loss of fish populations can devastate the entire surrounding ecosystem as they are the primary food source for many animals including birds and mammals, so they are integral to maintaining balance in the food web. Communities that rely on fish in their diet can also be largely affected. The Kwoneesum Dam was abandoned in the 1980s and has since then obstructed 6.5 miles of the Washougal River, preventing the Native nations’ access to the salmon and steelhead population that nourished them for generations.
Effective and safe dam removal is a large and costly challenge, often taking many years and millions of dollars. When removing dams, workers must be careful to ensure debris and sediment from the construction site are not released into the environment, and to test for possible contaminants within the sediment. In 1973, the Fort Edward Dam on New York’s Hudson River was removed without its sediments tested for contaminants. According to the Columbia Climate School, this resulted in “tons of sediment laden with toxic PCBs” washing downstream and “affecting human and wildlife health.”
Across the U.S., 20,000 of the 90,000 total dams are considered unsafe. But due to logistical and financial difficulties, dam removal has been slow: Since 1912, only 2,000 dams have been removed. In recent years, native communities have made headway in advocating for deadbeat dam removals. Through extensive efforts on their part and that of policymakers, millions of dollars have been raised to fund dam removal across the Pacific Northwest. The Seattle Times reports that, in 2024, $40 million from a $75 million Washington state act will go towards “nine [dam removal] projects led by tribal nations.” To ensure the longevity of our precious natural resources, deadbeat dams is an issue we can no longer overlook. Their presence is a constant disruption to nature and to those dependent on nature.
CONTACTS: Why ‘deadbeat dam’ removals are so difficult in WA, PNW, www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/why-deadbeat-dam-removals-are-so-difficult-in-wa-pnw
Dear EarthTalk: What is Kamala Harris’s track record on environmental issues? – T.C., via email
Since the start of her political career, Kamala Harris has repeatedly proven her commitment to a wide variety of ecological matters. While she’s taken a broad stance on climate change and other issues, throughout her career she prioritized environmental racism and the intersection of green policies with social justice. Harris has proven her mettle in prioritizing environmental justice throughout her management of climate disasters, her lawsuits against oil and gas companies, and passing legislation to promote climate equity and reduce environmental hazards in historically oppressed neighborhoods.
Harris has taken positive climate action ever since she created the nation’s first environmental justice department during her time as San Francisco’s district attorney (2004-2011). She only prosecuted a few small polluting companies, but it stood as an early example of how the justice system could address criminal polluters. When Harris became California’s attorney general, she filed many more lawsuits against energy companies like ExxonMobil and Phillips 66, and even shut down one that had nine criminal charges against them. She also demonstrated a strong stance on the risks of climate change in Congress, where she was among a minority of senators who co-sponsored the Green New Deal in 2018. And she worked with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to create the Climate Equity Act, to hold federal agencies accountable for their environmental actions, and emphasize investments to communities of color.
After being elected vice president, Harris furthered her green goals by promoting and supporting the Inflation Reduction Act, alongside other pieces of climate-positive legislation. She would also announce an American commitment to increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency at the COP28 climate talks, where she was the highest-ranking U.S. official. Harris continued to advocate for environmental justice by prioritizing the provision of equitable aid to marginalized groups of hurricane victims in the U.S. and Puerto Rico, in spite of some national pushback to aid richer neighborhoods first. She also actively campaigned for the replacement of lead drinking pipes in disadvantaged communities in Milwaukee and Newark, which have not historically been given a voice in the federal government.
Many eco-activists and groups have already announced their support for Kamala Harris in the coming election. If she is elected this November, the hope is that she’ll double down on her goals for environmental justice and renewable energy by providing the capacity for pollution cuts in agriculture and heavy industry, and by shutting down Michigan’s line 5, an oil line that has the potential to pollute large amounts of clean water in the event of a spill or leak.
CONTACTS: Kamala Harris’ Environmental Agenda and Goals, www.politico.com/news/2024/08/11/kamala-harris-environmental-agenda-biden-republicans-00172367; Harris’ Environmental Justice, www.bridgedetroit.com/environmental-justice-advocates-kamala-harris/
Dear EarthTalk: How can I keep my pets safe during the increasingly frequent heat waves we are experiencing lately? -- Mary B., Bern, NC
Summer may be over but the heat still lingers in much of the U.S. and elsewhere. As such, the need to keep pets safe becomes an increasing concern. Heat poses great risks to animals, especially those with fur. Understanding the risks and the safety measures that can be taken can help our pets stay safe and happy.
Heatstroke is a critical condition that can happen both in animals and humans. It occurs when the body becomes unable to regulate its temperature. Symptoms in animals include excessive panting, drooling, lethargy and vomiting. Seeking immediate attention is crucial, so move your pet to a cool area, provide water, and in severe cases contact your vet. To reduce the risk of heatstroke, keep pets in at peak hours of heat, instead opt for morning and evening when it is cooler. This is generally before 10am and after 4pm.
Constant access to water and shade are also advised to prevent issues caused by heat. Use cooling mats, fans and ice packs to keep pets from overheating. Swap outdoor activities for indoor ones or consider buy mental stimulation toys and puzzles. Moreover, never leave your pets in a parked car: Even on an 85-degree day, a car with slightly opened windows can reach temperatures of 120 degrees.
Hot surfaces also pose significant risks, as asphalt and concrete can get hot under direct sunlight and burn paw pads or noses. If possible, walk pets on grassy areas. If this is not an option due to your area, consider purchasing pet shoes or boots which protect vulnerable paws from not only burns, but also sharp objects and potentially dangerous substances if pets lick their paws. These precautions go a long way in keeping pets safe when navigating the hotter months of the year, especially for those living in cities.
When the mercury does rise, be prepared for things to go wrong. Do your best to keep your pet out of harm's way, but if things still go awry, keep a pet first aid kit with water, cool towels and a pet-safe thermometer on hand, and know the location of your nearest emergency vet clinic. Learn to identify the signs that your pet may be having a medical episode. If left untreated, irreversible damage and even death can occur. This is especially necessary in brachycephalic animals, animals with short muzzles such as pugs or Persian cats, whose facial structure makes it difficult to use panting to cool themselves.
By taking measures to keep pets safe and being prepared for emergencies, you ensure their well-being.
CONTACTS: Keep pets safe in the heat, humanesociety.org/resources/keep-pets-safe-heat; How to protect your pets during a heat wave, yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/07/how-to-protect-your-pets-during-a-heat-wave/.
EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. See more at https://emagazine.com. To donate, visit https://earthtalk.org. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.
Add Comment