Scientists have long known that caloric restriction — intentionally consuming far less calories than normal without becoming malnourished — improves health in later life and may even extend life. However, studies in mice show that caloric restriction really needs to be maintained throughout life to achieve this impact, and the health benefits disappear when a normal diet is resumed. Dr Houseley’s new research conducted in yeast suggests an alternative to calorie restriction can lead to improved health through the lifecycle.

“We show that diet in early life can switch yeast onto a healthier trajectory. By giving yeast a different diet without restricting calories we were able to suppress senescence, when cells no longer divide, and loss of fitness in aged cells.” Said Dr Dorottya Horkai, lead researcher on the study.

Rather than growing yeast on their usual glucose-rich diet, the researchers swapped their diet to galactose and observed that many molecular changes which normally accompany ageing did not occur. The cells grown on galactose remained just as fit as young cells even late in life, despite not living any longer, showing that the period of ill-health towards the end of life was dramatically reduced.

“Crucially, the dietary change only works when cells are young, and actually diet makes little difference in old yeast. It is hard to translate what youth means between yeast and humans, but all these studies point to the same trend — to live a long and healthy life, a healthy diet from an early age makes a difference.” explains Dr Houseley.

Yeast are good model organisms for studying ageing as they share many of the same cellular machinery as animals and humans. This avenue of research in yeast helps us to seek a more achievable way to improve healthy ageing though diet compared to sustained and severe calorie restriction, although more research is needed.

This means that many of the “carbon credits” bought by companies to balance out emissions are not tied to real-world forest preservation as claimed.

An international team of scientists and economists led by the University of Cambridge and VU Amsterdam found that millions of carbon credits are based on crude calculations that inflate the conservation successes of voluntary REDD+ projects.

Consequently, many tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions considered “offset” by trees that would not otherwise exist have, in fact, only added to our planetary carbon debt, say researchers.

REDD+ schemes generate carbon credits by investing in the protection of sections of the world’s most important forests — from the Congo to the Amazon basin. These credits represent the carbon that will no longer be released through deforestation.

Organisations and individuals can then offset their own carbon footprint by purchasing credits equivalent to a given quantity of emissions.

Carbon credit markets have exploded in recent years. Over 150 million credits originated from voluntary REDD+ projects in 2021, with a value of US $1.3 billion. Some companies use carbon offsetting to claim progress towards “net zero” while doing little to reduce greenhouse gases, say researchers.

The team behind the latest study argue that the booming trade in carbon credits may already be a type of “lemons market”: where buyers have no way of distinguishing quality, so some sellers flood the market with bad products, leading to a breakdown of trust and ultimately market collapse.

“Carbon credits provide major polluters with some semblance of climate credentials. Yet we can see that claims of saving vast swathes of forest from the chainsaw to balance emissions are overblown,” said study senior author Prof Andreas Kontoleon, from Cambridge’s Department of Land Economy.

“These carbon credits are essentially predicting whether someone will chop down a tree, and selling that prediction. If you exaggerate or get it wrong, intentionally or not, you are selling hot air.”

Kontoleon points out that overestimations of forest preservation have allowed the number of carbon credits on the market to keep rising, which in turn supresses the prices.

“Potential buyers benefit from consistently low prices created by the flood of credits. It means that companies can tick their net zero box at the lowest possible cost,” he said.

REDD+ is a loose acronym for “Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.” Currently, credits from voluntary “avoided deforestation” projects are issued based on predictions of tree loss that would have occurred without the REDD+ scheme.

Researchers say these calculations — which take historical deforestation averages or trends, sometimes from over a decade ago, across a wide region that usually includes the REDD+ site — are often far too simplistic.

The latest study looked in detail at 18 REDD+ projects in five tropical countries: Peru, Colombia, Cambodia, Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo.*

The research team took a “counterfactual” approach. They identified existing areas of forest within a given region that closely resemble each particular REDD+ project — from matching levels of forest cover and soil fertility to similar records of mining and deforestation.

“We used real-world comparison sites to show what each REDD+ forest project would most probably look like now, rather than relying on extrapolations of historical data that ignore a wide range of factors, from policy changes to market forces,” said lead author Dr Thales West, a Fellow of the Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance at Cambridge, now based at VU Amsterdam.

Of the 18 REDD+ projects, only one had underestimated its deforestation rates, and one had predicted deforestation levels similar to its comparison site. The other 16 projects all claimed far more deforestation would have taken place than their comparison sites suggested.

In fact, of the 89 million carbon credits expected to be generated by these 18 REDD+ sites in 2020, some 68% of them — over 60 million credits — would have come from projects that barely reduced deforestation, if at all, according to the study.

Even the remaining 32% of carbon credits originated from REDD+ projects that had not conserved forest to the levels claimed by the project developers.

The researchers produced carbon credit calculations that replaced deforestation levels as predicted by each REDD+ project with the levels of real-world forest cover from comparison sites.

They estimate that only 5.4 million carbon credits were linked to additional cuts in carbon emissions created by preserved trees — the entire basis on which credits are sold. This suggests that only 6% of the total carbon credits produced by all 18 REDD+ projects in 2020 are valid.

As of November 2021, at least 14.6 million carbon credits from the 18 REDD+ projects had been purchased around the world to offset greenhouse gas emissions. “These projects have already been used to offset almost three times more carbon than they have actually mitigated through forest preservation,” said Kontoleon. “And that’s with over 47 million credits still available in the market.”

The researchers highlight four possible — and overlapping — reasons why carbon credit schemes might be overestimating their effectiveness so dramatically.

One is that use of historical trends is simply highly inaccurate. Moreover, projects may be located where conservation is most likely to succeed regardless. Thirdly, certification rules currently require fixed periods for projections, so adapting to changes in deforestation rates is difficult.

Lastly, the researchers also highlight clear risks that methods of predicting deforestation may be “opportunistically inflated” to maximise revenues from credit sales.

“There are perverse incentives to generate huge numbers of carbon credits, and at the moment the market is essentially unregulated. Watchdog agencies are being created, but many of those involved are also linked to carbon credit certification agencies — so they will be marking their own homework,” added Kontoleon.

“The industry needs to work on closing loopholes that might allow bad faith actors to exploit offset markets. It must develop far more sophisticated and transparent methods of quantifying the amount of preserved forest to become a trusted marketplace.”

Notes: * While a total of 26 REDD+ project sites were investigated, only 18 had sufficient “baseline” deforestation data available to allow for useful comparative analysis.

Like much of the planet, Southern California is expected to experience more heat waves in the future due to Earth’s changing climate. And some of these will feel increasingly humid, as long-term forecasts call for muggy spells more typically associated with Florida or eastern Texas.

To begin to understand what these changes could mean across the greater Los Angeles area, scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California mapped how extreme heat and humidity patterns vary with regional geography. The results underscore how air temperature alone does not tell the full story of dangerous heat.

“We can’t just look at air temperature when we talk about heat wave impacts,” said study author Anamika Shreevastava, a NASA postdoctoral program fellow at JPL. “People tend to get acclimatized to where they live. We have to understand how anomalous conditions are making a difference in what people are used to.”

Climate change is fueling longer, hotter, and more frequent heat waves. In the U.S., extreme heat is the No. 1 weather-related killer, causing more deaths than hurricanes and floods, according to the National Weather Service.

Greater Los Angeles is a prime example of an urban heat island – cities and suburbs woven with heat-trapping concrete and asphalt that lead to warmer temperatures than nearby rural areas that have more vegetation. Bordered by mountains and the ocean, the Greater L.A. area encompasses suburbs and skyscrapers, with a dense population and disparities in green space. It includes several counties, tens of thousands of square miles, and more than 18 million people, making it a compelling test bed for heat wave research.

Climate change and urban heat are together fueling different heat waves now. In the 20th century, most heat waves in L.A. were dry. However, humid events have steadily increased in frequency and intensity since 1950 due in part to swelling moisture from the warming sea surface.

In their case study, JPL scientists compared two heat waves that affected the Greater Los Angeles area in the summer of 2020: a prolonged muggy stretch in August and an extremely dry three-day spike in September. During the latter event, record-breaking temperatures soared over 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Celsius) in the San Fernando Valley – a densely populated portion of the city of Los Angeles – while scorching winds fanned a destructive wildfire in the nearby San Gabriel Mountains.

For their study, recently published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, the scientists used NASA’s Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 (MERRA-2) data set – a reanalysis of historical atmospheric observations. They found that both heat waves drove temperatures above the 90th percentile for the August-September climate record in L.A. Using advanced weather modeling, they simulated the heat waves and looked at their impacts across the region.

The researchers found that, although air temperatures were as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) cooler during the muggy August heat wave, the heat stress to human health was more intense than the September event. That’s because the wet-bulb temperature – which relates heat to how well our bodies cool down by sweating – surged due to the humidity.

The results underscore the importance of including humid heat when issuing extreme heat warnings, the scientists said.

Local Impacts

Another key finding of the study was that heat waves don’t touch every place the same way. “The same heat wave can feel different because of local climate variabilities and disparities in vegetation, which has a shading and cooling effect. These small-scale variabilities make a big difference in impact,” said Shreevastava, who studies extreme heat and its effect on urban and natural ecosystems.

Shreevastava and her team examined three regions that experienced the 2020 heat waves differently: Southern L.A. County and Orange County stayed cooler, given their proximity to the Pacific Ocean and coastal moisture. Valley regions, including San Fernando and Riverside, skewed drier and hotter. And central L.A. fell between the two extremes.

Despite the microclimate variations, humidity had a leveling effect: Both the coastal and inland areas experienced increased nighttime heat stress during the muggy August heat wave. This was a notable change for the valley regions, which historically have countered scorching daytime temperatures with drier nights. Valley areas such as those in San Bernardino and Riverside counties experienced the greatest change over recent historical averages, with up to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit (6 degrees Celsius) of added heat stress during humid heat wave nights.

The researchers said that their findings highlight how disparities in small-scale heat wave patterns across urban neighborhoods are vitally important when designing emergency plans and policies for our shared, hotter future.

News Media Contacts

Jane J. Lee / Andrew Wang

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

818-354-0307 / 626-379-6874

[email protected] / [email protected]

Having fresh, stain-free carpeting, area rugs, and furniture enhances the aesthetics of the room, creating an inviting atmosphere. And although it seems like this would also promote a healthier living environment by reducing allergens and dust buildup, there are other factors to consider. Hazardous chemicals commonly lurk in carpet and upholstery cleaning products and do not readily rinse out, but there are some healthier and more natural alternatives.

This article contains affiliate links. If you purchase an item through one of these links, we receive a small commission that helps fund our Recycling Directory.

Concerning Chemicals in Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Products

There are numerous hazardous chemicals to avoid to reduce toxins in the home.

• Perchloroethylene (or perc, tetrachloroethylene, or tetrachloroethene) is in many “dry” carpet cleaner products and is toxic in high amounts, especially when inhaled. It can irritate the eye, nose, and respiratory issues, and long-term exposure may increase the risk of certain types of cancer.
• Acrylic acid is highly toxic to aquatic life, and inhaling it can irritate the nose, throat, and lungs. It is also found in various household cleaners, including some RESOLVE carpet cleaning products and many commercial toilet and oven cleaners.
• Surfactants are harmful to human health and aquatic life. They are used in many conventional cleaning products, including Shout carpet cleaners, and can biodegrade into more toxic and persistent chemicals that can bioaccumulate.

How To Find Nontoxic Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Products

Using safer carpet and upholstery cleaners helps safeguard your your family, pets, and home from harmful chemicals.

Read Cleaning Product Labels

It can be challenging to identify safer cleaning products by reading the ingredient lists on product labels, but there are certain red flags to beware of. For example, avoid products listing fragrance, ammonia, and bleach.

Warning labels can provide helpful information. Avoid carpet and upholstery cleaners with labels stating “warning,” “danger,” or “poison.” Some bottles say to avoid contact with skin and wash hands immediately after use. However, if it says to avoid contact with skin, you probably don’t want the product on your sofa, armchairs, or rugs either.

Third-Party Information on Rug and Sofa Cleaners

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) rates carpet cleaners and fabric/upholstery cleaners to help shoppers find more natural alternatives to toxic cleaning products.

Of the carpet cleaners it rated:

• 2 scored an A
• 3 received a B
• 5 got a C
• 30 scored a D or F

Of the fabric and upholstery cleaners it rated:

• 2 scored an A
• 2 got a B
• 3 received a C
• 10 scored a D or F

While numerous commercial cleaners on the market contain harmful ingredients, there are also a few safer, nontoxic alternatives.

EWG’s Highest-Rated Carpet Cleaning Products

The following cleaners scored between an A and C.

UL Ecologo-Certified

ECOLOGO-certified cleaning products are certified by UL Solutions for reduced environmental and health impact.

EWG’s Highest-Rated Fabric and Upholstery Cleaners

The following products received a score between A and C.

DIY Homemade Carpet and Furniture Cleaners

A simple way to find natural products to clean your upholstered furniture and rugs is to make your own products with nontoxic ingredients. Using homemade cleaning products can save you money and packaging waste while offering peace of mind. Some of the best DIY carpet and upholstery cleaners contain baking soda, distilled white vinegar, and essential oils, such as lemon or lavender.

Homemade Carpet Cleaner with Baking Soda & Vinegar

This is a simple way to remove odors and naturally clean your carpeting and area rugs. The exact amount of ingredients depends on the size and number of rugs you are cleaning. You can add several drops of essential oil to the baking soda to add a scent or to help remove unpleasant odors or else make an unscented carpet cleaner.

Note: Before trying any cleaning method on your carpet, spot test in an inconspicuous area to ensure that the baking soda and vinegar do not cause discoloration or damage to the carpet fibers.

Ingredients:

• Distilled white vinegar
• Baking soda
• Essential oils (optional)

Directions:

1. Begin by removing loose dirt and debris from the carpet by vacuuming it thoroughly.
2. Sprinkle a generous amount of baking soda (possibly with essential oils mixed in) over the entire carpet surface. Baking soda helps to deodorize and lift stains from the carpet fibers.
3. Allow the baking soda to sit on the carpet for at least 30 minutes. For tougher stains or odors, you can leave it on for an hour or even overnight.
4. Prepare the vinegar solution by mixing equal parts of white vinegar and warm water in a spray bottle. For example, you can use one cup of vinegar with a cup of water.
5. Spray the vinegar solution evenly over the carpet. The vinegar will react with the baking soda, creating a fizzing sound.
6. Take a clean cloth or sponge and gently scrub the carpet, targeting any visible stains or high-traffic areas.
7. Next, blot excess moisture with a rag. Continue blotting until most of the moisture is absorbed. This step is crucial if your home has a high humidity level when cleaning because it won’t air dry as quickly.
8. Allow the carpet to air dry completely. You can improve the drying process by using fans or opening windows to increase air circulation.
9. Once the carpet is dry, vacuum it again to remove any remaining baking soda residue and loosened dirt particles.

DIY Sofa Cleaner

You can follow a routine similar to the directions above for carpets to clean sofas and other upholstered furniture. However, vacuum up the baking soda mixture before applying the vinegar spray. If you want to use a scented cleaner, add several drops of essential oils to the vinegar solution, not to the baking soda.

Spot Cleaner for Carpets and Sofas

Vinegar and baking soda are also excellent for cleaning sofa, carpet, and rug stains. Spot cleaning is most effective immediately after a spill or stain occurs. The longer a stain sets, the harder it may be to remove. Also, consider if the stain is oily or not. If so, using dish soap can be helpful. Test the cleaning solution in an inconspicuous area of the sofa or rug first to ensure it doesn’t cause discoloration or damage to the fabric.

Ingredients:

• Distilled white vinegar
• Baking soda

Directions:

1. When you notice a spill or stain, act quickly and blot the affected area with a rag. Avoid rubbing, as it may spread the stain further.
2. If the spot is still visible, sprinkle some baking soda directly onto the stain.
3. Mix equal parts of white vinegar and warm water in a spray bottle. Spray this solution onto the stained area where you’ve applied the baking soda. The vinegar will react with the baking soda, creating a foaming reaction that helps lift stains.
4. Use a clean rag or sponge to gently blot and scrub the stained area. Work from the outside of the stain towards the center to avoid spreading it further. Continue blotting until the stain starts to lift.
5. If needed, dampen the rag and blot the area to remove any remaining vinegar and baking soda residue.
6. Allow the spot to air dry completely.
7. If the stain persists, mix a small amount of mild liquid dish soap with water and apply it to the spot. Gently blot and scrub again, then rinse with water and blot dry.

Note: For more DIY carpet and fabric cleaning solutions, see 4 Natural Ways To Tackle Carpet Stains and Planet-Friendly Stain Removal Tips.

Choose Safer Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners

Although there are numerous unsafe commercial carpet and upholstery cleaning products, there are also some natural and safe cleaning products that contain nontoxic ingredients. Look for third-party certified carpet and sofa cleaners, or make your own using baking soda, white vinegar, and possibly essential oils.

Editor’s Note: This release has been updated to add additional graphics, captions, and to spell out the words degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius.

According to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, July 2023 was hotter than any other month in the global temperature record.

“Since day one, President Biden has treated the climate crisis as the existential threat of our time,” said Ali Zaidi, White House National Climate Advisor. Against the backdrop of record high temperatures, wildfires, and floods, NASA’s analysis puts into context the urgency of President Biden’s unprecedented climate leadership. From securing the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate investment in history, to invoking the Defense Production Act to supercharge domestic clean energy manufacturing, to strengthening climate resilience in communities nationwide, President Biden is delivering on the most ambitious climate agenda in history.”

Overall, July 2023 was 0.43 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (0.24 degrees Celsius (C)) warmer than any other July in NASA’s record, and it was 2.1 F (1.18 C) warmer than the average July between 1951 and 1980. The primary focus of the GISS analysis are long-term temperature changes over many decades and centuries, and a fixed base period yields anomalies that are consistent over time. Temperature “normals” are defined by several decades or more – typically 30 years.

“NASA data confirms what billions around the world literally felt: temperatures in July 2023 made it the hottest month on record. In every corner of the country, Americans are right now experiencing firsthand the effects of the climate crisis, underscoring the urgency of President Biden’s historic climate agenda,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “The science is clear. We must act now to protect our communities and planet; it’s the only one we have.”

Parts of South America, North Africa, North America, and the Antarctic Peninsula were especially hot, experiencing temperatures increases around 7.2 F (4 C) above average. Overall, extreme heat this summer put tens of millions of people under heat warnings and was linked to hundreds of heat-related illnesses and deaths. The record-breaking July continues a long-term trend of human-driven warming driven primarily by greenhouse gas emissions that has become evident over the past four decades. According to NASA data, the five hottest Julys since 1880 have all happened in the past five years.

“Climate change is impacting people and ecosystems around the world, and we expect many of these impacts to escalate with continued warming,” said Katherine Calvin, chief scientist and senior climate advisor at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Our agency observes climate change, its impacts, and its drivers, like greenhouse gases, and we are committed providing this information to help people plan for the future.”

NASA assembles its temperature record from surface air temperature data from tens of thousands of metrological stations, as well as sea surface temperature data acquired by ship- and buoy-based instruments. This raw data is analyzed using methods that account for the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and for urban heating effects that could skew the calculations.

“This July was not just warmer than any previous July – it was the warmest month in our record, which goes back to 1880,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “The science is clear this isn’t normal. Alarming warming around the world is driven primarily by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. And that rise in average temperatures is fueling dangerous extreme heat that people are experiencing here at home and worldwide.”

High sea surface temperatures contributed to July’s record warmth. NASA’s analysis shows especially warm ocean temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific, evidence of the El Niño that began developing in May 2023. Phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña, which warm or cool the tropical Pacific Ocean, can contribute a small amount of year-to-year variability in global temperatures. But these contributions are not typically felt when El Niño starts developing in Northern Hemisphere summer. NASA expects to see the biggest impacts of El Niño in February, March, and April 2024.

For more information on NASA’s global temperature record, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/2023/climate-media-resources

News Media Contacts

Jackie McGuinness / Katherine Rohloff

Headquarters, Washington

202-358-1600

[email protected] / [email protected]

Wastewater treatment plants are an indispensable part of our modern infrastructure; they have made a significant contribution to improving the quality of our surface waters. However, their ability to completely remove what are known as micropollutants from wastewater is mostly limited. These substances include, for example, active ingredients from pharmaceuticals and personal care products, pesticides and other synthetic substances enter waterbodies via the treated wastewater, placing an additional burden on rivers and streams. This exacerbates the challenges faced by already vulnerable insect communities and aquatic fauna. Previous studies — which have primarily focused on single wastewater treatment plants — have already shown that invertebrate communities downstream of such effluents are generally dominated by pollution-tolerant taxa.

Until now, however, it was unclear how ubiquitous these changes are. That is why a team of biologists from Goethe University Frankfurt has now studied extensively how wastewater from 170 wastewater treatment plants in Hesse has an impact on the species composition of invertebrates. This has prompted a change in the common conception that human-induced stressors reduce the number of species in a habitat and thus their diversity: Rather, the findings indicate that a shift in species composition can be observed. The researchers were able to identify significant shifts in the composition of the species community between sites located upstream and downstream of wastewater treatment plants. Some species were particularly affected by effluents from wastewater treatment plants — such as stonefly and caddisfly larvae, which disappear entirely in some places. Other taxa, such as certain worms and crustaceans, by contrast, benefit and are found in greater numbers. This change can be observed especially in streams and smaller rivers. Overall, wastewater treatment plants alter conditions downstream to the advantage of pollution-tolerant taxa and to the disadvantage of sensitive ones.

How can we reduce water pollution?

Modern treatment techniques such as ozonation or activated charcoal filtering can make water treatment in wastewater treatment plants more efficient, allowing a wider range of pollutants, including many trace substances, to be removed from the wastewater before it is released into the environment. Merging smaller wastewater treatment plants can also contribute to reducing the burden on the environment. Whatever measures are taken, it is important to make sure that upstream sections are not already degraded and are in a good chemical and structural condition.

Is there an emergency solution that could stop climate change? Technical methods that artificially influence the climate have been discussed for some time under the term geoengineering. However, the majority of climate researchers have been critical of them: high risks, incalculable consequences for future generations.

In a study just published in the journal Nature Climate Change, researchers led by Johannes Sutter of the Climate and Environmental Physics Division (KUP) at the Institute of Physics and the Oeschger Center for Climate Research at the University of Bern investigate the question of whether the melting of ice in West Antarctica could be prevented by artificially influencing solar radiation. The researchers also warn of unforeseeable side effects of geoengineering.

Avoiding a key climate tipping point

“The window of opportunity to limit the global temperature increase to below 2 degrees is closing fast,” says ice modeling specialist Johannes Sutter, “so it is possible that technical measures to influence the climate will be seriously considered in the future.” That is why, he says, it is necessary to use theoretical models to study the effects and risks of “solar radiation management.” Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is a term used to describe various methods of blocking solar radiation in order to make the Earth cooler.

A key reason for the increased interest in geoengineering is the avoidance of tipping points at which the climate could change abruptly and irreversibly. These include the melting of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and the associated meter-high sea level rise. “Observations of ice flows in West Antarctica indicate that we are very close to a so-called tipping point or have already passed it,” explains Johannes Sutter, “with our study, we therefore wanted to find out whether a collapse of the ice sheet could theoretically be prevented with solar radiation management.”

Artificially dimming the sun

Specifically, Sutter and his colleagues have investigated what would happen if so-called aerosols — suspended particles in a gas — introduced into the stratosphere succeeded in blocking solar radiation from the earth — a dimming of the sun, so to speak. So far, research has focused on the global effects of solar radiation management (SRM). The Bern study is the first to use ice model simulations to show what effect such a measure would have on the Antarctic ice sheet. The study examines the possible development of the ice sheet under different future greenhouse gas scenarios and yields differentiated results: If emissions continue unabated and the SRM occurs in the middle of this century, the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could be delayed somewhat, but not prevented. In a medium emissions scenario, SRM deployed by mid-century could prove to be an “effective tool” to slow or even prevent ice sheet collapse.

According to the model calculations, SRM works best when it occurs as early as possible and is combined with ambitious climate mitigation measures. But, the study authors emphasize, “our simulations show that the most effective way to prevent long-term collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is rapid decarbonization.” The chances of a longer-term stable ice sheet are greatest if greenhouse gas emissions were reduced to net zero “without delay.”

Possible side effects still hardly studied

But how should one imagine a dimming of the sun in practical terms? According to Johannes Sutter, a whole fleet of extremely high-flying airplanes would have to spread millions of tons of aerosols in the stratosphere. However, this technical intervention in the climate would have to be maintained without interruption and for centuries. If the intervention were stopped as long as the greenhouse concentration in the atmosphere remained high, the temperature on earth would quickly rise by several degrees.

The consequences of such a termination shock, Johannes Sutter points out, are only one of the possible dangers posed by SRM. The potential side effects are still insufficiently researched and range from a shift in the monsoon regime to changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation. Ocean acidification would also continue. Critical voices also caution political and social effects: The use of techniques such as solar dimming could lead to climate protection measures being slowed down or even prevented. Thomas Stocker, professor of climate and environmental physics at the University of Bern and co-author of the study, says: “Geoengineering would be another global experiment and a potentially dangerous human intervention in the climate system, which should in any case be prevented according to Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

Bottle bills, known as deposit return systems (DRS), work. Research by the British government found that countries that impose a return value on bottles or cans increase collection rates to between 80% and 95%, improving recycling rates. But the beverage industry has expressed concerns about potential adverse effects on sales. Who’s right?

Some beverage companies argue that DRS will lead to higher business costs, which will be passed on as higher retail prices for consumers, resulting in lower sales. However, according to new research, these arguments overlook critical factors that mitigate cost increases and fail to consider the cost savings associated with DRS implementation. But some beverage packaging makers are taking up the DRS cause. The Can Manufacturers Institute and Aluminum Association have joined forces with consumer advocacy and environmental organizations to lobby for bottle bills across the country.

“Reimagining the Bottle Bill,” new research from Reloop, a policy consultancy that works with governments, businesses, and nonprofits, found that DRS helps reduce costs for businesses and benefits everyone in the long run. Reloop reports that while access to curbside recycling has reached 73% of U.S. homes, the collection of beverage containers, among the easiest items to recycle, remains stubbornly below 40% of the volume of bottles produced. The National Association of PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) recently claimed that recyclers collected 36.8% of PET (#1 plastic) beverage bottles produced for the U.S. market as of 2020.

We can do better.

Pennies for Your Empties

DRS works like this: When you buy a drink in a plastic or metal container, you pay a little extra as a deposit. When you finish your drink, you can return the empty container to a store and get your deposit back. That way, bottles and cans are recycled, and we produce less trash.

When deposit programs are combined with extended producer responsibility laws that require producers to contribute to funding recycling collection and processing infrastructure in a state, cities’ cost for recycling programs declines, creating savings for citizens that add to the economic benefits of DRS, Reloop argued in its report.

Yet, the beverage industry says DRS can make drinks more costly. They claim retailers and wholesalers will have to spend more time and money handling empty containers. But Reloop found that in well-run DRS, the money from recycling those containers and unclaimed deposits covers the costs. Container deposits won’t make drinks more expensive.

In the following video, Reloop and the Container Recycling Institute explain the environmental impact of beverage container litter and the benefits of deposit return systems.

Look at the Benefits

Hawaii, for example, implemented a bottle bill in 2005 and by 2008 reported a 60% reduction in beverage bottles found in its litter, according to The Abell Foundation, which focuses on improving the health and economy of the city of Baltimore. Reloop reports that modernizing the DRS infrastructure in the Northeast would improve recycling rates to between 65% and 92% — capturing 1.2 billion beverage containers that currently end life in a landfill — while adding a cost of only one cent per container across the entire system. In Maine, which Reloop says has the most comprehensive DRS program in the U.S., 84% of containers are recycled.

DRS helps save money in other ways. For example, it reduces the costs of recycling and cleaning up litter. That’s a win for the environment and taxpayers. And remember, many things can affect beverage sales, like weather, the economy, and taxes — not just DRS. After Norway implemented DRS in 1999, beverage sales increased. When Germany introduced DRS, beverage sales went up, too, while neighboring countries without DRS reported that sales went down. Similar patterns were reported in Oregon.

Deposit Programs Are Good for Business

Deposit programs make recyclable beverage packaging more attractive to shoppers. Wunderman Thompson, a marketing agency, surveyed consumers and found that “81% of respondents say that if brands make it easier to reuse or recycle their products and packaging, they are more likely to make a purchase.” If your grocer says they will not support a bottle bill because it could raise prices, which is not valid, tell them that eight out of 10 of their customers are more likely to return to shop with them if they provide deposit-return services.

Looking closely at the facts, DRS is not to blame for declining sales. There are many other factors at play. Deposit return systems are a smart way to help people recycle more, reduce waste, and prevent plastic pollution on land and in the oceans. Deposits don’t make drinks more expensive and might even provide an incentive to buy certain products.

Steps You Can Take

If you don’t live in one of the 10 states where deposit programs are in force today, contact your state legislators and ask that they introduce and support bottle bill legislation. BottleBill.org provides a useful guide to starting a bottle bill campaign in your state.

Start your local campaign by visiting several grocers, ask to speak to the managers and tell them you are considering where you will do your grocery shopping. Share your desire to see a bottle bill and suggest their company join in the call for modern DRS programs in your state. And ask if they would take the first step by providing bottle and can drop-off bins. If you succeed, let Earth911 know so we can add the store to the Recycling Locator.