Mercury (Hg) emissions are extremely toxic and can have broad and long-term effects on human health. Hg can accumulate in soil and water bodies, and can enter the food web through staple crops such as rice and seafood. The biggest source of Hg emissions is the artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) industry, which involves gold mining conducted by miners or enterprises with limited investment and production, and uses Hg to amalgamate gold ores.

In light of this, the Minamata Convention (MC) on Hg control came into effect in 2017 with the aim to put a stop to the trade and domestic production of mercury. The MC requires its signatories to stop all trade in metallic Hg, restrict the opening of new primary Hg mines, stop domestic Hg production by 2032, and stop the production and trade of Hg-added products (such as thermometers and Hg-vapor lamps) by 2020.

While 137 countries are currently parties to the MC, its efficacy has remained under question. Inconsistencies often exist in global trade data and lead to difficulties in Hg control and the evaluation of the MC. While the supply chains for the ASGM sector are heavily restricted and dried up, the demand for Hg may not have decreased. This gap in supply and demand could spawn informal or illegal Hg trading routes, such as mislabeling, smuggling, and black-market trade.

Against this backdrop, an international team of researchers from Japan, Chile, and Canada have now investigated this issue in depth. In their study, which was published in the journal Resources, Conservation & Recycling, the team investigated the effect of the MC on the global Hg flow using a method to detect inconsistencies in mercury flow data. The study was led by Dr. Yingchao Cheng from the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) in Japan and involved contributions from Dr. Kenichi Nakajima and Dr. Keisuke Nansai from NIES, Prof. Jacopo Seccatore from Adolfo Ibañez University in Chile, Prof. Marcello M. Veiga from the University of British Columbia, Canada, and Prof. Masaki Takaoka from Kyoto University, Japan.

Their method of examining global Hg trade data inconsistencies is based on estimating the Hg input (the Hg that enters the amalgamation process and is lost with tailings and amalgam burning) of countries with ASGM activities and comparing this input amount to the total Hg available domestically (apparent Hg consumption). “By searching for Hg flows that changed significantly after the MC came into force, we can screen out trade routes of interest. This not only helps us see which trade activities have stopped or decreased but also highlights potentially illegal and informal mercury use flows that have appeared post-MC,” explains Dr. Cheng.

The study was performed in 39 countries across four regions. The team identified inconsistencies in Hg trade statistics in African, Central and South American, and some Asian countries. Countries that are parties to the MC showed reduced metallic Hg trade, and those with national action plans (NAP) demonstrated clear active steps towards controlling Hg flow. “Our results highlight the importance of managing global Hg flows hidden beneath ASGM activities to enforce a sound Hg management. We believe that devising and implementing NAPs are an important step in this direction,” notes Dr. Nakajima.

Asian countries, however, lagged behind other regions concerning the reduction in Hg trade. While some downturn in Hg export was observed, new import flows of commodities with high Hg content were found to have emerged since 2017.

Controlling Hg flow for the ASGM industry is critical for safe Hg management. While inconstancies in trade data make it difficult, this new method helps alleviate most of these issues and ensures that nations spend their resources more effectively on targeting and exposing high-risk trade routes and practices. Such advances in Hg management will reduce human exposure to mercury, allowing people to not only obtain clean gold more easily but also lead better lives.

The world’s governments are presently negotiating a Global Biodiversity Framework, containing goals and targets for saving nature, which is due to be adopted at the end of 2022. Conservation experts explored how the suggested targets in the Framework, could contribute to reducing extinction risk of threatened vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Their findings show that while targets to expand protected areas or reduce pollution will benefit many species, 57% would still need targeted recovery actions. These actions include captive breeding in zoos, reintroduction into the wild, moving individuals between locations, vaccination against disease, and other species-specific interventions.

Led by Newcastle University, the study was published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. The project brought together leading ecology and conservation experts, including scientists from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), BirdLife International and a global network of universities.

Study corresponding author, Professor Philip McGowan, Professor of Conservation Science and Policy at Newcastle University’s School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, said: “57% of the world’s threatened species will remain threatened without targeted recovery actions. Many will benefit from policies and actions designed to reduce threats from land- and sea-use change, overexploitation, pollution, invasive species and climate, but these alone will not remove the risk of extinction that these species face. Now, we can identify the species that need such action, and we can monitor what is being done and what the impact of action is on those threatened species.”

Tackling the risk of extinction

The research was based on 7,784 species listed as ‘Vulnerable’, ‘Endangered’, and ‘Critically Endangered’ in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The team considered the targets in the first draft of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s Global Biodiversity Framework.

The scientists assessed the potential benefits to each threatened species of implementing each target. They found that Target 1 (on implementing spatial planning to retain existing intact ecosystems), Target 2 (on restoring degraded ecosystems and ensure connectivity among them), and Target 3 (on protecting important areas for biodiversity) will be particularly important, as 95% of threatened species would benefit from their implementation.

The data also show, however, that these actions, and those for targets 5-8 on reducing pressures from unsustainable use, invasive species, pollution and climate change would still leave at least 57% of threatened species (4,428 species) at risk of going extinct. For example, the Black Stilt, a threatened waterbird from New Zealand, requires captive-rearing and release and control of hybrids with Black-winged Stilts to prevent genetic swamping, in addition to predator control and habitat management.

Study co-author Dr Stuart Butchart, Chief Scientist at BirdLife International, noted: “This research shows that we can’t stop species from going extinct just by protecting particular areas and addressing key threats: some species needed dedicated efforts to help them recover. It is critical therefore that governments adopt specific and measurable goals on species conservation, and a clear commitment to implement the actions needed to achieve these.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by Newcastle University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

There are many reasons to want to switch to electric-powered transportation, from climate change to gas prices, but let’s start with one that’s often overlooked — fun. Zipping around on e-vehicles like e-bikes, e-scooters, and e-skateboards is not only a wise environmental choice, but it’s also really fun.

“When you ride an e-bike, it lets you tap into a youthfulness that may have been dormant for the last 10 to 60 years,” says Levi Conlow, CEO and co-founder of Lectric eBikes. “Then you start using it for little trips and micro-adventures, like running to the pharmacy. You can explore your local city more, and [tourist] places you couldn’t see in a car. It opens you up to more.”

E-transportation is ramping up quickly in the U.S. E-bike sales grew nearly 50% last year, and some states such as Colorado and California are helping fuel that with incentive programs. Rentable e-scooters clutter the sidewalks in many towns, while more than 50% of consumers who intend to buy a car within two years plan on getting an EV or hybrid.

All of that demand is creating more choices, which means more planning to figure out which e-vehicle is best for your situation. Here are some aspects of different e-transportation methods to consider.

E-Bikes as Transportation

E-bikes are the most popular solution for commuting and running errands around town. A decent one starts around $1,000, but can go way up from there, especially with higher-end mountain bike models.

Benefits of E-Bikes vs. E-Scooters:

• Sitting down is more comfortable on longer rides (but some scooters do offer seats).
• E-bikes’ bigger wheels and frames handle obstacles better.
• They can travel longer ranges, in general.
• You can still get decent exercise if you choose to pedal.
• If you run out of battery power you can still pedal your way home.
• It’s easier to carry more and heavier items, and you can usually install cargo racks.
• Some are rated for child seats, but e-bikes’ faster speeds come with some risk.

Drawbacks of E-Bikes vs. E-Scooters:

• Bulkier to store.
• Heavier to maneuver, so not as good in congested areas.
• More likely to get stolen, since you’re less likely to park it indoors.
• Too heavy to carry to an upstairs apartment or office.

Best for low-density or less-congested areas, longer travel distances, carrying cargo like groceries, and elderly or physically impaired riders. Also, “We’re a hit in the RV and van community for those who want to zip around from their camp,” says Conlow. “That’s why e-bikes are so awesome, they can meet so many people’s needs, regardless of who you are.”

E-Scooters as Transportation

A decent e-scooter costs less than an e-bike. They’re not quite as practical or comfortable for most people, but considering that most of the time when we jump in the car, we drive fewer than 10 miles, they can still replace a lot of quick trips.

Benefits of E-Scooters vs. E-Bikes:

• Typically less expensive.
• More maneuverable, so easier to navigate obstacles, especially on busy streets.
• Easier to carry upstairs to an office or apartment.
• Requires less space to store.
• Easier to take on a bus or subway, or load into your car so you can park outside of congested areas and e-scooter into them.

Drawbacks of E-Scooters vs. E-Bikes:

• Harder for some people to balance.
• No option to pedal for increased range (scooters are difficult to use without power).
• Most don’t have seats.
• Only cargo carrying option is a backpack.
• Can be as heavy as an e-bike.
• No option to get exercise while riding.

Best for larger cities and congested areas, shorter travel distances, people who frequent offices and apartments, places where bicycle theft is an issue, and combining modes of transportation.

E-Skateboards for Transportation

If you love skateboarding, choosing an e-board is a no-brainer. For everyone else, there’s more of a gray area.

Benefits of E-Skateboards vs. E-Scooters:

• Fun to carve, similar to a longboard; more exciting in general.
• Weigh less, so easier to carry into buildings.
• Less bulky, so better for mixing with busses and subways; easier to store.
• Can be hooked to a backpack to carry.
• More maneuverable, if you’re an adept rider.
• Most come with regenerative braking systems.
• Easy to ride when out of battery (hub-driven boards only).

Drawbacks of E-Skateboards vs. E-Scooters:

• Harder to learn.
• Less stable, and therefore arguably less safe.
• Usually less range.
• Less practical and comfortable for longer distances.
• Difficult to use when the battery dies (belt-driven boards only).

Best for people who love skateboarding, people who frequent offices and apartments, larger cities and congested areas, shorter travel distances, and combining modes of transportation.

Electric Cars for Transportation

For people whose location and life circumstances require a car, there’s really no choice to be made here. But if you find that you only rarely use a car, like for road trips or transporting bulky items, you might find that an EV car share or rental is a better option than buying one outright.

Benefits of Electric Cars vs. E-Bikes:

• Multiple passengers.
• More cargo capacity.
• More comfortable in inclement and hot weather.
• Travels longer distances.
• Safest for transporting children.

Drawbacks of Electric Cars vs. E-Bikes:

• More expensive to buy and charge.
• Harder to charge (can’t just plug it into any outlet).
• Need a parking spot.
• Need registration and insurance.

Best for families, dogs, longer distances, carrying cargo, inclement weather, and those with physical disabilities.

Getting Creative With E-Transportation Options

For many of us, the best option may be a combination of an e-bike or scooter, bus or subway, and cars. Also, keep in mind that the best solution is not always to just go out and buy something new. For example, if you have a gas-powered car that’s still running fine, it’s probably not more environmentally sound to replace it with an EV, especially if you don’t use it much.

Features To Consider When Buying E-Bikes, E-Scooters, and E-Skateboards

Whichever form of e-transportation you’re considering, the main features to keep in mind are:

• Range, battery storage capacity, and charge time
• Speed, not just top speed but whether it will keep up with traffic
• Cost
• Available accessories (baskets, seats, etc.)
• Serviceability (is there someone in town who can fix it)
• Manual pedaling/pushing vs. electrical pedal assist and throttle control
• Drivetrain options, such as dual motors, manual pedaling pushing, electric pedal assist, throttle control, and regenerative braking
• Weight and size (packability, portability, and storage needs)

“With portability comes convenience,” says Conlow. “If riders feel inconvenienced, they’re not going to ride it.”

Note that manufacturer statements of a vehicle’s range are not always accurate. “Anyone can just rate a range whatever they want,” says Conlow. “You have to actually look at how big the battery pack itself is. What we do with our site, and what we hope becomes more common, is putting actual real-world range tests so riders can make sure it’s going to fulfill their needs.”

What’s the Best E-Transportation Choice for the Climate?

If we envision the end goal as a future where the grid used to power manufacturing and recharging comes from renewable energy — and cities are no longer overwhelmingly car-centric — then any e-choice is a good one to work toward that outcome. In the reality of this moment, most experts still agree that electric is very much the way to go.

For all options, a current environmental hurdle is batteries. Ideally, before too long, science will find solutions for replacing the metals in them that require harmful mining practices, as well as a more streamlined recycling process. This sees hopeful, as battery technology continues to rapidly progress.

Otherwise, scooters are the biggest gray area, mostly because so many of them are used as community rentals. They are often transported to recharge stations in fossil-fuel-burning trucks and have short life spans due to abuse and damage. One study suggests that because of these factors, community scooters are no better than conventional cars for saving carbon. However, if you buy one and take good care of it for at least a couple of years, the same study suggests it will pay off environmentally.

And finally, another consideration is what form of transportation your new e-bike or scooter is replacing. If it’s replacing a gas-powered car or motorcycle, then it will most certainly alleviate emissions. However, if you’re replacing walking, bicycling or public transportation, you’re likely increasing your carbon footprint, as a recent study in Zurich found.

Feature image courtesy of Lectric eBikes

Shortly after sunset, pockets of super-heated gas called ‘plasma bubbles’ form in the upper atmosphere and stretch into space (up to 900km above the Earth’s surface). These bubbles start small and grow rapidly — from the size of a football pitch to that of a small country in just a couple of hours. As the bubbles grow bigger, they can prevent satellites from communicating with the Earth by blocking and warping their radio signals.

To predict plasma bubbles, a team of researchers has collated 8 years of data from the SWARM satellite mission. The spacecraft has an automatic bubble detector on-board called the Ionospheric Bubble Index. This compares changes in the density of electrons and the magnetic field strength to check if bubbles are present: a strong correlation between the two indicates the presence of a plasma bubble.

The satellite flies at an altitude of 460km (about 30x higher than a commercial plane) through the middle of most plasma bubbles. The model combines the data collection from SWARM with a machine learning approach to make predictions on the likelihood of a plasma bubble event occurring at any time.

The results show that the number of plasma bubble events varies from season to season, just like the weather, and that the number of events increases with solar activity. Despite this, the model finds location to be a far more crucial element in predicting plasma bubbles than the time of year, with most events occurring over a region in the Atlantic called the South Atlantic Anomaly. The AI model predicts events with an accuracy of 91% across different tests.

Reddy says: “Just like the weather forecast on earth, we need to be able to forecast bubbles to prevent major disruptions to satellite services. Our aim is to be able to say something like: “At 8pm tomorrow there is a 30% chance of a bubble appearing over the Horn of Africa.” This kind of information is extremely useful for spacecraft operators and for people who depend on satellite data every day, just like you and me.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by Royal Astronomical Society. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Each year, strong winds carry more than a billion metric tons – or the weight of 10,000 aircraft carriers – of mineral dust from Earth’s deserts and other dry regions through the atmosphere. While scientists know that the dust affects the environment and climate, they don’t have enough data to determine, in detail, what those effects are or may be in the future – at least not yet.

Set to launch to the International Space Station aboard a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft on Thursday, July 14, at 8:44 p.m. EDT (5:44 p.m. PDT), NASA’s Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) instrument will help fill in those knowledge gaps. EMIT’s state-of-the-art imaging spectrometer, developed by the agency’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, will collect more than a billion dust-source-composition measurements around the globe over the course of a year – and in doing so, significantly advance scientists’ understanding of dust’s influence across the Earth system.

Live coverage from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida will air on NASA Television, the NASA app, and the agency’s website. Prelaunch events on Wednesday, July 13, include a 2 p.m. EDT (11 a.m. PDT) climate conversation on NASA TV with Kate Calvin, NASA’s chief scientist and climate advisor, and Robert Green, EMIT’s principal investigator at JPL.

Here are five things to know about EMIT:

1. It will identify the composition of mineral dust from Earth’s arid regions.

Desert regions produce most of the mineral dust that makes its way into the atmosphere. They’re also largely remote, making it difficult for scientists to collect soil and dust samples over these vast areas by hand.

From its perch on the space station, EMIT will map the world’s mineral dust source regions. The imaging spectrometer will also provide information on the color and composition of dust sources globally for the first time. This data will help scientists understand which kinds of dust dominate each region and advance their understanding of dust’s impact on climate and the Earth system today and in the future.

2. It will clarify whether mineral dust heats or cools the planet.

Right now, scientists don’t know whether mineral dust has a cumulative heating or cooling effect on the planet. That’s because dust particles in the atmosphere have different properties. For instance, some particles may be dark red, while others may be white.

The color matters because it determines whether the dust will absorb the Sun’s energy, as dark-colored minerals do, or reflect it, as light-colored minerals do. If more of the dust absorbs the Sun’s energy than reflects it, it’ll warm the planet, and vice versa.

EMIT will provide a detailed picture of how much dust comes from dark versus light minerals. That information will allow scientists to determine whether dust heats or cools the planet overall, as well as regionally and locally.

3. It will help scientists understand how dust affects different Earth processes.

Mineral dust particles vary in color because they’re made of different substances. Dark red mineral dust gets its color from iron, for example. The composition of dust particles affects how they interact with many of Earth’s natural processes.

For instance, mineral dust plays a role in cloud formation and atmospheric chemistry. When mineral dust is deposited in the ocean or forests, it can provide nutrients for growth, acting like fertilizer. When it falls on snow or ice, the dust accelerates melting, leading to more water runoff. And for humans, mineral dust can be a health hazard when inhaled.

EMIT media reel

EMIT will collect information on 10 important dust varieties, including those that contain iron oxides, clays, and carbonates. With this data, scientists will be able to assess precisely what effects mineral dust has on different ecosystems and processes.

4. Its data will improve the accuracy of climate models.

In the absence of more specific data, scientists currently characterize mineral dust in climate models as yellow – a general average of dark and light. Because of this, the effects that mineral dust may have on climate – and that climate may have on mineral dust – are not well represented in computer models.

Color and composition information gathered by EMIT will change that. When the instrument’s data is incorporated, the accuracy of climate models is expected to improve.

Teachable Moment: Learn More About NASA’s Mission to Study Dust in Earth’s Atmosphere

5. It will help scientists predict how future climate scenarios will affect the type and amount of dust in our atmosphere.

As global temperatures rise, arid regions may become even drier, possibly resulting in larger (and dustier) deserts. To what extent this might happen depends on several factors, including how much temperatures rise, how land use changes, and how rainfall trends change.

By incorporating EMIT’s global dust source composition data into models and predictions, scientists will gain a better understanding of how the amount and composition of dust in arid regions may change under different climate and land-use scenarios. They’ll also gain a better understanding of how these changes may impact climate in the future.

More About the Mission

EMIT was developed at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is managed for the agency by Caltech in Pasadena, California. It will launch from Kennedy Space Center in Florida to the International Space Station aboard SpaceX’s 25th commercial resupply services mission for NASA. Once EMIT begins operation, its data will be delivered to the NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) for use by other researchers and the public.

To learn more about the mission, visit:

https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/

News Media Contacts

Andrew Wang / Jane J. Lee

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

626-379-6874 / 818-354-0307

[email protected] / [email protected]

The study is the first to assess the economic impacts that individual countries have caused to other countries through their cumulative national-level contributions to global warming. The research draws direct connections between national emissions of heat-trapping gases to losses and gains in gross domestic product in 143 countries for which data are available.

The study, published in the journal Climatic Change, provides an essential basis for nations to make legal claims for economic losses tied to emissions and warming.

“Greenhouse gases emitted in one country cause warming in another, and that warming can depress economic growth,” said Justin Mankin, an assistant professor of geography at Dartmouth and senior researcher of the study. “This research provides legally valuable estimates of the financial damages individual nations have suffered due to other countries’ climate-changing activities.”

Among the data, the research found that a small group from the world’s leading national emitters of greenhouse gases have caused $6 trillion in global economic losses through warming caused by their emissions from 1990 to 2014.

According to the study, emissions from the U.S. and China, the world’s two leading emitters, are responsible for global income losses of over $1.8 trillion each in the 25-year period from 1990. Economic losses caused by Russia, India, and Brazil individually exceed $500 billion each for the same years. The $6 trillion in cumulative losses attributable to the five countries equals about 11% of annual global GDP within the study period.

“This research provides an answer to the question of whether there is a scientific basis for climate liability claims — the answer is yes,” said Christopher Callahan, first author of the study and a PhD candidate at Dartmouth. “We have quantified each nation’s culpability for historical temperature-driven income changes in every other country.”

Warmer temperatures can cause economic losses for a country through many pathways, such as lowering agricultural yields, reducing labor productivity or decreasing industrial output.

In addition to losses, the research also values the economic benefits derived from warming caused by country-level emissions but highlights that the large gains disproportionately benefitting some countries do not negate the losses suffered in others.

The study focuses on the economic impacts of temperature change as a consequence of emissions, not other effects of emissions such as those on air quality. Data presented in the study quantifies economic impacts based on distinct greenhouse gas emissions accounting schemes, considering those emissions that happened within a country’s territory versus the emissions embodied in international trade.

The research shows that the distribution of warming impacts from emitters is highly unequal, with the top 10 global emitters causing more than two-thirds of losses worldwide. Countries that lose income are warmer and poorer than the global average and are generally located in the tropics and the global South. Countries that gain income are cooler and wealthier than the global average and are generally located in the middle latitudes and the North.

“Irrespective of the accounting, warm counties have warmed and lost income because of it, while colder countries have warmed but enjoyed economic gains,” said Mankin. “The responsibility for the warming rests primarily with a handful of major emitters, and this warming has resulted in the enrichment of a few wealthy countries at the expense of the poorest people in the world.”

For years, researchers have worked to establish direct legal links between economic loss and emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Previous studies have provided estimates on the total, global level of economic loss, but could not determine the warming attributable to individual nations, undermining national efforts to hold emitting countries accountable for legal damages because of the uncertainties involved.

By creating an analytical framework that links emissions from individual countries to the losses and gains in every other country, the Dartmouth research team hopes to help resolve questions of climate liability and national accountability to inform climate policy.

“For the first time, we have been able to show clear and statistically significant linkages between the emissions of specific countries and historical economic losses experienced by other countries,” said Callahan. “This is about the culpability of one country to another country, not the effect of overall global warming on a country.”

The team says that the study discredits the idea that climate mitigation is simply a “collective action problem,” where no one country acting alone can have an effect on the impacts of global warming.

“Until now, the complexity of the carbon cycle, natural variations in climate, and uncertainties in models have provided emitters with plausible deniability for individual damage claims. That veil of deniability has now been lifted,” said Mankin.

According to the team, identifying national culpability demonstrates that individual countries can have large, attributable impacts from warming due to their emissions; the actions of individual nations do matter; and country-level mitigation, even if pursued alone, would limit measurable harms to others.

“Nations need to work together to stop warming, but that doesn’t mean that individual countries can’t take actions that drive change,” said Callahan. “This research upends the notion that the causes and impacts of warming only occur at the global level.”

A major challenge for the research was to account for large uncertainties at each step in the causal chain from emissions to global warming, from warming to country-level temperature changes, and from country-level temperature changes to impact.

To overcome this difficulty, the research team combined historical data with climate models in an integrated framework to quantify each nation’s culpability for historical temperature-driven income changes in every other country.

The study sampled 2 million possible values for each country-to-country interaction. In total, 11 trillion values were calculated on a supercomputer operated by Dartmouth’s Research Information, Technology and Consulting.

“This is the first research to integrate and quantify all of the uncertainties in each step of the chain between emissions and economic impact,” said Callahan. “We are not addressing the question of whether fossil fuels have been good or bad for economic growth, but how to compensate for the damage caused by the warming from those emissions.”

According to the research team, future work can use the same analytical approach to determine the contribution of specific emitters, including individual corporations, to economic loss and gain.

The research was funded by the Wright Center for the Study of Computation and Just Communities, a research center in Dartmouth’s Neukom Institute for Computational Science. Funding was also provided through the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.

In honor of Earth Day’s 52 years of inspiring environmental action, Earth911 is offering 52 Actions for the Earth. Each week until Earth Day 2023, we will share one action you can take to invest in the Earth and make your own life more sustainable.

Maintaining a traditional American lawn all summer can have a significant environmental impact. The chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers we dump on our lawns to make them grow – as well as the gas-powered yard equipment we use to keep grass short – take an environmental toll. Lawns use a lot of water, too – between 30% and 60% of a household’s water is used outdoors. This week, you can invest in the earth by using less water on your lawn.

Action: Be Green by Letting Your Lawn Go Gold

Greener Options

The most sustainable thing you could do with your grass lawn is get rid of it. Replacing grass with nitrogen-fixing clover or other grass alternatives will reduce the inputs required to keep your yard looking nice, and will free up the time you used to spend mowing. But lots of Americans love their grass lawns.

If you can’t bear to part with grass, there are a lot of ways to make your lawn more environmentally friendly. We waste a lot of resources thanks to lawn care myths.

Going Gold

But of all the resources we waste maintaining lawns, the one that’s most relevant during the hottest part of summer is water. Water demand peaks in the summer, during the same time that the Western United States experiences dry weather. During times of drought, which are an increasingly common consequence of climate change, some states and municipalities may ban the watering of lawns or even require their removal. As these sorts of regulations become more common, people are becoming more accepting of the sight of a yellow lawn. In places where rainfall is seasonal, let a lawn go gold in the dry season. Although the lawn may appear to be dead, it will naturally turn green again when the rain returns.

Wise Watering

Although some communities are banning lawns, there are others that require homeowners to maintain a green lawn year-round. And for many homeowners, summer is the time they enjoy their lawn the most. If you can’t give up watering your lawn in the summer, you can still find ways to save water. In that case, you can still take action this week.

Action: Water Wisely

Weekly Water

Daily watering is wasteful and is not healthy for your lawn. It encourages top growth at the expense of root growth. Weak, shallow root systems leave grass vulnerable to stress. Water deeply once or twice a week to enable plants to develop strong root systems that extract water from the soil more efficiently. Established lawns only need to be watered when the plants start to wilt.

More Efficient Water Tips

To minimize evaporation, don’t water during the hottest part of the day. Leave the cuttings on the lawn when you mow to act as a mulch in addition to other benefits. If you have an automatic watering system, inspect it regularly; install a rain shutoff device; and either adjust the schedule monthly or install a WaterSense labeled controller that adjusts your run times according to the weather.