The study, led by the New England Aquarium and including researchers from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the USGS Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, the Center for Coastal Studies, UCLA, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Canadian Whale Institute was published this month in the journal Global Change Biology. The authors set out to better understand the impacts of ocean climate change on phenology, or the timing of recurring biological events such as when plants flower each year. Using more than 20 years of data, the scientists measured shifts in whale habitat use in Cape Cod Bay, evaluating trends in peak use for North Atlantic right whales, humpback whales, and fin whales. The study found that peak use of Cape Cod Bay had shifted almost three weeks later for right whales and humpback whales. Changes in the timing of whale habitat use were related to when spring starts, which has been changing as a result of climate change. The study suggested that highly migratory marine mammals can and do adapt the timing of their habitat use in response to climate-driven changes in their environment, with results showing increased habitat use by right whales in Cape Cod Bay from February to May, with greatest increases in April and May.

“The time of year when we are most likely to see right and humpback whales in Cape Cod Bay has changed considerably, and right whales are using the habitat much more heavily than they did 20 years ago,” said lead author Dr. Dan Pendleton, Research Scientist in the New England Aquarium’s Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life.

The research team gathered data from aerial surveys conducted by the Center for Coastal Studies from 1998 to 2018 and analyzed environmental data such as sea surface temperatures and the dates that signify the start of spring each year. The team used a novel statistical technique to study changes in whale habitat use within and across years, which provided insights into long-term effects of climate change on whale habitat.

Scientists conducted the study in the Gulf of Maine because it is one of the most rapidly warming regions of the ocean, making it a unique ecosystem to study phenological and biological responses to climate change, such as animal migrations, peaks in productivity, and breeding. Sea surface and bottom temperatures in the Gulf of Maine have increased at a rate three times faster than the global average over recent decades. Changing ocean circulation and temperature — including earlier spring, later fall, longer summer and shorter winter — have led to changes in whales’ food supply throughout the Gulf of Maine.

“One of the biggest gaps in our understanding of how climate change is shifting the yearly cycles of life in the oceans involves the largest migrating animals — whales,” said Michelle Staudinger, an ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, science coordinator at the Northeast Climate Adaption Science Center and professor of environmental conservation at UMass Amherst. “Even though they’re the largest mammals on earth, we have an incomplete understanding of where some whales go and when. This new research helps us understand how seasonal whale migration is changing, which is critical for their protection and conservation in our region.”

The scientists also theorized that right whales may be using Cape Cod Bay for a longer period of time because climate change has reduced the amount of food available in other Gulf of Maine habitats. These changes may have turned the bay into a sort of “waiting room” for right whales as richer prey resources develop in new habitats, such as the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

North Atlantic right whales are a critically endangered species with 336 individuals estimated to be alive. The whales’ population has declined over the past decade due to human activities, such as vessel strikes and fishing gear entanglements. When large whales visit Cape Cod Bay is of high concern because the region is heavily used by vessel operators and fishermen. Vessel speed limits and fishing restrictions in Cape Cod Bay were designed to coincide with the historical peak in North Atlantic right whale habitat use. The research illustrates the continued need for government agencies to alter protective measures for threatened and endangered whales, as those animals adapt to their feeding and migration patterns in response to climate change.

“Changes in whenwhales use their traditional habitats has important implications for the design of protected areas. This issue is especially important as climate change continues to alter animal migrations,” Pendleton said.

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Massachusetts Amherst. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Somewhere around the turn of the century, people began to realize that new car smell is actually an unhealthy combination of 50-60 VOCs off-gassing from plastics, vinyl, and glues. For a while, environmentalists paid a lot of attention to avoiding VOCs, but it’s hard to maintain attention these days.

The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for handling false advertising claims, but they have filed only two to five environmental marketing cases per year since 2015, which means that very few greenwashers are ever held accountable. Unfortunately, some companies have taken advantage of the lack of scrutiny to greenwash their products, as evidenced by one of those rare FTC legal actions. The FTC took action against YOLO Colorhouse for advertising their paints as no-VOC when that wasn’t true at all. Here’s why that’s a bigger problem than just false advertising.

What Are VOCs

VOC stands for “volatile organic compound.” Volatile organic compounds include a wide variety of chemicals that share two key characteristics. First, they are all emitted as gases from solids or liquids that contain them in a process called “off-gassing.” Second, they are all organic. In environmental circles, “organic” is usually a positive term that implies natural origin. But in chemistry, “organic” is a neutral term that refers to carbon-based compounds.

Organic chemicals include most of the compounds that make up living matter. Relatively few of them are volatile, but some such as methane and benzene are naturally occurring. But many other VOCs are manufactured chemicals that are rare in nature if they exist there at all. Regardless of their origin, VOCs work as industrial solvents, fuels, paint thinners, and dry-cleaning agents. They are also present in thousands of commercial products, from paints and paint strippers to cleaning supplies, pesticides, glues and permanent markers.

What’s Wrong With VOCs

VOCs, including formaldehyde, a variety of compounds found in paints and finishes, and some flame retardants, are on the Red List of materials green builders try to avoid. When released outdoors, VOCs react with nitrogen oxides in the air to form ozone pollution. Organic compounds in myriad chemical products become pollutants in groundwater, and volatile organics in many home products contribute significantly to indoor air pollution.

Organic pollutants can have short- and long-term adverse health effects. Because VOCs comprise such a widely varied group of compounds, their health impacts are also varied, but can include irritation of eyes, nose, and throat; difficulty breathing and nausea; central nervous system and other organ damage; and even cancer. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Toxic Substances Portal identifies specific health effects from different kinds of VOCs.

Indoor air quality can be two to five times worse than outside air quality. Concentrations of many harmful VOCs are up to 10 times higher indoors than outdoors. There are several remedies for indoor air quality at home, but one of the most important is source control.

Avoiding VOCs

Choose cleaning products, solvents, glues, and paints that are labeled low-VOC or no-VOC. To avoid the kind of greenwashing revealed in the Colorhouse case, look for third-party certification. Unfortunately, there is no single certification system for VOCs. Paints and finishes may have one of several types of certification, including GreenGuard, Green Seal, and Indoor airPLUS. Green Seal also looks at the safety of cleaning products. Numerous other certification systems, such as MADESAFE, consider the safety or toxicity of ingredients in a wide variety of consumer products.

You can also avoid VOCs by choosing different types of products. Avoid anything made from vinyl (also known as PVC). Choose solid wood furnishings instead of upholstered ones and bare wood or tile floors instead of carpet to avoid the VOCs in foams.

Most off-gassing takes place when products are new and decreases over time. Buying second-hand is one way to avoid VOCs in soft furnishings and other products where VOCs may be unavoidable. When you must buy new products – for example, engineered woods bound with adhesives that contain VOCs – let the materials off-gas outdoors or in the garage before bringing them into the home.

Time remodeling and craft projects for summer so that you can keep doors and windows open while working. Completely avoiding VOCs in products is impossible when even computers and mattresses contain them. So, try to maintain good ventilation in your home at all times to remove any VOCs released. Off-gassing is more severe in high temperatures and high humidity, so keeping your home cool and dry is also helpful. Finally, communicate with the manufacturers of the products you buy and encourage them to offer low and no-VOC products.

Researchers at The University of Texas at Austin and Penn State University have created a new type of fiber that can perform like a muscle actuator, in many ways better than other options that exist today. And, most importantly, these muscle-like fibers are simple to make and recycle.

In a new paper published in Nature Nano, the researchers showed that these fibers, which they initially discovered while working on another project, are more efficient, flexible and able to handle increased strain compared to what’s out there today. These fibers could be used in a variety of ways, including medicine and robotics.

“You can basically build a limb from these fibers in a robot that responds to stimuli and returns power, instead of using a mechanical motor to do this, and that’s good because then it will have a softer touch,” said Manish Kumar, an associate professor in the Cockrell School of Engineering’s Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering and one of the lead authors of the paper.

This kind of robotic arm could be used in an assistive exoskeleton to help people with weak arms regain movement and strength. Another potential application, the researchers say, could be a sort of “self-closing bandage” that could be used in surgical procedures and naturally degrade inside the body once the wound heals.

“Actuators are any material that will change or deform under any external stimuli, like parts of a machine that will contract, bend, or expand,” said Robert Hickey, assistant professor of materials science and engineering at Penn State and corresponding author on the paper. “And for technologies like robotics, we need to develop soft, lightweight versions of these materials that can basically act as artificial muscles. Our work is really about finding a new way to do this.”

The fiber material is known as a block co-polymer. Creating it only requires putting the polymer in a solvent and then adding water. One part of the polymer is hydrophilic (attracted to water), while the other part is hydrophobic (resistant to water). The hydrophobic parts of the polymer group together to shield themselves from the water, creating the structure of the fiber.

Similar existing fibers require an electric current to stimulate the reactions that bond parts together. This chemical cross-linking is harder to make happen, compared to the researchers’ new fiber, which is a mechanical reaction, meaning the parts take care of most of the work themselves. Another added bonus is it is simple to reverse the process and return the pieces of the fiber to their original states.

“The ease of making these fibers from the polymer and their recyclability are very important, and it’s an aspect that much of the other complicated artificial muscle research doesn’t cover,” Kumar said.

The researchers found their fibers were 75% more efficient in terms of converting energy to movement, able to handle 80% more strain and could rotate with more speed and force than current actuators. And it can stretch to more than 900% of its length before it breaks.

The discovery came while the researchers were working on something else. They were trying to use these polymers to make membranes for water filtration. However, the structures they made were too long for membranes. They stretched out to five times their original length and held that length. The researchers noticed that these characteristics were similar to muscle tissue, so they decided to shift the focus.

The researchers are early on in the project, and they next plan to learn more about the structural changes of the polymer and improve some of the actuation properties, including energy density and speed. They also may use this same design technique to create actuators that respond to different stimuli, such as light.

Venkat Ganesan, a professor in the McKetta Department of Chemical Engineering and Rui Huang, professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, are the other Texas Engineers on the team. Also on the team from Penn State are Chao Lang, Elisabeth Lloyd, Kelly Matuszewski and Yifan Xu. The Air Force Office of Scientific Research, National Science Foundation and Penn State funded the research.

The team, led by Dr James R. Allan from the University of Amsterdam, used advanced geospatial algorithms to map the optimal areas for conserving terrestrial species and ecosystems across the world. They further used spatially explicit land-use scenarios to quantify how much of this land is at risk from human activities by 2030.

“Our study is the current best estimate of how much land we must conserve to stop the biodiversity crisis — it is essentially a conservation plan for the planet,” said lead author James Allan. “We must act fast, our models show that over 1.3 million km² of this important land — an area larger than South Africa — is likely to have its habitat cleared for human uses by 2030, which would be devastating for wildlife.”

The work has important policy implications since governments are currently negotiating a post-2020 global biodiversity framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity, with new goals and targets for biodiversity which will hopefully come into effect later this year. This will set the conservation agenda for at least the next decade, and governments will have to report progress against these targets on a regular basis.

“More than a decade ago, governments set a global target to conserve at least 17 per cent of terrestrial areas through protected areas and other site-based approaches for improving the status of biodiversity and ecosystems,” explains co-author Dr Kendall Jones, Conservation Planning Specialist at the Wildlife Conservation Society. “However, by 2020 it was clear that this was not enough for halting biodiversity declines and averting the biodiversity crisis.”

A high-profile target being now discussed for 2030 is that nations should conserve 30% of their land through protected areas and other site-based approaches.

Added Jones: “While this is a great step in the right direction, our study suggests that more ambitious goals and policies to maintain ecological integrity beyond this 30% target are crucial. If nations are serious about safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services that underpin life on Earth, then they need immediately to scale-up their conservation efforts, not only in extent and intensity but also in effectiveness.”

The authors said the study provides essential information for conservation and development planning, and can help guide future national and global conservation agendas. They also emphasized that all the identified land should not necessarily be designated as protected areas, but rather managed through a wide range of strategies for species and ecosystem conservation, including including other effective area-based conservation measures, and effective sustainable land-use policies when appropriate.

“Conservation actions that promote the autonomy and self-determination of people living on this land, whilst also maintaining ecological integrity are crucial,” said Dr Allan. “We have many effective conservation tools available, from empowering Indigenous Peoples to manage their natural environment, through to policies that limit deforestation or provide sustainable livelihood options, and of course protected areas.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by Wildlife Conservation Society. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Earth911 Mattress Ranking research is sponsored by Avocado Brands

Sleep is bliss, but it isn’t always environmentally responsible. Many mattresses contain a toxic brew of chemicals — from flame-retardant chemicals like polybrominated diphenyl ethers to formaldehyde and mercury — as well as petroleum-based ingredients. In recent years, sustainable mattress companies have risen to the challenge of making a clean, earth-friendly bed.

Some of these environmentally responsible companies sell “mattresses-in-a-box,” which are delivered in a small box and expand when opened. Earth911 collected supply chain, certification, and manufacturing details for 10 sustainable mattress manufacturers to help shoppers find the best earth-friendly sleep. We’ve filtered out all companies that do not make an explicit promise that their products are green and healthy.

The results — displayed below in a printable chart — reveal a wide range of options for earth-friendly beds.

This article contains affiliate links to products that, if you make a purchase, support Earth911’s editorial mission.

Comparison Chart

To view our printable comparison chart, click the image below.

Our Rating Criteria

The factors we considered when assessing a mattress’ environmental friendliness and sustainability include the following keystones.

Company Supply Chain

The length of the company supply chain describes the distance materials are shipped before and after the mattress is manufactured. In all cases, the sustainable mattress companies in our list assemble their products in the United States, minimizing the post-manufacturing shipping burden.

Shorter shipping distances contribute fewer CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Several of the companies — including Avocado, Birch by Helix, and Brentwood Home — use materials sourced in the U.S.

Carbon Emissions Offsets

A second supply chain consideration is whether the mattress maker offsets their shipping and manufacturing carbon emissions with carbon credits or carbon sequestration programs, such as reforestation. All of the companies with the Leaders of the Pack designation offset their company carbon emissions.

Recyclable Mattress Materials

Recyclability of the mattress and materials is a common feature of sustainable mattresses. The latex, cotton, wool, and other materials in all the mattresses we reviewed are biodegradable. However, it is important to send a mattress to a responsible recycler to ensure that it does not end up in a landfill.

Recyclable Packaging Materials

Recyclability of mattress-in-a-box packaging is generally good. Every company we reviewed offers recyclable boxes and plastic wrapping in which the mattress ships. You may receive one, two, or more boxes in your order, but the cardboard packaging and plastic film should be fairly easy to recycle locally.

Mattress Recycling Services

Old mattress recycling services are not required in 47 states. Only California, Rhode Island, and Connecticut — and soon Oregon — have laws on the books requiring removal and recycling of an old mattress. Those states also charge a fee at purchase that ensures no-charge recycling at the mattress’ end of life. Unfortunately, none of the companies we reviewed seems to offer free recycling services.

Charity and Giving

Charity and giving programs are another important feature of a responsible company. Returned mattresses cannot be resold, so every company has a donation program to dispose of returned mattresses responsibly. Shoppers also want to know that their spending is supporting ethical business practices, which often involve extensive charitable giving. With active giving ranging from 1% for the Planet to extensive networks of charitable programs supported by most of the mattress makers in our comparison, you can find a sustainable mattress that aligns with your values.

Certifications: Safety First

Certifications are essential guidelines for mattress buyers. Consumer Reports provides a comprehensive summary of mattress materials certifications to look for when shopping. For a second opinion, read Triple Pundit’s assessment of the certifications for mattresses, many of which are forms of greenwashing.

Seek out products that have the following certifications:

• Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) covers the processing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, trading, and distribution of all textiles made from at least 70% certified organic natural fibers.
• Global Organic Latex Standard (GOLS) outlines requirements for latex products. To achieve GOLS certification, a product must contain more than 95% certified organic raw material and comply with permissible limits for harmful substances, emission test requirements, and polymer and filler percentages.
• CertiPUR-US certification of the foam used in the mattress. The CertiPUR-US seal ensures the mattress foam you or your kids sleep on is made without chemical flame retardants, mercury and other heavy metals, formaldehyde, or phthalates. CertiPUR-US also reviews the emissions, or “off-gassing,” by new mattresses for low volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, less than 0.5 parts per million.
• OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certification addresses the safety and sustainability of textiles, such as cotton and wool, used in mattresses. The Standard 100 certification provides customers assurance that harmful chemicals and environmentally harmful substances are not produced by the manufacturing process or included in the product.
• eco-INSTITUT certification involves similar testing, measuring the emissions from the mattress, and the environmental responsibility of the sourcing of materials. In particular, eco-INSTITUT examines the sources of latex, which is harvested from rubber trees, and used in mattresses.
• GREENGUARD Gold certification, from United Laboratories, validates that a mattress does not exceed the emission standards for VOCs that contribute to indoor pollution.
• Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified latex and wood products ensure that these products come from responsibly-managed forests.
• Fair Trade certification ensures safe working conditions, environmental protection, sustainable livelihoods, and community development funds where these products are cultivated.
• Cradle-to-Cradle certification is a global standard for products that are “safe, circular and responsibly made.”
• Rainforest Alliance certification involves third-party auditors evaluating growers for social, environmental, and economic factors.
• The MADE SAFE seal means that products are nontoxic and made with safe ingredients for human health.

Earth911’s Sustainable Mattress Rankings

No single mattress is right for everyone, and manufacturers take different approaches to delivering a sustainable mattress at the right price. You need to be aware of the trade-offs they make so that you arrive at the environmental outcome you want.

Completely organic materials are prohibitively expensive for many consumers and the length of supply chains varies dramatically. These two factors, along with certifications, are the most important to our general ranking of the companies.

We broke down the top green mattress manufacturers into three categories: Leaders of the Pack, Green Innovators, and Noticeably Green. The top designation, Leaders of the Pack, is for companies with at least one material sourced in the United States, numerous third-party certifications, and emission offset programs. Green Innovators may lack emissions offset programs or are less transparent about their supply chains. Finally, manufacturers in the Noticeably Green category don’t offset emissions and provide less information on charitable giving programs.

Leaders of the Pack

Avocado

Avocado offers 10 organic mattresses in total and has a certified-vegan version of its eponymous mattress. It is a Certified B Corporation and is Climate Neutral Certified. The mattresses are GREENGUARD Gold certified and OEKO-TEX textile safety. Its products use 100% GOTS organic certified cotton and wool, as well as hydrated silica as a natural fire retardant. The latex originates from Kochi, India, where it is cultivated and processed by Avocado Organic Latex. Mattresses are assembled and shipped from California. Avocado purchases carbon offsets through Carbonfund.org and uses easily recycled LDPE plastic in its packaging. As members of 1% for the Planet, Avocado donates 1% of its revenue to vetted environmental nonprofits.

Birch by Helix

Helix goes the extra mile to ensure sustainably sourced material, safe working conditions, and nontoxic mattresses. Materials include certified organic cotton, ethical wool, and sustainably farmed latex. The firm works with a variety of partners to ensure high standards and levels of certification, while also giving back through environmental charity giving programs. Also, it participates in a carbon offset program.

Brentwood Home (Avocado Brands)

Brentwood Home, an Avocado company, makes one of the two vegan mattresses (no wool) in our review: the Crystal Cove mattress. The company uses one of the most extensive supply chains among the companies we reviewed, but it makes an annual carbon offset payment to compensate for the shipping and manufacturing of its mattresses. It donates money to Carbonfund.org for reforestation projects that sequester carbon equal to its production footprint. Brentwood Home and Avocado also have numerous extensive sustainability certifications — of the quality seals that matter — among companies reviewed here. Both companies emphasize the recyclability of their packaging and offer white-glove installation, which does not include old mattress removal and recycling.

Naturepedic

Naturepedic is an excellent source of sustainable mattresses. The company has all the necessary certifications — including GOTS and GOLS sustainably made textile and latex and GreenGuard air quality tests. Naturepedic mattresses are generally more expensive than Avocado, Birch by Helix, and Brentwood Home, making the brand a luxury choice for those looking for a long-lived high-quality mattress. Naturepedic works with Climate Neutral to measure and offset its carbon footprint. Because Naturepedic does not share its supply chain information in detail, Earth911 added them to this list in fourth place.

Green Innovators

Awara

The Awara Natural Hybrid Mattress features latex and coil construction and an impressive lifetime warranty. It has earned numerous certifications, including GreenGuard Gold, and uses Rainforest Alliance-certified latex, organic cotton, and organic New Zealand wool. It uses silica-based flame retardants and water-based adhesives. Also, the company plants a tree for every purchase to help offset emissions. However, Awara is a bit vague about its materials sourcing and doesn’t feature charitable giving programs.

Happsy

While it does rely on latex from Asia, Happsy encourages sustainable rubber plantation practices which, the company says, lowers its carbon emissions. Shipping latex to its factory is its largest carbon footprint contributor. Happsy also buys organic cotton from a Texas growers’ collective. When possible, the company sources wool from U.S. suppliers but most of its wool comes from New Zealand and Australia. A donor to 1% for the Planet, Happsy is poised to rise in these rankings by adding carbon offsets.

PlushBeds

PlushBeds is a leading online luxury mattress manufacturer and retailer, specializing in organic mattresses and bedding. All products are handcrafted in their GOLS and GOTS certified organic production facility in California, with free shipping within the contiguous USA. The company offers a thorough selection of certified organic mattresses at accessible prices, especially through key holidays, so keep an eye out for their promotions. Each of the brand’s mattresses is GREENGUARD Gold Certified, ensuring your bed has met some of the world’s most rigorous and comprehensive standards for low chemical emissions. The company also provides environmental scholarships for college students, gives back to environmental and social nonprofits, and offsets 100% of its carbon emissions via TerraPass.

Spindle

The Spindle latex mattress features organic Dunlop latex, wool, and cotton and has made a concerted effort in the last year to transition to certified organic materials. Its products also feature U.S.-grown cotton, which can reduce the carbon footprint of its supply chain when compared to cotton grown overseas. It also has some very strong charitable giving programs, including a commitment to donate one mattress for every 10 sold and to donate 10% of its profits to The Conservation Fund. It could increase its ranking by participating in a carbon offset program and earning GREENGUARD certification.

Noticeably Green

Nest

Another quality U.S. mattress manufacturer, Nest uses a nice array of organic materials. Their mattresses feature a lifetime warranty, excellent breathability, and phase-change cooling that makes it cool to the touch. With a design for waste reduction, each mattress features a zipper that allows customers to swap out or replace the comfort layer, significantly extending the life of the mattress. During the trial period, customers can even swap out the layer for a different feel. Nest recommends rotating the layer every six months to ensure more even wear on the mattress. With no recycling, a vague corporate giving initiative, and no carbon offset programs, Nest is lower on the list.

Saatva

Saatva has excellent materials sourcing processes and builds its mattresses at 19 different locations and 145 fulfillment locations in the U.S. On average, a mattress travels less than 100 miles from the factory to its new home, saving energy and supporting the local economy. This online-only mattress company sources some of its materials from North America. The company was founded to disrupt the mattress store business with less-hassle shopping online. Nevertheless, it has worked hard to build a sustainable mattress. Its latex foam, organic cotton, and wool sourcing — and use of recycled steel spring coils — make Saatva mattresses a solid green option. The company could improve its ranking by earning more third-party certifications, such as GREENGUARD and GOTS-certified organic materials and by offsetting its emissions.

Previously in Top 10

Tuft & Needle

Tuft & Needle is the darling of Silicon Valley, founded by sleep nerds who built a robust business with retail locations in several states. It makes great strides to ensure nontoxic ingredients and flame retardancy and it’s available on Amazon.com. However, it does not contain organic ingredients, offset its carbon emissions, or provide mattress recycling and offers little information on charitable giving.

Casper

Casper has created a sensation online, contributing to the popularity of mattress-in-a-box products through online and retail locations. Its engineers work to improve the comfort and sustainability of its mattresses, but the company does not publish extensive supply chain information to validate its materials sourcing and makes no investment in carbon offsets. We are, however, very impressed with Casper’s charitable efforts. The company has contributed more than 70,000 times to homeless and women’s shelter programs, as well as employee volunteers who work with Start Small Think Big as well as Women In Need. Casper can improve in the rankings with more transparency and an effort to reduce its overall carbon footprint and to source organic materials.

Spindle

Spindle does not pitch itself as making a certified organic mattress; rather, it focuses on using “natural” materials that achieve the best price. It also has one of the longest supply chains in the industry, sourcing latex and cotton from Central America, Asia, and India without any accompanying carbon offset efforts. However, its use of U.S. wool and, when possible, U.S.-grown cotton does minimize its carbon footprint when those supplies are available. It could improve in our rankings by offsetting its carbon footprint and publishing information about its charitable programs.

EcoCloud by WinkBed

Composed of Talalay latex and pocketed coils, with an organic cotton and wool cover, this mattress is known to wick moisture. The EcoCloud by WinkBed has an impressive list of certifications including OEKO-TEX, Rainforest Alliance, and GOTS-certified cotton but little information on how and where the materials are sourced.

Editor’s note: We originally published this buyer’s guide on September 28, 2018. We updated the rankings in May 2022.

A new paper published in EPJ E looks at the dynamics of microswimmers under gravity. It is authored by a team from the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the Berlin Institute of Technology: Felix Rühle, Arne W. Zantop, and Holger Stark.

“My supervisor Professor Holger Stark and our team have long been interested in the collective behaviour of microswimmers,” Rühle says. “Within this field, patterns formed by biological organisms, such as algae and bacteria, are known as bioconvection.”

As an example, Rühle points to algal patches in the ocean which can be an ecological problem.

The team focus on squirmers  —  a model for a spherical microswimmer swimming in Stokes flow  —  to identify different dynamical states for such systems.

“For this project, we were interested in a specific kind of pattern formation that happens under gravity  —  swimmers reorient each other mediated by the flow field they create in the fluid,” Rühle continues. “But, at the same time, they have a tendency to point upwards  —  anti-parallel to gravity. The motion directed by a combination of these effects is called gyrotaxis, and we show how and when clusters form under these conditions in numerical simulations.”

While bioconvection can have many possible causes, such as the diffusion of oxygen, access to sunlight or turbulent flows, Rühle explains that the team’s simulations show that two “ingredients” are sufficient for clusters to form. These are gravity and hydrodynamic interactions with the strength of the reorienting gravity torque  —  which arises due to the centre of mass being below the geometrical centre ,  controlling the size of the clusters.

“This insight furthers our understanding of biological patterns in general,” Rühle concludes.

Story Source:

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

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an area twice size of Texas, consists of plastic waste from all over the world, carried by currents to converge in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. The floating waste breaks down into microplastics, which are consumed by fish and in turn by humans who eat those fish.

Only about 14.5% of U.S. plastic waste is recycled; most ends up in landfills where it takes hundreds of years to degrade. The U.S. and other developed countries have traditionally shipped their plastic waste to Asia, but many developing countries now refuse to accept more waste.

A new study by an international team of researchers explores the global patterns of plastic packaging waste. The study finds three countries — the U.S., Brazil, and China — are the top suppliers of waste.

“We wanted to follow the plastic packaging waste embedded in the global supply chain. This work allows us to conclude the problem is a responsibility shared between economic agents, from the producers and their intermediaries to the retail stores and the consumers,” says study co-author Sandy Dall’erba, professor in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics (ACE) and director of the Center for Climate, Regional, Environmental and Trade Economics (CREATE) at the University of Illinois.

Dall’erba and his colleagues measured plastic packaging waste transaction flows based on a global, multiregional input-output database called EXIOBASE, combined with World Bank data.

The researchers found North and South America together generate 41% of the world’s production of plastic packaging waste, mostly from the U.S. (19% of world production) and Brazil (13%). Europe is next with 24%, and Asia follows with 21%, most of which is generated in China (12%).

When looking at consumers, North and South America are again responsible for the most waste. Combined, the Americas represent 36% of the world plastic packaging consumption, followed by Asia at 26% and Europe at 23%.

“High-protein food such as meat, fish, and dairy is a trademark in the Americas and those generate a lot of plastic packaging waste,” Dall’erba explains. “For instance, every 1 kg (2.2 lbs.) of fish consumed will lead to an average of about 1.6 kg (2.5 lbs.) waste. This includes plastic bags, trays, and cellophane used to wrap and cover the fish during transportation, storage, and sales.”

International exports further exacerbate the problem, accounting for about 25% of global plastic packaging waste.

“Plastic is not easy to replace. There is no other material to protect the freshness of a food product that will be shipped around the world,” he states. “We need to further develop technologies that make plastics more biodegradable, such as products based on algae. But we also need stricter regulations to discourage plastic packaging production and use.”

International agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol typically focus on restrictions and fees on production. But that gives developed countries a strong incentive to relocate their most polluting activities to developing countries. At the world level, it’s a zero-sum game, because you just delegate the problem to another place, Dall’erba notes.

The researchers conclude producers and consumers must share responsibility and costs.

“All agents along the supply chain and final consumers need incentives to reduce plastic use. Some examples are taxes on waste management or refunds for returning plastic bottles,” explains Xiang Gao, the paper’s lead author. Gao is a researcher at the Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Beijing, China.

“Other steps include banning of single-use plastic straws, or imposing fees for grocery store plastic bags,” he adds. “Consuming locally grown, seasonal food would help, and so would better transparency about the true recyclability associated with the resin identification code stamped on plastic packaging.”

Gao started working on the research while he was a visiting scholar in Dall’erba’s research group at U of I. Other co-authors include Cuihong Yang, professor at the Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, CAS; Andre Avelino, researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and Brenna Ellison, professor in agricultural economics at Purdue University.

The Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics and the Center for Climate, Regional, Environmental and Trade Economics (CREATE) are in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois.

This research was supported by the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, the Center for Climate, Regional, Environmental and Trade Economics (CREATE), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Chinese Scholarship Council.

The research team, led by the University of Exeter, warn against relying solely on breakthroughs in climate science and technology.

Instead, they say social science can help engage people and societies, and ensure a green transition that is both effective and promotes other goals such as wellbeing, equity and fairness.

The paper is the first to be published by the new Advancing Capacity for Climate and Environment Social Science (ACCESS) programme.

“To meet our climate goals, we need both profound societal change and continued technical improvements,” said ACCESS team leader Professor Patrick Devine-Wright, from the University of Exeter.

“This dual approach can improve people’s quality of life, reduce emissions and ensure thriving economies and ecosystems.

“If people are at the heart of climate action, then understanding and tackling climate change cannot be done by engineers or natural scientists alone.

“All disciplines need to work together — not least a range of social sciences including political science, sociology, geography and psychology — to find solutions in ways that achieve wider societal goals.”

Professor Devine-Wright, of Exeter’s Department of Geography and the Global Systems Institute, was a Lead Author on the recent report from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III.

This was part of the IPCC’s sixth assessment cycle and — for the first time — the latest report included a dedicated chapter on demand and social aspects of mitigation, and a cross-chapter analysis on equity and sustainable development.

Professor Devine-Wright said this progress should now continue, with the aim of developing more visible, responsive and interdisciplinary social science that engages with people and is valued in its diversity by decision-makers from government, industry, civil society and law.

The paper concludes: “Given that all climate solutions will involve people in one way or another, the social sciences have a vital role to play.”

Story Source:

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