12/11/23 12/11/23

What Should We Expect With COP28 Coming To A Close? Nothing.

With all the news coming out of the recent COP28 conference, including the former Vice President of The United States, Al Gore stating, “COP28 is on the verge of complete failure”, I think we should be optimistically expecting nothing to be gained or lost at the close of the conference. The conference itself is the accomplishment.

Can we all admit that there are numerous obstacles to global cooperation on climate change, and the UN frameworks, while providing a platform for international dialogue and agreement, lack the enforcement power to compel countries to comply with their commitments. Despite these challenges, there are many reasons that motivate countries to still participate in climate negotiations and agreements even though they may not do anything:

Maintaining international image and reputation: Countries are concerned about their global image and reputation. Participating in climate negotiations and agreements, regardless of adherence, demonstrates a commitment to addressing the issue and can garner praise from the international community. This can be beneficial for diplomatic relations and trade opportunities.
Access to resources and technology: International climate agreements often include provisions for financing and technology transfer to support developing countries in their climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. By participating, countries gain access to resources and expertise that they might not otherwise have, promoting their own development goals.
Shaping the global agenda: Climate negotiations provide an opportunity for countries to influence the international climate agenda and promote their own interests. This can be particularly important for developing countries who want to ensure that their concerns are heard and their needs are addressed.
Protecting national interests: While some countries may not fully implement their commitments, their participation in agreements allows them to monitor the actions of other countries and hold them accountable. This can help protect their national interests and ensure that the burden of addressing climate change is shared equitably.
Building trust and cooperation: Participating in climate negotiations can foster dialogue and cooperation among countries, building trust and addressing other global challenges. This can be particularly important in a world with increasingly complex geopolitical issues.
International pressure and consequences: Although the UN frameworks lack strong enforcement mechanisms, there are still consequences for non-compliance. Countries that fail to meet their commitments may face criticism from the international community, potential trade sanctions, and ultimately, damage to their reputation and relationships with other nations.

With the above considered, we think there are sufficient enough reasons for us to remain optimistic. We must admit that global cooperation at the scale necessary to resolve the climate crisis is not easy to accomplish. The fact that nations convened for a meeting to come to agreements and allocate resources and technology is indeed its own accomplishment. Will there be a global concerted effort towards resolving the climate crisis? Probably not. This should not come as a surprise considering the state of the climate crisis itself. Let’s be realistic. The geopolitics is complicated.

🍃Even eco-friendly, AI-loving entrepreneurs need a stylish digital home—explore Shopify and Squarespace themes handpicked for you.

12/8/23 12/8/23

Sorry Not Sorry: Lithium Batteries Are Not Innovative

The fate of our lithium battery future is not uncertain. It’s very possible to predict exactly where will we end up if we continue mining for the purposes of manufacturing lithium batteries. To begin to understand the possibilities of the likely outcome let’s take a look at human history with mercury.

Humans have accumulated a ridiculous amount of mercury because someone thought it was a smart idea to use it for things like batteries without considering its long term environmental impact.

Yes, the widespread use of mercury in various products, such as batteries, thermometers, and fluorescent lamps, has contributed significantly to the accumulation of mercury in the environment.

While mercury may have been seen as a convenient and effective material for these applications, the long-term environmental consequences were not adequately considered.

The release of mercury from industrial activities, improper disposal of mercury-containing products, and agricultural practices has led to increased mercury levels in the air, water, and soil. This mercury contamination poses serious environmental and health risks.

In the environment, mercury can harm aquatic ecosystems, disrupt the food chain, and accumulate in fish, which can lead to human exposure through fish consumption.

Mercury exposure can also cause a range of health problems, including neurological damage, developmental problems in children, and heart disease.

Recognizing the adverse effects of mercury pollution, there has been a growing movement towards reducing and eliminating mercury use. Various regulations have been implemented to control mercury emissions, ban mercury in certain products, and promote safer alternatives.

While these efforts have made progress, there is still a growing need for continued vigilance and innovation to address mercury pollution effectively.

By phasing out mercury use, improving waste management practices, and investing in mercury remediation technologies, we can protect human health and safeguard the environment for future generations.

The rapid adoption of lithium-ion batteries for various applications, particularly in the electric vehicle (EV) industry, has raised concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining and processing. It’s akin to human history with mercury.

While lithium is a critical element for powering EVs and other electronic devices, its extraction and processing can have significant environmental consequences, including water pollution, soil contamination, and habitat degradation.

Similar to mercury, the use of lithium must be approached with caution and careful consideration of its environmental and human health impacts. It's essential to develop sustainable lithium extraction and processing methods that minimize environmental harm and responsibly manage waste streams.

Here are some key steps that can be taken to address the environmental concerns associated with lithium mining and processing:

Promote responsible mining practices: Implement stricter regulations and guidelines for lithium mining activities to ensure minimal environmental impact, including proper waste disposal and water management practices.
Invest in renewable energy for mining operations: Utilize renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, to reduce the carbon footprint of lithium mining and processing operations.
Develop closed-loop recycling systems: Implement robust recycling and repurposing systems for lithium batteries to minimize the need for new lithium extraction.

The safer solution is to support research into alternative battery chemistries: Invest in research and development of alternative battery technologies that rely on less environmentally harmful materials.

By taking these measures, we can mitigate the environmental impact of lithium mining and processing while continuing to harness its potential for sustainable energy solutions. It's crucial to strike a balance between innovation and environmental protection to ensure a sustainable future for human use.

🍃Even eco-friendly, AI-loving entrepreneurs need a stylish digital home—explore Shopify and Squarespace themes handpicked for you.

12/8/23 12/8/23

Cat & Mouse: Car Manufacturers, Air Quality, Emmission Standards and the Public Health

The EPA is constantly evolving its regulations and standards, taking into account not just total mass but also particle size distribution and specific composition. They are also developing more sophisticated testing procedures to detect and penalize manufacturers who continue to manipulate emissions through size-based loopholes.

The Air Quality Index (AQI), also known as the Air Quality Index or Indice in different parts of the world, has evolved over the years alongside scientific comprehension of air pollution and its health effects. However, these standards have frequently changed without clear scientific explanations or adequate communication to the general public, leaving many unaware of the rationale behind these alterations.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) periodically reviews and updates the AQI based on the latest research and public health considerations.

Here are some notable changes:

1970s-1990s: The original AQI focused on five pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone.
1999: PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) was added as a separate pollutant due to its growing recognition as a significant health concern.
2004: The AQI formula was revised to account for the health effects of short-term and long-term exposure to different pollutants.
2012: The ozone standard was lowered, reflecting new research on its health impacts at lower concentrations.
2020: The PM2.5 standard was further tightened, recognizing its even greater contribution to respiratory problems.

Particulate matter (PM) is a general term for tiny particles suspended in the air, ranging in size from coarse dust to fine smoke. Sources include vehicle emissions, wildfires, and industrial processes.

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) specifically refers to particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less, about 30 times smaller than the width of a human hair. These are more concerning because they can penetrate deep into the lungs, causing respiratory problems and cardiovascular issues.

In the late 1990s, research revealed a strong link between exposure to PM2.5 and adverse health effects even at relatively low levels. This was a significant shift from earlier understanding that focused mainly on larger PM particles.

This discovery prompted the EPA to establish a separate AQI standard for PM2.5 in 1999, recognizing its distinct threat to public health compared to larger PM.

In 2012, the EPA tightened the AQI standard for ozone, lowering the threshold for the "unhealthy for sensitive groups" category. This decision was based on new research that demonstrated stronger evidence of ozone's negative impacts on respiratory function and lung inflammation, even at lower concentrations than previously thought.

Children, older adults, and individuals with asthma were found to be particularly vulnerable to ozone's harmful effects, necessitating stricter standards for their protection.

The lower standard led to more frequent "unhealthy" ozone days in some areas, raising awareness about ozone pollution and potentially prompting stricter emission regulations.

It also empowered individuals, especially those in sensitive groups, to take proactive steps to protect their health during high ozone periods.

These changes highlight the ongoing evolution of the AQI and the EPA's commitment to adapt to evolving scientific knowledge and prioritize public health protection in the face of air pollution risks.

Why does this matter you ask?

This reads like the EPA established emissions standards for car manufacturers didn’t actually reduce the emissions, but car manufacturers found ways to make the emissions particles smaller to avoid detection by federal and state inspection standards.

While the EPA sets emissions standards for pollutants like particulate matter (PM), manufacturers may not always directly reduce the total amount of emissions. Instead, they might focus on altering the size and composition of the particles to comply with the standards and the resulting effects is more dangerous and deathly air pollution.

Here's how this could have and can still play out:

The EPA sets an AQI standard for PM, measuring total mass of particles regardless of size. Instead of reducing overall emissions, carmakers might develop technologies to trap larger PM particles within the vehicle, releasing only smaller PM2.5 particles through the exhaust.

This strategy allows them to meet the PM standard technically, but it doesn't necessarily address the health concerns associated with smaller PM2.5 particles, which can penetrate deeper into the lungs and cause more harm.

This phenomenon has been observed in the past, particularly with diesel engines. While manufacturers reduced overall PM emissions, the proportion of smaller PM2.5 particles increased, raising concerns about potential health risks.

However, it's important to note that the situation is not always this simple.

This is a complex cat-and-mouse game between regulation and innovation. While manufacturers might initially seek workarounds, the EPA's ongoing efforts to refine standards and testing methods push them towards genuinely cleaner technologies that reduce the total amount and harmful nature of emissions, not just their size.

Ultimately, the goal is to achieve cleaner air and protect public health, but this is difficult to achieve if the regulations and standards aren’t actually enforced. While challenges remain, people continue dying and the climate crisis worsens.

🍃Even eco-friendly, AI-loving entrepreneurs need a stylish digital home—explore Shopify and Squarespace themes handpicked for you.

12/1/23 12/1/23

Yes! The Climate Has Changed Audience.

My writing unites climate activists, environmentalists, natural scientists, and science enthusiasts interested in exploring my unique perspective on matters related to the climate crisis. It also engages sustainability experts and policymakers seeking a broader view on safeguarding our shared ecosystems.

Q. Who does your writing bring together?

A. My writing unites climate activists, environmentalists, natural scientists, and science enthusiasts interested in exploring my unique perspective on matters related to the climate crisis. It also engages sustainability experts and policymakers seeking a broader view on safeguarding our shared ecosystems.

Q. Why will people rally around your writing?

A. Readers will rally around my writing due to the value of my perspective and the relatable nature of my storytelling. I offer an alternative angle compared to most green media journalists and advocates. My aim is to make climate data, science, and climate change-related issues more accessible and engaging for readers.

Q. Who are your most important readers?

A. My crucial readers may lack familiarity with climate science. If I can make complex topics understandable and accessible to them, I consider my objective achieved.

Q. What are they like?

A. They are inherently curious, environmentally conscious, and compassionate individuals.

Q. What does this group of readers need more of?

A. They need the climate crisis contextualized in a way that fosters understanding and incites action.

Q. What’s the change they desire?

A. They aim for a collective care deeply embedded in expertise. Quality and meaningful resources are crucial for igniting this care in others.

Q. What’s the problem they could solve together?

A. Together, we could tackle the challenge of taking meaningful action to alter the course of the climate crisis.

Q. What have readers said they like most about your writing voice?

A. Readers appreciate my unique voice and perspective.

Q. What has your most popular content been?

A. Most popular content features historical and aspirational aspects that readers might not have been previously aware of.

Q. What topics or categories do readers often ask to hear more about?

A. Presently, there's a demand for discussions on social justice issues and personal development. Simultaneously, there's a niche for higher-end content. People crave well-crafted work, seeking quality in their content consumption.

🍃Even eco-friendly, AI-loving entrepreneurs need a stylish digital home—explore Shopify and Squarespace themes handpicked for you.

11/26/23 11/26/23

Yes. The Climate Has Changed.

It is evident to us that the original report that would end up serving as a framework for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals was developed upon a fallacy.

🌊After examining the original documents that serve as the foundation for the global response to our climate crises we are no longer surprised and we no longer ask ourselves the question, “How did we get here!”.

It is evident to us that the original report that would end up serving as a framework for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals was developed upon a fallacy.

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) report, Our Common Future, does not resolve the issue of how to achieve economic development without exploiting our natural and broader ecological systems. However, the report does recognize the need to balance economic development with environmental protection.

For this reason, we will continue our work of innovating beyond the guidelines and guidance of the United Nation’s Sustainability Goals. We think the aspirations of the UN Goalkeeper’s are a worthy initiative, however, we think proper guidelines and guidance needs to be given for proper global governance.

Our newsletter will continue to share with you all about our discoveries and journey as we delve into the intricacies of natural science because let’s be real it’s science fiction that got us stuck.

🍃Even eco-friendly, AI-loving entrepreneurs need a stylish digital home—explore Shopify and Squarespace themes handpicked for you.