Home Blog Page 13

The Countries With the Most Nuclear Disasters

By
-
Source: DanielPrudek / iStock via Getty Images

Since the 1950s, heat generated by controlled nuclear processes has been harnessed to power turbines that create electrical power. Today, dozens of countries rely on nuclear power as a source of sustainable energy. Radiological materials have also been used in medicine, for diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Other industries have been using radiological isotopes as well.

The downside is, of course, that irradiated materials like Iodine-131, cesium-137, and cobalt-60, are incredibly dangerous. Unlike in the fantasy worlds of superheros, radiation exposure does not turn people into Spider-Man, the Hulk, or the Fantastic Four but rather causes significant burns and several types of cancer. A person with acute radiation syndrome can die within weeks or months.

Radiation that escapes into the environment, as it did at the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident in April 1986, is harmful for thousands of years into the future.

Furthermore, the toxic waste generated by spent nuclear fuel requires long-term storage and management. Though advances have been made in recycling and maximizing the use of radioactive fuel rods, the U.S. alone generates about 2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel annually that has to go somewhere. For most people, that “somewhere” is “not in my backyard,” which makes finding places to store nuclear waste challenging. (See if the U.S. is also the country with the most nuclear weapons.)

Meanwhile, the number of countries with nuclear power plants is increasing. Belarus and the United Arab Emirates are the most recent members of this global nuclear power club. These countries have agreed to track incidents at their nuclear plants and in other industries that use radiological materials, from medical imaging to materials testing (i.e. industrial radiography).

To find how many radiological incidents and mishaps happened in countries with nuclear power reactors, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed Amsterdam-based LAKA (LAndelijk Kernenergie Archief – National Nuclear Energy Archive) archives, which list all nuclear and radiology-related mishaps since 1990 as reported each year by the International Atomic Energy Agency. From the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System database, last updated on Dec. 11, 2022, we added the number of nuclear reactors in each country.

These countries have reported at least 921 nuclear and radiological mishaps over the past 32 years, led by the United States, France, and India. Most of these incidents rank low on the seven-level rating system of the International Nuclear Event Scale, or INES, which ranks such mishaps based on numerous factors, including whether the incident overexposed workers or member of the public; whether or not the radiological spill was contained within a facility; and whether the incident signified a breach of adequate safety protocol.

INES level 0 has no safety significance, 1 is considered an anomaly, while levels 2 and 3 are considered incidents. Levels 4 and above are categorized as accidents. Chernobyl and Fukushima were both level 7 major accidents. Radioactive leaks are measured by the number of curies, a unit of radioactivity named after the Polish-French nuclear pioneer Marie Curie. (These two events are the world’s worst nuclear accidents.)

Click here to see major nuclear power mishaps in 35 countries since 1990.

An energy twist to the same old EV story; plus, private jet ban at Schiphol Airport

By
-
Source: Jetlinerimages / Getty Images

(A native of England, veteran journalist Matthew Diebel has worked at NBC News, Time, USA Today and News Corp., among other organizations.)

It looked like an ‘Is the pope Catholic?’ story. It wasn’t

In the mid-1980s, I was lucky enough to be appointed Sunday Editor of the Boston Herald, a feisty tabloid that went up against the New York Times-like Boston Globe. The job involved, during the week, putting together back-of-the-book sections such as lifestyle, entertainment, travel and a magazine before on Saturday doing the news section.

Saturdays tended to be slow news days, and many publicists were savvy enough to know this and use the opportunity to pitch stories that might not otherwise have made it into the paper. They also knew that the Sunday edition had a much higher circulation and per-paper readership than its daily cousin.

And thus at the morning news conference I would hear offerings from news editors along the lines of “A study by so-and-so university shows that (name a health woe) affects more people in poor areas than wealthy ones.” My usual response was, “Is the pope Catholic? Of course, they do! They are more likely not to take care of their health. Their parts of town are more likely to be near major highways or industrial sites. Where’s the news here?”…

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

By David Callaway

The Worst Cities to Live in as Climate Change Gets Worse

By
-
Source: Olezzo / iStock via Getty Images

Last month at a UN climate summit in Egypt, leaders came to an agreement to help support poorer nations deal with the disastrous long-term effects of climate change. However, the summit failed to make progress on improving commitments to limit emissions, as the certainty of climate crisis becomes clearer every year.

2021 was the world’s sixth-warmest year on record, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This was an improvement over 2019 and 2020, which ranked among the top three warmest on record, but it wasn’t cause for celebration. The ocean heat content – a measure of the amount of heat stored in the upper levels of oceans – broke another record high in 2021, surpassing the previous record high set in 2020.

Average sea levels have risen over 8 inches since 1880, with about 3 inches over the past 25 years, according to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. This acceleration is expected to continue in the foreseeable future, and the NOAA predicts average sea levels to rise 10-12 inches along the U.S. coastline by 2050. At those levels, infrastructure along even the most developed coastlines would be overwhelmed, increasing the frequency of devastating flooding in the same manner as we have already begun to witness in many parts of the world. Indeed, the problem is global.

To find the 25 popular cities in the world that would be most impacted by climate change in the next 20-30 years, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed a study, 2050 Climate Change City Index, published in Nestpick, a platform for furnished rental apartments. The study includes 85 cities that are top destinations and that had data in research papers used for this report. Each city was rated across three categories: sea-level, climate, and water shortage. Cities are ranked by their total score (out of 100). A score of 100 indicates the most extreme changes in climate over the next three decades.

The 25 popular cities with the greatest exposure to the effects of global warming, including rising sea levels and water shortage, have an overall risk score of between 28.6 for Oslo, Norway, to 100 for Bangkok, Thailand. These popular global destinations include rich cities like New York and London as well as poorer ones like Manila in the Philippines and Nairobi in Kenya. (Here are countries where climate change is most evident.)

Though most of these cities have large populations, three are home to fewer than a million people: the metropolitan area of New Orleans, Cardiff, U.K., and Marrakesh, Morocco.

Six of these 25 cities on this list are located in East Asia or Southeast Asia, including Manila, Bangkok, Hong Kong, and Seoul, South Korea. Five of these cities are located in the United States, due to the number of its popular cities located adjacent to bodies of water. (Some of these popular cities are home to human made landmarks climate change is destroying.)

Here are the most popular cities in the world most impacted by climate change.

Click here to read our detailed methodology.

Like climate fight itself, new Green King Charles’s legacy is on the clock

By
-
Source: Chris Jackson / Chris Jackson Collection via Getty Images

Much is being made of King Charles’s environmental background as he prepares for his coronation this weekend, but all of it ends with the caveat that he has no actual power to achieve anything because of the political limitations of his new role. I respectfully disagree.

King Charles, who’s waited his entire life for the opportunity to be monarch, and who only has a small window of time in which to make a difference on his favorite passion — the environment — won’t waste it on the advice of royal counsel. For the next decade or so he will be the leading climate celebrity in the world, at a time when the world will be literally screaming for leadership.

To, uh, abdicate that role just for the chance to play king for a while would be to waste decades of effort on the environment, most of it in the face of ridicule and criticism from those who now have come to see he was right all along. Political limitations are made to be pushed, and there are no politicians in Britain strong enough right now to stop him from setting up shop as the conveyer of all climate networks and strategies.

I’m no monarchist, although I will be watching the highlights this weekend, and all the environmental hoopla that goes with them. Once they are over, I think we’ll be surprised how focused he becomes on his mission, and his legacy.

Against the better judgment of probably half the world, he’s being given one shot at a role just about anyone could only dream of. For a few years. They just happen to be the most important years his country or any other country ever lived through in terms of global warming. As they say in Britain, cometh the hour, cometh the man.

Zeus: Grant Canary’s wildfire recovery startup reborn as biodiversity gets hot

. . . . Grant Canary started his wildfire recovery company seven years ago as a high-tech climate solutions play using drones to reseed trees on land scorched by massive fires in the U.S. West. Along the way, he found an even more pressing problem, and shifted his company — originally called DroneSeed and now called Mast Reforestation — into the bigger business of reseeding the planet, writes David Callaway in his Zeus column. As investor interest in biodiversity solutions surges this year, Mast is in a unique position as one of the early plays in an industry that is certain to, um, grow. . . .

Thursday’s market insights

Is Tesla’s flip-flopping on prices worth the attention?

. . . . Tesla $TSLA raised prices on some of its models this week, but only a bit. After several steep price cuts in recent months, and statements by Elon Musk after earnings last month supporting the price cuts, the company tweaked a bit higher, then higher again. Perhaps it has to do with consumer anger for those who bought their Tesla’s at full price last year, but analysts and social media followers argue it has more to do with inventory backlogs building again.

Whatever the reason, the trend in all EV prices is down. Ford Motor $F just cut prices on its Mustang Mach-E this week for a second time. And others are coming in with price cuts as well. Musk and Tesla kicked off the price war last year, and federal subsidies in the government’s climate plan are also helping attract buyers. Tesla’s shares have recovered in recent months from last year’s drubbing, so the price cut plan does seem to be working. While it’s impossible to predict what Musk will do week-to-week, or hour-to-hour, it’s a fair bet the general direction of cheaper prices still holds. Read more here. . . .

Another SEC climate disclosure delay?

. . . . Reports out yesterday that the SEC will further delay its much expected and hotly controversial climate disclosure rule, this time until the fall. A former commissioner, Robert Jackson, reportedly told a webinar last week he was hearing SEC Chair Gary Gensler and team were seeking to delay the rule, which had been expected in April, for a second time.

Such delays over the rule, which will now come well after Europe passes a similar rule this summer, indicate that there is no consensus among SEC commissioners, and concern it would do more harm than good coming out at this time. As the European rule will affect U.S. companies doing business in Europe and is much more stringent in reporting requirements, it is possible Gensler wants to see how that develops first. Europe could always waive U.S. requirements if the U.S. ones were stringent enough, so that is a possibility.

Or, it could just be Gensler and the SEC are wary about implementing such a controversial rule at a time when financial markets are extremely fragile. Whatever the answer, someday it will make a great story. Stay tuned. . . .

The EV reason Biden got snubbed by one of his closest allies

. . . . News comes that the UAW is holding off expressing support for President Joe Biden, saying his push for EVs will harm its members. Why? Because EVs require less labor to make. And, eventually, they will be cheaper than fossil fuel-powered cars, something already happening in China, where many EVs are priced under $10,000. It can stamp its feet, but eventually the union will have to get with the program. Read more here. . . .

Salesforce unveils new Green Code for sustainable software developers

. . . . While three-quarters of software and UX designers say they want to develop software programs that do less harm to the environment, more than half are not using energy efficient programming languages, often because their superiors do not believe in the benefits, according to a new survey by Salesforce. The company this week unveiled a new initiative called Green Code to reduce carbon emissions tied to software development and licensing, and a series of sustainability best practices.

Many tech companies talk the climate talk, even raise money to invest in climate solutions, but do little to control the vast emissions from their own products. Software development is one area that has received little sustainable attention to date, so when a company such as Salesforce adapts plans like this, it will gain the attention of the industry, not to mention developers who might be looking for their next gig. . . .

Editor’s picks: Norway’s speedy EV transition; plus, the FCC’s role as environmental guardian

Norway’s plug-in EV market share jumps again

Norway increased its share of the plug-in EV market to 91.1% in April 2023, up from 84.2% in the same period a year ago. Cleantechnica reports the bestselling vehicle was again the Tesla Model Y. This is the first time Norway has seen three consecutive months with combined plugin share staying above 90%. According to the report, all other powertrains lost volume year-over-year, with gasoline-only vehicles at their second lowest volume of the modern era and third lowest share ever, just 1.25% of the auto market. “As we noted for the neighboring Swedish market, plugless hybrids (HEVs) are now passé in Norway, such is the country’s advanced stage of the EV transition.”

The FCC as environmental guardian?

Is the Federal Communications Commission an environmental cop? It is, actually, even those most people don’t think it is, and it may not be doing a very good job of protecting us and our world. Peter Elkind writes in a report for ProPublica about the FCC mandate to safeguard the environment from damage caused by communication infrastructure. “But when companies want to add new cell phone towers, build on protected land or launch satellites, the agency typically does little or nothing,” he writes. According to the report, The agency operates on the honor system, delegating much of its responsibility to the industries that it regulates. It allows companies to decide for themselves whether their projects require environmental study. Read more in this extensive report, including about the Silicon Valley space startup that “wanted to equip thousands of satellites to use mercury fuel in orbit, even as an Air Force official at one of the possible launch sites voiced extreme concern that the toxic element could rain back down to earth.”

Explain that: Net zero emissions

. . . . We hear a lot about net zero emissions, but what exactly is that? The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says: Net zero emissions are achieved when anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (That is, emissions of greenhouse gases, precursors of GHGs and aerosols caused by human activities) to the atmosphere are balanced by anthropogenic removals over a specified period. Where multiple greenhouse gases are involved, the quantification of net zero emissions depends on the climate metric chosen to compare emissions of different gases — such as global warming potential, global temperature change potential, and others, as well as the chosen time horizon. . . .

Words to live by . . . .

“Any difficulties which the world faces today will be as nothing compared to the full effects which global warming will have on the worldwide economy.” — King Charles III.

By David Callaway

The 18 Countries Most People Would Move to If They Had a Chance

By
-
Source: CreativeNature_nl / Getty Images

An estimated 900 million people in the world wanted to permanently relocate to another country in 2021, according to a recently released report from the international analytics and polling company Gallup. The survey, which interviewed 127,000 adults from 122 countries, found that 16% of them would like to emigrate, the highest figure seen in a decade. Regions with the highest percentage of residents wishing to relocate included Latin America and the Caribbean (37%), Sub-Saharan Africa (37%), and the Middle East and North Africa (27%). 

Pandemic-related issues including inflation are likely part of the cause, but climate-related factors including food scarcity as well as war and political upheaval, lack of job opportunities, and other economic stressors can also influence people’s desires to emigrate. In some nations that are scarred by civil war and sectarian violence, including Sierra Leone, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, over half of the population expressed a desire to leave. (These are the countries where at least half the population wants to move away.)

To identify the countries the most people would move to if they could, 24/7 Tempo reviewed data collected in 2021 by the international analytics and polling company Gallup, published in January 2023, in the report, “Nearly 900 Million Worldwide Wanted to Migrate in 2021.” Gallup’s migration indexes are based on responses to the following questions: Ideally, if you had the opportunity, would you like to move permanently to another country, or would you prefer to continue living in this country? If the latter, to which one country would you most like to move? 

We ranked countries by their potential net population growth if all those who chose them as a place to move actually did so. Population statistics for 2011 and 2021 are from the World Bank.

Click here to see the countries the most people would move to if they could

The United States and Canada, not surprisingly, are among the countries people are most attracted to. Many of the other target countries are in Europe, while two are in the Middle East, two are in Asia, and two are in Australia/Oceania. Many are among the richest countries in the world, which tend to offer a relatively higher quality of life. (The list is slightly different when considering only where young people want to relocate to the most, according to data.)

Grant Canary’s wildfire recovery startup reborn as biodiversity gets hot

By
-
Source: Maxiphoto / iStock via Getty Images

(David Callaway is founder and Editor-in-Chief of Callaway Climate Insights. He is the former president of the World Editors Forum, Editor-in-Chief of USA Today and MarketWatch, and CEO of TheStreet Inc. His climate columns have appeared in USA Today, The Independent, and New Thinking magazine).

SAN FRANCISCO (Callaway Climate Insights) — Grant Canary’s startup launched seven years ago with a novel, high-tech idea — use drones to reseed forest land lost to wildfires. His company, then called DroneSeed, was the first to get permission from federal aviation authorities to use its eight-foot diameter drones to fly around the U.S. West spreading seed on fire-scorched land.

A few years ago, however, Canary and his investors realized they had a problem. As wildfires proliferated in California and other states, there wasn’t enough seed to go around. So like any good entrepreneurs, they switched tack. In March, DroneSeed became Mast Reforestation. And to celebrate, the Seattle-based company purchased one of California’s largest reforesting seed companies, Cal Forest Nurseries.

“We realized we were offering a much bigger service than the original name — which is still a product line — entailed,” Canary said in an interview last week with Callaway Climate Insights, adding that the company’s small army of drones has been temporarily grounded. “We will absolutely use them again, but first we have to build up the seed supply.”…

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

By David Callaway

23 Devastating Aftereffects of a Global Nuclear War

By
-
Source: AlexLMX / iStock via Getty Images

A nuclear winter is a time period in which the Earth’s atmosphere is so full of smoke and soot from the firestorms caused by nuclear bombs that sunlight is reduced or does not reach the surface of our planet. (These are countries that control the world’s nuclear weapons.)

To determine what would happen in a nuclear winter, 24/7 Wall St. referenced a research article published by Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE, and an article in the Smithsonian magazine. 

The effects of the nuclear war on climate may vary, depending on the severity of the war. At this point, too, a nuclear winter is a theory, and as a theory it has its proponents and detractors. (These are 18 of the deadliest weapons of all time.)

The idea first gained attention in the 1970s, when a group of scientists, including celebrated astronomer Carl Sagan, considered the environmental consequences of a nuclear exchange. In 1983, Sagan penned an article in Parade magazine that said a major nuclear conflict would kill 1 billion people instantly, and that the longer-term results could be much worse.

Drawing on work Sagan did with former students and computer models created by meteorologists, scientists in 1980 determined it would not take a total nuclear exchange to plunge the world into a nuclear winter. They found that average global temperatures could drop up to 25 degrees Celsius after a nuclear war. That would usher in a prolonged period of darkness, famine, and toxic gasses around the world.

Sagan’s position in the nuclear-winter debate was opposed by physicist Edward Teller, one of the fathers of the hydrogen bomb. Teller was a vigorous proponent of the Strategic Defense Initiative, a proposed satellite system that would defend against nuclear missiles. Teller and other defense hawks believed nuclear winter advocates would undermine support for SDI. 

Even though a nuclear winter is a chilling concept, there is a possible precedent. Paleontologist Luis Alvarez and his father Walter, a physicist, presented evidence in 1980 that an asteroid had slammed into Earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period 66 million years ago. They hypothesized that the impact of the asteroid had sent so much dust and debris into the air that Earth was darkened for an extended period, during which time the last of the non-bird dinosaurs were wiped out. This hypothesis suggests the possibility that a catastrophe at one location on Earth could have profound long-term effects on the entire planet.

Click here to see what would happen in a nuclear winter

Debt crisis portends volatile May for climate law, renewable stocks

By
-
Source: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

In today’s edition:

— The debt ceiling crisis in Washington looms over Biden’s climate agenda as spending cut pressures mount
— The chaos surrounding Lordstown Motors shares this week is spreading to others
— Texas and 18 other states are charging annual fees for EVs to make up for lost gas taxes
— It’s Christmas in April for this Louisiana wildlife refuge
— El Niño has U.S. hurricane forecasters scratching their heads this year

The looming debt ceiling crisis in Washington D.C. is set to create a volatile, politically driven May for President Joe Biden’s climate agenda and renewable energy stocks, after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the country could run out of money as soon as June 1.

While Biden has so far refused to seriously engage Republicans on their plan to cut costs before raising the debt limit, with a deadline now set it will be difficult for him to avoid at least going through the motions, or more.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) wants a variety of what the Democrats think are no-go spending cuts in exchange for helping raise or suspend the debt limit, but increasingly the focus is on the president’s climate bill last year. Powerful Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.), who helped sponsor the Inflation Reduction Act, which enacted $391 billion in subsidies and spending for renewable energy projects last year, has turned against it and last week even threatened to vote to repeal his own bill because of what he claims are irresponsible spending strategies now that it’s law.

Attacked from both sides, Biden and team will be under intense pressure to craft some sort of plan to rein in spending instead of just standing firm and hoping to call McCarthy’s bluff at the last minute. A meeting is tentatively scheduled for next week, though it is not clear what will be negotiated. A Democratic alternative in the Senate to raise a clean debt ceiling is an opening bid, but won’t be enough.

The U.S. government has been in these types of tense debt standoffs before, and they have always been resolved, sometimes at the last minute. But as advisers on both sides look for a deal of some sort, parts of the climate law are clearly in the crosshairs.

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

By David Callaway

America’s Deadliest National Parks

By
-
Source: Art Wager / E+ via Getty Images

National parks are bound to be on millions of people’s vacation bucket lists. Some offer breathtaking views or aquatic recreation, while others provide a chance to see wild animals like bison, elk, marmots, and even grizzly bears. But these vacation hotspots can spell danger for avid outdoors people and ill-prepared travelers alike.

Many parks feature sheer cliffs and deep canyons, where a single misstep could lead to a fatal fall. Others contain remote and expansive tracts of wilderness with no cell service, where getting lost could lead to dehydration, starvation, or severe exposure. (Here are the national parks with the best and worst mobile service.)

While visiting national parks – and other sites maintained by the National Park Service – may yield happy memories (and killer Instagram images), it can also be fatal. To compile a list of America’s deadliest national parks, 24/7 Tempo reviewed the latest data available on fatalities between 2007 and 2021 from the National Park Service. Data was collected by the NPS Public Risk Management Program (PRMP). PRMP aggregates data from NPS systems that are updated continuously. Data is current as of late April 2023. The list includes all parks and related venues in which more than 30 deaths occurred in the time period covered.

Click here for a list of America’s deadliest national parks

Some of the deadliest parks, including Lake Mead National Recreation Area, are largely centered around a body of water, where drownings are the most common cause of death. Others, like the Natchez Trace Parkway, feature miles of roadway where car accidents are not uncommon. Still others that feature canyons or high mountain peaks are the sites of dozens of deaths by falling or environmental exposure.

Deaths from natural or medical causes are also common, and while they may have more to do with a person’s pre-existing conditions, extreme heat or fatigue can often factor into these fatalities. On the other hand, deaths due to animal attacks are extremely rare. (These are the states where you’re most likely to be killed by an animal or bug.)

Gas wars in New York are anything but natural

By
-
Source: straga / iStock via Getty Images

(A native of England, veteran journalist Matthew Diebel has worked at NBC News, Time, USA Today and News Corp., among other organizations.)

How the gas industry was handed a marketing gift

Gas. I recall being confused by that word when I first landed on these shores from England about 50 years ago. “Why isn’t it called petrol?” I asked my cousin as he pumped fuel into his tricked-out Plymouth Barracuda. “Well, it’s a shortening of the word gasoline,” he explained. “Well, what is the stuff you use for cooking and heating your house?” I asked. “That’s natural gas,” he told me.

For me, meanwhile, gas — the stuff you use in your stove — was gas. In the U.S., however — in part because of the confusion of the shortened moniker for gasoline and in part to differentiate it from the old methods of producing gas from coal and oil — the phrase “natural gas” has arisen. And though it wasn’t coined as a green-sounding name, it has been embraced by the fossil fuel industry as a convenient way of making its product sound relatively benign when it comes to its pollutive effects.

“There’s nothing natural about fracking; there’s nothing natural about thousands of miles of pipelines and there’s nothing natural about the indoor air pollution that is associated with gas,” Caleb Heeringa, campaign director of the environmental advocacy group Gas Leaks, told Phys.Org.

With this in mind, Heeringa and other environmentalists are pushing regulators to set a policy discouraging companies from using the term “natural gas” in marketing, arguing it inaccurately casts the substance as a clean, green source of energy. Alternatives pitched by activists include “methane gas” and “fossil gas.” In particular, they aim to influence the Federal Trade Commission as it plans updates to its Green Guides, which govern environmental marketing claims…

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

By David Callaway

1...121314...69Page 13 of 69

Popular Posts

© 2024 24/7 Wall St. and Callaway Climate Insights