There is so much news on offshore wind and its benefits, but how does the installation of wind turbines in water affect the marine environment?

What are offshore wind farms?

Offshore wind farms are wind turbines installed in open water. They are one of the newest forms of renewable energy and their deployment has been expanding rapidly recently as climate change continues to be a pressing global issue. Offshore wind has been successful because of steady ocean winds and extra space that has not been used.

Why should we invest in them?

Compared to onshore wind turbines, offshore wind turbines produce more electricity on average, thanks to steady offshore breezes. However, the initial cost of installing offshore wind farms is more expensive than installing onshore wind farms. 

Environmental Effects of Offshore Wind Farms 

Surveying needs to be conducted to assess the impact of offshore wind farms on nearby marine habitats and ecosystems before construction. 

During the construction, underwater noise can disturb marine life. For example, dolphins and whales use echolocation to communicate. With the intense underwater noise from the installation construction, the noise can damage the marine mammal’s hearing and echolocation or even kill them. The construction process could also release harmful contaminants into the ocean which could also cause affect the marine life.

Noise Effects and Protection

Research on noise reduction methods has helped address and mitigate such impacts. Secondary noise reduction techniques include bubble curtains, isolation casings, hydro sound dampers, dewatered cofferdams, and double piles/mandrel piles. Not only are these secondary noise reduction methods necessary, but there needs to be constant monitoring during the construction process to protect marine animals. Monitoring can include Marine Mammal Observation (MMO) boats that watch marine mammals in the area. Temporary hydrophones are also used to measure the decibels (dB) coming from the construction. 

Ecosystem Effects and Benefits

After the installation of offshore wind turbines, the marine ecosystem can also be affected. The cables carrying the generated energy back to the shore that lies on the seafloor create electromagnetic fields that can impact navigation, predator detection, and communication of certain species of fish and shellfish. The foundation bases of the turbines can also change the natural hydrodynamic flows of the ocean, which can drastically alter existing habitats and ecosystems. This disruption of wave flow can affect some organisms’ life cycle stages, especially larval dispersal and spawning which could also lead to changes in species composition, abundance, distribution, and survival rates in certain ecosystems.

All these factors need to be taken into account when corporations are planning to install an offshore wind farm so that marine life isn’t too greatly affected. However, on the bright side, some offshore wind turbine installations plan and incorporate marine habitats into the foundation bases so that they could provide habitat spaces for marine organisms to live in. 

Environmental Protection Policies

Because of the complex nature of installing offshore wind farms, there are policies in place to make sure that marine habitats and ecosystems are protected. For example, in the US, policies like the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act, Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act, and National Environmental Policy Act are set up to protect marine wildlife. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and other organizations such as NOAA Fisheries help enforce these regulations to make sure that offshore wind development reduces the environmental impacts on marine life and also give recommendations on how to approach the installation process with the least amount of negative impacts.

Why do we need offshore wind farms?

With global temperatures increasing past the safe range scientists have determined (1.5 degrees Celsius increase),  the transition to renewable energy is vital to reduce the environmental changes future generations would have to experience. Aside from the minor challenges with the cost of installations and approval process, offshore wind is a great option to consider and transition the world’s energy generation towards. Current policies require several rounds of approval for an offshore wind farm to be installed, but many governments including the US are working on changing policies to make the transition to offshore wind more smooth.

Felled trees that were killed by bark beetles. Photo credit: US Forest Service.

Wandering through a post-fire forest can feel like walking through a graveyard.  Blackened skeletons loom over the soft ash.

Natural disasters like severe wildfires are some of the most extreme illustrations of the ways in which climate change can transform a familiar landscape. But while ecosystems can recover from short-term disaster, warming temperatures are pushing ecosystems everywhere toward a new normal. Can nature keep up?

In recent years, wildfires in the American West have gotten stronger, more severe, and more frequent. Poor fire management, rising temperatures, and drought are some of the most well-known causes of the longer fire season. But the changing climate is also changing ecosystems’ makeup in a few surprising ways.

Problem #1:  Zombie Forests.

New research at Stanford University recently named the phenomenon of “zombie forests.”  “Zombie forests” are forests made up primarily of conifers like pines, sequoias, and firs where, due to climate change, it’s become too hot for conifers to survive, so the conifers die. When conifers die, they dry out. Their naturally flammable sap makes them great fuel for the fires. And because they remain standing, their death does not create room for new trees to grow.

Historic vs. current conifer habitat; regions that are purple on the right and orange on the left are home to “zombie forests.” Credit: Avery Hill and Stanford Data Science.

This is part of a broader trend in climate change called vegetation transition. Animals can migrate in reaction to their habitat getting too hot or too dry; plants can’t. Instead, they remain standing, though dead

It’s estimated that 2,000 square kilometers of the Sierra Nevada mountains are zombie forest – roughly 18% of all conifer forests in the region. The town of Paradise, CA, which suffered devastating damage after a wildfire in 2018, is surrounded by zombie forests. Though the Paradise fire was sparked by a power line, zombie forests fueled the inferno.

Problem #2:  Bark beetles

Bark beetles are another forest scourge whose spread is aided by climate change. Since the 1990s, bark beetles have been infesting forests at epidemic levels all over the western U.S. and Canada.

Bark beetles have existed for millenia, and are a typical part of the forest ecosystem. At healthy levels, they can even be productive: usually  bark beetles infestation, which target older trees, help make room for new growth.

Mountain pine beetles are tiny – between ⅛ and ¼ of an inch long – but these miniscule insects can take down a giant tree through sheer numbers. They live in and eat through the layer under the tree’s bark, the phloem, and create tiny tunnels that are visible where the bark has fallen away.

By studying tree rings, ancient pollen samples, and beetle remains, scientists have reconstructed ancient infestation patterns. What they found is that current invasion patterns are happening at a higher intensity, over a wider geographic range, and more frequently in multiple forests at the same time than they have before. Why?

It turns out warmer temperatures are great for beetles – they have fewer die-offs in winter and higher reproductive rates, and they even grow up faster when it’s a few degrees warmer.

In addition, droughts stress trees, which weakens their defenses against beetle attack. Injured trees are especially vulnerable – after a severe fire, bark beetles kill up to 25% of the trees that survive in succeeding years.

Forest after a beetle kill; red trees have died. Photo Credit: UBC Micrometeorology.

Climate change and fire worsen beetle attacks. Unfortunately, the inverse is also true.  Beetle Invasions can kill up to 90% of trees in a stand, leaving them vulnerable to fire. In addition, the death of larger trees leaves a forest more vulnerable to high winds, which can blow  fires further.

Will the Sierra’s Forests Survive?

At the end of the day, a lot about how forests will function in the future remains mysterious. The forces mentioned here don’t doom conifer forests; if anything is constant about forests, it’s their ability to regenerate and change.

But it is concerning that vegetation transition exists already at such a large scale (18% of conifer forests in the Sierra Nevada) and that bark beetle invasions have increased so dramatically in the past 30 years alone. If enough forests die past their ability to regrow, it’s possible that aspens and firs may take over where pines now reign, and many species will lose crucial habitat.

This is not just an environmental concern.  Severe fire comes at higher costs to the humans living nearby, as the case of Paradise makes clear. Monitoring these issues with greater precision demands the attention of scientists.

As a citizen scientist, you can contribute by going into the woods and tracking evidence of beetles, as well as identifying plants that may signal to scientists that vegetation transition is happening. Apps like iNaturalist are incredibly useful for aggregating data; even for those outside California, data on species distribution is always helpful for ecologists. As ecosystems evolve, zombie forests and killer beetles will likely be just the first in a long line of strange phenomena that accompany our warming forests.

Earlier this year, senior residents of the Khotachiwadi area in Mumbai led protests against the demolition of a 90-year-old bungalow known as the Fernandez House. The young, new owners of the house planned to redevelop the property. But they were met with resistance. Protesters collected 114 signatures from community residents calling for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to issue a stop-work order. 

Bungalows in Khotachiwadi, Mumbai

Bungalows are a cornerstone of Indian residential architecture. They have served as multi-generational family homes for the greater part of the late 20th and 21st centuries. These houses, typically only a story or two tall, are recognised for their symmetric layout and sprawling verandas. Today, they stand out among the towering glass and concrete towers that have transformed Greater Mumbai. 

The protesting residents of Khotachiwadi were successful — the outer visual of the bungalow must now stay the same throughout all construction efforts. But their protests also point toward a generation divide that characterises discourse regarding bungalow preservation and urban development. 

Mind the (generational) gap!

Mumbai’s property owners are struggling to keep bungalows from falling into disrepair. The upkeep of these old houses is not easy. Mumbai’s torrential rains and high humidity require maintenance measures too expensive for landlords to finance. 

The older residents of Khotachiwadi have continued to stay in their ancestral homes.  But their children often move to  cost-effective residences in the city. Older owners of bungalows who turned to their children to help support bungalow-upkeep have often been met with requests to sell the property.  

Property prices in Mumbai are expected to increase by 7.5% this year – the biggest jump in over 5 years. Bungalows are also typically located in central and high-demand areas in Mumbai, making their property value even greater. That helps explain the strong interest in selling these properties.

But the sentimentality for bungalows is not just about family. Mumbai’s bungalows point to key elements in India’s social history – particularly those regarding community relationships, and the creation of modern identities by new urbanites.

Architectural legacies of Mumbai’s bungalows

The word “bungalow” comes from the word bangla which refers to something from the Indian region Bengal. Pre-colonial Bangla bungalows were huts with mud walls and thatched roofs.

At the core of pre-colonial bungalows is multi-generational communal living. Generations of families lived together and drifted in and out of their neighbour’s homes, with everybody responsible for maintaining nearby property. 

That design began to change with the arrival of the British Raj in India. The 19th century colonial bungalow possessed high compound walls, secluding the house from unplanned visitors. A bungalow was no longer a community space, but a model for residential privatisation.

Visual rendering of a colonial bungalow in Calcutta (Kolkata), India

The independence movements of the 1930s and 40s led to an uptick in urban migration to Mumbai and the creation of professional classes. They also heralded a flourishing age of modernism, creativity and art. 

A new style of bungalow became popular with Mumbai’s growing  urban middle class. Mumbai became the unlikely home to one of the world’s largest collections of French Arts Décoratifs (or Art Deco) structures  – second only to Miami, Florida. 

The Art Deco movement popularised clean “streamlined” shapes with decadent geometric ornamentation in expensive terracotta, chrome, stucco, or decorative glass. Using these materials was a unique display of wealth and luxury from Mumbai’s new professional class. 

‘Vilhervin’ and ‘Peace-Haven’ Houses. Bungalows in the Art Deco-style in Mumbai, India

Art Deco bungalows represented the emergence of the new urban elite’s conception of Mumbai – a modern housing solution for a modern professional class. 

Preserving heritage & home

There are a number of organisations spreading awareness about the rich history of Mumbai’s bungalows. 

The Art Deco Mumbai Trust (ADMT) highlights Mumbai’s Art Deco structures through education programs and city tours to help residents and tourists appreciate the city’s architectural heritage. Other organisations such as the Asia Society, Mumbai focus on preservation and restoration of sites that hosted key moments of the city’s history.

Mumbai’s bungalows house stories of India’s colonial past, independence struggle, and the search for a modern identity. They are a reminder of the culture of hospitable collectivism that continues to shape community relationships, and are a visual love letter to the country’s pre-colonial past. Due to unaffordable upkeep and changing living styles, it is increasingly important to recognise the histories of these disappearing landmarks and to support the organisations that are trying to preserve Mumbai’s rich cultural history.

What do Disney, J.P. Morgan Chase, and the Vatican, have in common? They’ve all come under fire for participating in the carbon offset market. These institutions emit carbon dioxide by the ton, while masquerading as paragons of environmentalism.

What is a carbon offset and how do they work?

Carbon offsets, or carbon credits, are an instrument used by corporations, non-profits, and governments to cancel out carbon dioxide emissions. An offset is carbon removed from the atmosphere and is represented by the carbon credit.

Offsets represent emissions that, without intervention, would otherwise be released.

For example, consider an “at risk” forest, which is a common carbon offset. A company could purchase the forest and protect it from logging, intervening on the forest’s behalf. The company can now sell the carbon credits associated with the protected forest land to others seeking to offset their emissions. This tradeoff is the core of carbon crediting. It only works if the forest is going to be harvested, because if the forest were safe already, there would be no need to protect it from logging.

Anyone can purchase offsets.  Some airlines allow customers to purchase carbon credits to  “offset” the emissions of their flight. Large corporations buy offsets to account for emissions from their business activities, like buying credits to offset employees’ travel.

Who decides what an offset can be?

Offsets are verified through third-parties organizations such as the American Carbon Registry (ACR). Offsets are complicated to measure, but the key question is how they calculate risk. Remember, the forest was going to be logged, and an offset is only meaningful if it protects a forest that is “at risk”.

The registry bases its assessment for risk for a forest on surrounding land. That means even a protected forest would still be rated at high risk if the surrounding land was commercial timberland. This could be good: it’s to the public’s benefit to treat all land as if it has the potential to be logged. That way all forests are protected adequately.

What if the land is already protected?

The Nature Conservancy owns huge tracts of forestland across the US.  Protecting forests is consistent with its mission, so one would think TNC would not log on their land. Yet the ACR predicted TNC lands were at high risk of being logged because it neighbored commercial timberland.

TNC was able to register their forests as carbon offsets and sell the equivalent emissions to private companies. The non-profit made millions of dollars off credits on land that was never at risk. Businesses like Disney and Chevron released thousands of tons of carbon, and their credits purchased from TNC did little to offset that impact.

Other major environmental non-profits, like the Massachusetts Audubon Society and the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association, have been caught up in similar cases — selling offsets based on lands at little risk of development.

Can carbon offsets work? 

Offsets have been touted as a solution to climate change but this example highlights major problems.

The verification agencies in the US are not regulated. There is no standard way to measure offsets, and it isn’t clear that regulation would solve the problem. Furthermore, carbon offsets are challenging to measure. Rarely does the one to one tradeoff carbon credits promise actually pan out.

Centrally, carbon offsets act solely as a band-aid. The challenge is to change our behavior to reduce emissions. Credits only delay emissions and allow for continued polluting by industry. Offsets don’t offer long-term solutions which is what the planet requires to appropriately respond to global warming.

What is next for offsets?

Other offset options, like renewable energy or community projects, could offer more consequential changes. Funding a new wind or solar farm has longer lasting impacts because of the shift in behavior away from polluting fossil fuels.

Offsets shouldn’t be dismissed outright, though reliance on them is dangerous. The Vatican, Disney, Chevron, and others failed to offset their polluting behavior and instead should have focused on cleaning up their business practices. Offsets are the most powerful when used in conjunction with other green initiatives.

EU carbon offsets markets offer an example of how clear standards and a verification process can help countries meet their climate goals. This plan, as part of the UNFCCC, is still under deliberation.

There’s no easy or right way to solve climate change. Picking the right offset is difficult given the pitfalls of nonregulation in the US. Increased awareness can lead to a greater understanding of offsets, making them more effective as a way to address global warming.

A cliff on the side of Rio Conchos in Mexico.

At the La Boquilla Dam on the Conchos River conflict erupted. The dam was being used to transfer water to a wealthy foreign nation until protesters turned off the valves and shut down the flow. Federal forces soon arrived to secure the dam and restore the water transfer. As the National Guard attempted to retake the dam from the protesters, they shot and killed a woman and wounded her husband. 

This didn’t happen on another continent, or decades ago. In fact, it was in Mexico, in 2020. Who was the water recipient? The United States.

The 1944 Treaty: U.S.-Mexico Water Diplomacy

Signed by the U.S. and Mexico, the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 focuses on the utilization of waters of the Colorado,Tijuana and Rio Bravo Rivers, which cross the U.S.-Mexico border. This treaty established an International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) which is charged with resolving water disputes between the US and Mexico. 

The Treaty requires the U.S. to send Mexico 1.5 million acre feet of water from the Colorado River and Mexico is required to send the U.S. 350,000 acre feet of water from the Rio Grande River in five year cycles. One acre foot of water will last a family of five one year (although most of the water is used for agriculture). Mexico’s water deliveries are due annually by October 24. Mexico sends water stored in dam reservoirs, mostly in Chihuahua, to pay their water debts.

A map of the U.S.-Mexico border detailing the shared river and its main tributaries.

Regional Impacts of Climate Change on Water Levels

As the Treaty was being negotiated in the 1940s, these rivers were in a period of water abundance. The engineers and diplomats who negotiated the treaty, could not anticipate the current 23 year-long drought the region is experiencing. 

Researchers cite low rainfall and water mismanagement as the two causes of one of Northern Mexico’s worst droughts. Northern Mexico and Southwest U.S. have both seen an average of over 2 degrees celsius of warming compared to historical averages 1900, which is a greater  increase than other regions globally. Higher temperatures drive more evaporation, which dries out soil and worsens the drought. As temperatures continue to rise, the drought will only intensify. 

For the first fifty years of the treaty, Mexico reliably delivered its water debt on the Rio Grande. But in 1994 the drought conditions forced Mexico to roll over their water debt from one five-year cycle to the next. But when the drought continues beyond the ten-year debt due date.

Agricultural Sector’s Concerns and Responses

Mexico draws 54 percent of the water needed to meet its debt from Chihuahua, home to the Rio Bravo and Rio Conchos, a Rio Grande tributary.

But the water going to the U.S. would have been highly beneficial to Chihuahua’s agricultural sector had Mexico been able to keep it. Chihuahua is known for growing cotton, walnuts, apples, and corn for export. Production is valued at around US$2.9 billion as of 2019, ranking fourth in highest agricultural production value and volume when compared to other Mexican states. 

Texan farmers are also highly concerned about these water deliveries because their crops rely on the water too. 

Conflicts Stemming from this Treaty

In 2020, the Chihuahua government sent water to Texas, despite protests from farmers and the local communities. That February, at the behest of the Mexican President, federal forces occupied the La Boquilla dam. 

Activists responded by burning government buildings, destroying vehicles, blocking a major railroad, and even taking several politicians hostage. 

In July, military police and members of the National Guard fired  tear gas at protesters, who had come to protest the release of water at another dam. Following this clash, the state government agreed to stop water debt repayments pending negotiations between the state and community.

A few weeks later, protesters gained control of the La Boquilla Dam and a woman was killed in the conflict. In response, farmers at La Boquilla dam armed themselves with rocks, sticks, and homemade shields. They then assaulted the hundreds of soldiers tasked with protecting the dam, gaining control of the dam briefly. 

Can future negotiations solve the problem?

The treaty will be up for renegotiation in 2023. Now, a key question is how the treaty might change as a result of these conflicts. While there are many aspects to reconsider, it is most essential to put the needs of the communities near the rivers and their tributaries first. The renegotiated treaty should invest in community input to reduce the risk of government decisions and community opinions clashing. The original treaty negotiators were not the people most impacted. Prompting conversations between the community and government will reduce the risk of future conflict by helping the government understand community level needs. 

The treaty negotiators should also consult with scientists to understand how climate change will impact the river and the communities’ water needs. To set up the treaty for a successful future sharing water and mitigating conflict, it should reflect the current outlooks on water, and make room for unexpected changes. Combining community input and science will enable the renegotiated treaty to better consider human needs overtime and maximize benefits.

The latest climate legislation aids dairy in shrinking its ecological footprint.

By: Mary McMahon

Image 1. The United States Secretary of Agriculture, Senator Debbie Stabenow, and Congressman Dan Kildee talk about agricultural investments in the Inflation Reduction Act. Image accessed from the Department of Agriculture.

In August 2022, the United States Senate made its largest investment in U.S. farms since the 1930s Dust Bowl.

The Inflation Reduction Act is the most significant piece of climate legislation in the country’s history. The Act invests a total of $437 billion in clean energy initiatives and energy security. $30 billion of those investments specifically fund farmers’ responses to climate change, including several projects to reduce emissions and environmental harm from dairy agriculture.

Some criticize the act for investing in meat and dairy and failing to fund more plant-based solutions to the climate crisis. There’s no denying that dairy harms the environment. But for better or for worse, many Americans continue to consume dairy products. And for many Americans, dairy farming is a livelihood and a part of their family’s culture and history. The question now is how to keep both these legacies and the planet alive.

The industry is already looking for solutions, and legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act can provide the money needed to continue doing so. From 2007 to 2017, U.S. dairy reduced water consumption by 30% and greenhouse gas emissions by 19%.

How has dairy tried to go green?

One way is by scaling up water recycling.

The Binversie family owns Robinway Dairy, a 1,550-cow farm outside Kiel, Wisconsin. The Binversies use a Livestock Water Recycling system which removes up to 75% of the water from manure. Every day they reuse about 15-20,000 gallons of this water once it is purified. 

The family installed the system just before a drought hit Wisconsin in 2011-2012. That allowed the Binversies to continue to grow crops that fed their cattle through the drought. Here’s what the system looks like:

Image 2. The water recycling system on the Binversies farm. Image from Gloria Hafemeister, accessed through Wisconsin State Farmer.

The machine separates manure into three substances: purified water, a nutrient-rich liquid, and manure. The purified water is reused to chill dairy milk and wash away manure. The leftover manure and nutrient-infused liquid can fertilize crops. 

Why reuse manure? 

Green dairy isn’t just about water. Manure produces a powerful greenhouse gas– methane. Reducing methane emissions is a priority for governments and for dairy farmers. The U.S. has signed The Global Methane Pledge, committing to reducing methane emissions by at least 30% from their 2020 levels by 2030.

How can dairy farmers reduce methane emissions?

One way is with feed additives. Adding natural oils, chemicals, or other supplements to cattle’s typical diets restrains the bacteria that produce methane during digestion. Bovear is an additive approved for use in the EU, Chile, and Brazil. It has reduced methane emissions by 30%.

Farmers can limit the methane produced from manure by covering the manure before it starts breaking down and decomposing. Methane captured from manure can also be burned for energy, as the Krave brothers do. They own a 2,000-cow farm in Waterloo, Wisconsin. Waste from their cows produces enough power for their whole farm, cheese factory, and 300 nearby homes. The farm has two machines onsite called anaerobic methane digesters. These machines capture methane from manure while it decomposes. This methane can then be used like natural gas to power the farm and surrounding homes.

Approximately $7 billion of the Inflation Reduction Act’s investments fund projects aiming to reduce methane emissions. Much of this money goes to the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, which funds local projects to reduce methane emissions. $25 million also supports the Conservation Innovation Trials, which specifically target reducing methane emissions from cow digestion.

What’s the future of green dairy?

The Inflation Reduction Act makes significant investments in American agriculture. Although critics argue that it does not do enough to curb emissions from meat and dairy, $20 billion makes significant investments in efforts to restore ecosystems, reduce methane and carbon dioxide emissions, and directly pay farmers to partake in sustainability efforts.

The National Milk Producers Federation commended the Inflation Reduction Act for its investments in agricultural conservation. Jim Mulhern, the federation president, said, “The funding increases in this package will better position dairy farmers to effectively implement the dairy sector’s Net Zero Initiative and fulfill its 2050 environmental stewardship goals.” 

In 2023, Congress will pass a new farm bill, as they do every five years. The new farm bill could build upon the Inflation Reduction Act’s efforts to fund agricultural projects and research that prioritize healthy ecosystems for animals and people, and focus on cutting harmful emissions.