The United States spends over $820 billion every year on the health impacts related to fossil fuel pollution. This means that ⅕ of every dollar put towards health care in America is spent on the consequences of fossil fuels. Yet, a new study reveals the U.S. as one of the potential leaders in green hydrogen production. Green hydrogen, a carbon neutral fuel source, may be the world’s best bet to replace fossil fuels in the near term.

While hydrogen fuel can be produced in different ways, green hydrogen has the most potential. Green hydrogen is produced via electrolysis, the electrical separation of water into oxygen and hydrogen. When the energy for electrolysis comes from a renewable source of electricity, no carbon dioxide is produced. That makes green hydrogen a promising strategy in the face of global warming. 

The problem is that 95% of hydrogen today is produced from natural gas or coal powered processes — these are categorized as gray hydrogen or brown hydrogen. So how do policymakers, businesses, and energy industry leaders know if pursuing a green hydrogen transition is worth it?

The researchers from four universities across Russia addressed this very question. By examining factors including national goals, production costs, access to materials, current reliance on other energy sources, and potential for renewable energy sources, they found a high chance for a successful shift towards green hydrogen in the United States.

This potential means a lot. In general, hydrogen is a useful resource. Currently, most of the hydrogen consumed in the United States is used for refining petroleum, treating metals, producing fertilizers, and processing foods. As a fuel source, hydrogen proves very promising because burning hydrogen produces no CO2 or other pollutants. This is unlike other energy sources, such as natural gas which makes up 40% of all energy in the US, yet produces greenhouse gas emissions including CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Green hydrogen is particularly useful for the expansion of renewable energy. When it is abundant, renewable electricity can be used to produce green hydrogen. The green hydrogen can then be stored or transported until it is needed. This means green hydrogen can help smooth over energy slumps, such as during low-sunshine or low-wind, as well as spread the benefits of renewable energy past the immediate solar or wind farm. Unlike the technology that currently exists for this purpose, such as batteries, technology that utilizes hydrogen like fuel cells are more efficient and still produce no emissions.

Green hydrogen is not a perfect solution in the fight against climate change. Transporting hydrogen is difficult. Hydrogen has a lower energy density than other fuel sources, so more hydrogen is required to deliver the same amount of energy. 

Additionally, hydrogen must be pressurized or compressed into a gas or liquid. Liquefying hydrogen requires cooling it down to −253°C (−423°F) and uses nearly 30% of the energy content of the hydrogen itself, while transporting gasified hydrogen necessitates pressurized cylinders or pipelines. Transporting hydrogen is both energy intensive and expensive.

It can also be explosive. Hydrogen is odorless and tasteless, meaning there is the risk of undetected leaks. Hydrogen is explosive and flammable, with a less visible flame than other similarly flammable materials. Much of the current research in hydrogen fuel centers around transporting it, such as improving compression processes or development of alloys for hydrogen storage, but there is still much work to be done.  

Green hydrogen is more than just a fuel with a fancy name. It has the power to drastically cut CO2 emissions globally while also elevating the communities that currently suffer the effects of the energy industry. These five researchers have done the important work of demonstrating how great the potential is. Now, it is up to voters, advocates, engineers, and policymakers to make green hydrogen the new green reality. 

As sustainability and green investing gain popularity, concerns about greenwashing have grown. Greenwashing is when brands conceal non-environmentally friendly products behind a green label to entice socially responsible consumers. This phenomenon can extend to the domain of green financing. For instance, the Brazilian meat giant JBS was accused of allegedly greenwashing its $3 billion issuance of green bonds. The company claimed the funds would go toward sustainability efforts, including the adoption of solar energy, a partnership with European health and nutrition firm DSM to reduce methane emissions, and capital expenditures to reduce greenhouse emissions intensity, over the decade. Protesters complain that the company is already failing to meet its emissions targets as it has by far the highest emissions of any company in agriculture, with methane emissions exceeding the combined total of France, Germany, Canada, and New Zealand from the supply chain.

The JBS case raises a question important to the financial sector more broadly. Is the money raised with green bonds really going into green and sustainable projects?

A recent study published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change provides answers. It explored the incentives driving the use of green bonds and examined their environmental implications.

Before diving into the study, it is useful to clarify what regular bonds and green bonds are. To carry out projects, which require large amounts of money, companies issue bonds to raise money. Banks act as middlemen, selling these bonds to institutional investors who invest money in bonds on behalf of their clients.

Green bonds, unlike regular bonds, require that the funds raised be dedicated exclusively to financing or refinancing green investments. These investments may encompass projects like Quebec’s clean transportation projects, Verizon’s renewable energy investments, or Arizona State University’s sustainable academic facilities. The issuance of green bonds thus implies an entity’s commitment to sustainable/green development.

Issuing green bonds is a way for companies to raise more money while declaring their commitments to a more sustainable future. They seek funds to support social responsibility and environmental initiatives. Similar to the green label on a clothing brand, a green bond label can attract socially responsible investors who not only seek to maximize their wealth but also a model offering sustainable growth and a commitment to society and the environment.

But are these bonds really supporting green projects? The study examines the credibility of green bonds by evaluating the environmental performance of the companies borrowing money for their green projects. To measure this, the study scored each company using 3 metrics:

1. Environmental innovation score: the company’s score for its ability to reduce environmental costs and burdens for its customers through new environmental technologies and processes or ecologically designed products. 
2. Emission score: the company’s score for its commitment and effectiveness in reducing environmental emissions and waste generation. 
3. Resource use score: the company’s score for its ability to reduce energy and water use and find more eco-efficient solutions.

The study discovered that green bond issuers, when compared to conventional bond issuers, had higher environmental pillar scores and lower CO2 emissions before the issuance. This implies that green bond issuers are not just using green bonds to acquire a green label but are more likely to already have well-established and longstanding environmental commitments.

The study also found that the environmental pillar score and CO2 emissions further improved after the issuance of green bonds. Based on this, green bonds have positive impacts on a company’s sustainability practices. 

The good news continues. When assessing the performance of green bond issuers over time, the research showed that these companies continued to improve their environmental pillar score, although results for resource use and CO2 emissions while positive were not significant.  The researchers suspect that this might be attributed to the fact that many green bonds, especially those of larger value, are intended to finance infrastructure projects. Consequently, the environmental impact of these initiatives would take longer to manifest significant effects than what current studies can examine.

Here are the takeaways:

1. Companies that issue green bonds are more likely to be environmentally conscious and with sustainable and climate-friendly projects. They tend to have a higher environmental score and lower CO2 emissions. 
2. Green bond issuance tends to lead to improved environmental performance. Specifically, in emissions score and environmental innovation score. 
3. Infrastructure projects financed by green bonds are long-term and may not have yielded measurable results yet.

As of end 2022, the green bond market had accumulated a total of US$2.2tn in debt issuance. Among the green projects financed by green bonds, energy, buildings, and transport were the three largest categories, adding up to 77% of investments.

While greenwashing can still occur, as was the concern with the Brazilian meat company JBS, the study’s findings show that green bonds are in most cases complying with their intentions.

Many people don’t think that solar energy is a reputable and cost-effective energy source. Instead, solar energy is often seen as unpredictable and expensive. After all, it’s not always sunny and building a solar array can cost a pretty penny.

Yet, solar installations have grown dramatically. In the last five years, the US solar power industry has grown by over 20% annually.

But concerns persist about the reliability and cost of solar. These concerns can deter companies and individuals from installing solar arrays. And while there have been favorable policies supporting solar, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, improving solar will only help continue this recent trend of increasing solar installations and favorable policy.

A solar array. Image credit: rawpixel

A recent study explains how artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the productivity of solar, making it even more reliable and less expensive. This new research says AI can make solar energy an even more useful source of electricity through better data analysis. 

To design a solar array, engineers examine huge sets of historical data, including solar radiation levels, geographic information, and weather patterns. That’s a lot of data that must be accurately analyzed for solar arrays to produce maximum energy. 

AI is able to optimize this data analysis. AI algorithms are sophisticated, so they are able to process more data, be more precise in their findings, and cut down on processing time. In doing so, more time is freed up for solar engineers to design better performing solar. AI can then be used in testing to predict how various designs would operate in order to decide on the best one. 

Much of solar design revolves around the basic equation driving solar electricity generation: more sun = more energy. AI’s superior data analysis capabilities can be used to help decide where to place solar panels. This is especially useful when looking to maximize the productivity of large solar facilities. 

AI can also improve solar panel tracking systems that track the sun’s location and shift panels to track the sun through the day. AI optimizes these systems by more quickly and continuously analyzing real-time temperature, solar radiation, and panel performance data to calculate adjustments for individual panels. Industry statistics say AI could improve solar panel productivity by 20%.

This real-time data analysis also allows AI to improve monitoring of existing solar arrays. It can track current, voltage, and temperature from panels to forecast maintenance needs. AI systems are good at recognizing patterns. That means AI can learn from past arrays’ maintenance records to determine likely outcomes from the real-time data it’s receiving.

These AI driven strategies have been successful in other fields. For example, Google noticed that a lot of its energy usage went to cooling its data centers. To optimize their cooling systems, Google first trained an AI model with historical data from the data center. 

Drawing on that machine learning, the AI system was then able to monitor real-time data from the center and make adjustments to temperature setpoints and fan speeds. The result? The AI system was able to reduce the amount of energy used for cooling by 40%. If those gains could be replicated for solar electricity generation, it would be a substantial improvement.

AI researchers also anticipate AI can improve the performance of solar panels with energy storage. Energy storage allows solar energy to be used at a later time, such as at night or when a cloud passes over. 

AI’s computationally efficient real-time processing of solar generation projection, energy consumption, and electricity pricing data allows it to optimize energy usage by deciding when electricity goes to the grid – for real-time consumption – or to batteries – for later use. That storage makes renewable energy available at night or during inclement weather. Everyone likes leftovers, right?

Overall, AI can improve the accuracy of solar forecasts by up to 30%– a figure that is expected to grow over time. 

While this is great news, it is important to think about potential complexities as well. For example, AI models are expensive to create and sustain. Many people and companies will not have the financial means to implement AI in their solar power productions.

Nevertheless, AI solar applications will become more reliable in the near future as technology continues to advance. As long as there is careful consideration of potential complexities, AI is sure to improve the field of solar energy and diminish people’s doubts of the industry.

Communities exposed to high levels of toxic waste are at risk for serious health problems. But, at the same time, those who live in these communities are less likely to visit a doctor. A recent study from researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham explains why. 

In several neighborhoods of North Birmingham, Alabama the soil is laced with dangerous contaminants. North Birmingham is home to two coke oven plants, asphalt batch plants, a steel producing factory, and various other industrial plants that spew harmful chemicals that find their way into the soil. The Environmental Protection Agency classified this area as the 35th Avenue Superfund site in 2011. Superfund sites are areas established by the U.S. government as having dangerous levels of environmental contamination. As of 2022, there are nearly 2,000 different Superfund sites nationwide. The 7% of the U.S. population living within a mile of one face a wide range of increased health risks. This is the case in North Birmingham.

Historic Image of North Birmingham

[Source: Library of Congress] 

Researchers compared three neighborhoods in North Birmingham. Two were close and one was far away from the 35th Avenue Superfund site. They examined residents’ usage of hospitals and the types of doctor appointments they attended. What they found was counterintuitive. Those living near the Superfund site were less likely to go to outpatient doctor appointments, appointments that do not require hospitalization, than those living farther away from the site. At the same time, those living near the site were more likely to wind up in emergency rooms or be admitted into hospitals for long-term care. 

These findings are important as those who live near Superfund sites have higher rates of a wide variety of illnesses due to their proximity to Superfund sites. For example, those who live in the neighborhoods near the 35th Avenue Superfund site have higher rates of chronic lung disease—2.2% more of the population than in neighboring towns—because of their exposure to harmful chemicals. Overall, those living near the 35th Avenue Superfund site were twice as likely to report they were in poor health compared to their counterparts. 

Regular outpatient care—physicals and routine check-ups—are important to patient health. When individuals don’t attend outpatient care, the chances that warning signs will be missed and illness overlooked increase, explain the researchers. Outpatient care can also result in illnesses being caught at late stages leading to worse health. Due to this, the low numbers of outpatient doctor appointments relate to higher rates of hospitalization. 

Sign Outside a Home in North Birmingham

[Source: Steven Depolom] 

Researchers also found that those living near Superfund sites report higher levels of financial concern. This might explain the lower rates of outpatient doctor appointments. For the uninsured, the average cost of an outpatient visit in Alabama is around 100 dollars, which is a lot in a state where minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.

Fear and distrust of doctors is another potential reason for the low rates of outpatient visits. Women, ethnic and racial minorities, individuals with disabilities, and those with lower socioeconomic status are much more likely to mistrust doctors. This is especially seen in individuals who fit into more than one of the above categories. This is due in part to a long history of abuse and poor treatment from doctors towards those who identify as one, or more, of these groups. In communities such as North Birmingham where the population is more than 70% Black and where individuals may already have disabilities due to chronic exposure to toxic waste, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that people are hesitant to trust medical professionals.

The health issues in communities neighboring Superfund sites are an urgent problem. While the U.S. government is taking action to remedy the harm of Superfund sites, this study makes it clear that an important step is lessening health burdens for individuals by making outpatient doctor appointments more accessible. How can the underlying reasons for this disparity in outpatient and inpatient care be addressed? Potential strategies include offering free or reduced-price clinics so the financial burden can be alleviated. To address the mistrust in doctors which is due to a long history of harm is a challenge but, by doctors engaging with the communities they treat beyond just in the exam room and by diversifying the medical industry, trust may be able to be rebuilt. Overall, to address the health burdens in communities near Superfund sites, the gap in healthcare must be bridged. 

Castor Semenya is a female South African Olympic medalist in track and field. She’s racked up countless accolades over the years and become an icon in mid-distance running. Yet, because she happens to have a particularly high testosterone count for a female athlete, she’s only allowed to compete in international-level competitions if she takes hormone blockers. 

Consider another athlete: Michael Phelps. 28 Olympic medals. A symbolic figure in athletics. Yet, although Phelps produces approximately 7x less lactic acid (which produces body fatigue) than the average Olympic swimmer, no one is banning him from competing, or offering him pills that mess with his biology.

There are a few things at play here: Caster Semenya is a woman. She does not fit the physical conventions of a female athlete. She is gay and out. She is African. She fought for her rights to compete. She is stuck with a career that has historically questioned her right to compete and compared her to male athletes.

This problem isn’t limited just to athletics. It also pervades environmentalism. It is these issues of identity, representation, and equity that intersectional environmentalism deals with.

Intersectional environmentalism is a movement that emerged in recent years, and is increasing in popularity. To give some introduction, intersectional environmentalism addresses that environmental spaces and movements are generally populated by wealthy and privileged peoples (often white). 

Contrary to popular belief, people of color (POC) and other minorities are not disinterested in the environmental crises- in fact, an overwhelming number of studies show that they are the most affected and simply have not had access or time to deal with things outside their immediate circles. Moreover, environmental spaces haven’t historically been inclusive enough/welcoming enough for people of color. 

Intersectionality needs to play a larger part in the climate movement. Who is working towards intersectional environmentalism, and how do we support them?

Just recently, in July 2023, a study was published examining intersectionality in the UK within two social movements: the disability movement, and the environmental movement. The study  looked at what role intersectionality plays in grassroots activist groups, activist networks, non-governmental organizations, and charities. 

What is grassroots action? While we as a society are familiar with NGOs and charities (like WWF, Greenpeace, and Friends of Earth), grassroots action might be a newer term for many readers. Counterintuitively, ‘grassroots’ doesn’t literally refer to the stem of a piece of grass; it actually refers to when people make change on a local level in order to affect change on a greater scale. It comes from the idea that people most affected by problems should be at the heart of solving them (to which, you might respond with ‘duh’, but upon further research will find it is often not the case). Based on this definition, it makes sense that grassroots organizations listen and care about the voices of people most affected by climate change more than efforts that do not adopt a grassroots approach. Grassroots activists, for example, probably wouldn’t leave it up to the European men in athletics to make decisions about whether Caster Semenya gets to compete.

Yet, right now, that is often the case in environmental activism — those most affected are least well represented.  The study found that of the 21 environmentalist groups studied, only 10 explicitly used the term ‘intersectionality’. And of those 10, only a few placed a real emphasis on intersectionality as a key component of their organization. 

One exception was ‘People and Planet’, a grassroots, student-led organization, who actually explicitly defined the term intersectionality, mobilizing intersectionality as a way to frame their organization’s politics. This included actions such as creating and publishing a guide featuring a page titled ‘How can we organize more intersectionality?’, which discusses concrete action and strategies informed by intersectionality, “such as ‘notic[ing] which voices are heard most often in meetings and ask[ing] people who have spoken a lot to “step back” and create space for others”. People and Planet also have a grassroots blog, in which they publish the success stories of the students fighting against things like fossil fuel recruitment. 

Other grassroots groups also used language that advanced  intersectionality conceptually even if they didn’t use the specific term.  Those groups emphasized things like breaking down societal injustices and building up underrepresented voices (for example, offering support to POC, queer people, or disabled persons in the workplace so that they have equal opportunities as their more privileged counterparts).

On the other hand, some of the largest, professionalized, environmental names, such as WWF, Greenpeace, and Friends of the Earth, barely  referred to intersectionality at all. One group, Friends of the Earth, referred to it in one job posting — hardly a sign of an organizational priority. And yet, these are still some of the most common household names in environmental activism. The study doesn’t discourage people from supporting these movements, but it does show us why looking into other rising movements in environmentalism can be extremely helpful as well.

Let’s have a recap. 

1. Intersectional environmentalism is important because it allows people of color and minorities to enter environmental conversations and spaces. On its own, environmental activism should be accessible to everyone- the climate crisis requires as many hands as possible. And, especially because climate change affects minorities the most, minorities need to have a voice in the conversation- an emphasis on intersectional environmentalism allows for that.
2. Grassroots activism, in practice, also allows people most affected by a problem (ranging from athletics to the climate crisis) to be at the forefront of activism.
3. According to the study above, grassroots activism, out of all other kinds of environmental activism studied, has the potential to focus most on intersectionality.

So what does this research tell us? Most clearly, it seems possible that we’ve been looking at environmental activism wrong- we need to start looking to and supporting grassroots action more if we care about intersectionality in environmental movements. Grassroots organizations certainly seem to offer us more authentic and upfront ways of supporting environmental movements; after all, the leaders of these organizations are often ones who have actually experienced the kind of problems they are working to solve.

It doesn’t have to be a choice between supporting a charity or a grassroots movement- why not do both? The next time you’re looking for a cause to support or a place to start engaging in environmental movements, do a google search on a grassroots movement that matters to you!

Nestled in the Cordillera Blanca region of the Peruvian Andes, there’s a community of small-scale farmers and mountain guides. One of those mountain guides is Saúl Luciano Lluiya, who is living in the projected path of an outburst flood. In 2015, Saúl became the face of a groundbreaking lawsuit against RWE AG, a multinational energy company, in the Upper Court of Hamm, Germany. 

The Andes mountains, the largest mountain chain in the world and origin of the Amazon River, has experienced substantial glacial retreat, as glaciers have begun to melt faster than new snow and ice have time to accumulate thanks to climate change. This leaves communities in the Andes facing the near-term threat of increased flooding and the long-term threat of water scarcity. 

As a mountain guide, Saúl has watched the glaciers retreat. He worries about the possibility of his home being swept away by floods as a nearby lake has rapidly grown. He felt a sense of responsibility to take action. So, he initiated legal action with Germanwatch, a German NGO fighting for climate justice.

Photo: Saúl Luciano Lluiya speaking to a crowd in Germany. Credits: Wikimedia.

The lawsuit claims that RWE has contributed to the concentration of CO2 by burning coal in their power plants. This has exacerbated climate change and glacial retreat around the world. But RWE is hardly the only company burning coal globally. The challenge in this case was connecting RWE’s actions with Saúl. 

How would Saúl’s lawyers do this? Well, Walker-Crawford, an advisor on the case, provided an in-depth examination of the legal argument crafted in Saúl’s favor. Saúl’s lawyers argue that Saúl and RWE AG are neighbors. 

As a legal norm, experts define neighbors as those who are able to act on one another. Walker-Crawford notes that this differs slightly from the physical definition of neighbors. For example, neighbors might bake cookies for each other or build a fence high to separate their yards. We don’t have to like our neighbors but we do have to respect them and their property. But, people and entities can act upon others and their property even if they don’t share property lines. 

Saúl’s preliminary hearing against RWE relied on rethinking the role of legal neighborly relations as the climate crisis looms. 

Walker-Crawford argued that we all live at the bottom of the atmosphere and, right now, face potential harmful impacts. So, under German law and the legal norm of neighborly relations, we all are neighbors. This time, though, the neighbor causing the harm is a multinational corporation. 

This indirect neighborly relation between Saúl and RWE was made under Germany’s Civil Code Section 1004. This Section states that if a person causes harm or risk to another’s property, the person with property at risk can sue the other and force them to remove the risk. Since RWE is based out of Germany, Germanwatch argued that RWE has the responsibility to remove the risk of Saúl’s home flooding. 

Not surprisingly, RWE questioned the validity of the connection between their actions and the flood risk Saúl faces. After all, RWE is a company based on another continent. They aren’t operating near Saúl. And, they aren’t the only polluter who could be exacerbating the flood risk Saúl faces. Why is RWE, specifically, responsible?  

To make the case, Saúl’s lawyers responded with scientific evidence. In 2014, the Carbon Majors Report quantified the emissions of individual companies globally and found that RWE was responsible for 0.47% of global industrial emissions as of 2010. 

Protecting Saul’s community is expensive. Removing the flood risk will require building a new dam and drainage system which are projected to cost US$4 million. Saúl’s lawyers argue that RWE should contribute $18,000 toward the cause — 0.47% of the $4 million. 

In 2017, the Upper State Court in Hamm, Germany ruled in favor of Saúl. The lawsuit has a solid legal foundation based in neighborly relations. 

How can multinational corporations be held accountable for their impact on the climate? This ruling offers hope. 

Reimagining the old legal norm of neighborly relations allows for the legal system to see the “neighborhood” as the entire planet. This new framework allows for any greenhouse gas emitters to be held responsible under neighborly relation laws if the plaintiff has been adversely affected by climate change. 

This legal argument has yet to be tried beyond the preliminary hearing. As of today, expert reports have been submitted and reviewed. After both parties submit written arguments, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm will set a date for the hearing. 

Reimagining old legal norms is necessary in dealing with the climate crisis. If the courts rule in Saúl’s favor at trial, there will be precedent binding multinational corporations to neighborly relations in Germany. Not only will large corporations face accountability but people just like Saúl will be able to take a sigh of relief for their community and the environment.