A type of geoengineering technology designed to oxidize atmospheric methane is not effective enough to reduce the impact of emissions, a new study has revealed.

Atmospheric scientists at the University of Utah were not convinced of a recent proposal to put hydrogen peroxide into the atmosphere as a way to oxidize methane emissions and improve air quality. 

To test whether this method could work, the scientists used GEOS-Chem, a global chemical-transport 3D model, to model the use of aerosolized hydrogen peroxide, which would be sprayed from 50 600-meter-tall towers around North America.

Researchers modeled what would happen if each tower sprayed 612 grams of the hydrogen peroxide per second for 10 hours daily over the course of one year, a scenario based on a real proposal by an unnamed company.

However, the models showed that this scenario did not make much of a dent in the methane levels, and the technology could even lead to higher amounts of particulate matter pollution in areas that already had poor winter air quality. The scientists published their findings in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

“This proposed solution just won’t remove any meaningful amount of methane from the atmosphere. It’s not going to solve global warming. At most, we found 50 towers could reduce 0.01% of annual anthropogenic methane emissions,” Jessica Haskins, co-author of the study and an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at University of Utah, said in a statement. “You’d need about 352,000 of them to remove 50% of anthropogenic methane. It’s an insane number. And if you did 50 high-emission towers, you’d still need about 43,000.”

As Haskins explained, the hydrogen peroxide would break down in the presence of sunlight and produce hydroxyl radicals (OH), which speed up the conversion of methane into carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide emissions are also a concern for climate change, methane has a greater warming potential of up to 84 times compared to carbon dioxide, according to the European Commission.

But in the environment, the researchers explained that the hydroxyl radicals tend to react more to common double-bonded compounds found in the atmosphere, rather than the single-bonded methane molecules.

“OH doesn’t react fast with methane,” Haskins explained. “It’s reacting with so many other things.”

According to the study, multiple companies and organizations are exploring geoengineering to oxidize methane and other greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through iron-salt aerosols and hydrogen peroxide.

However, more research is being done to reveal how these potential technologies could actually impact the atmosphere and climate change.

A separate study, pre-printed in December 2024, also used modeling to explore how using tropospheric hydroxyl radicals (OH) or chlorine (Cl) in the atmosphere could decrease greenhouse gas emissions, including methane. The author concluded that using hydrogen peroxide was likely not feasible based on the amount needed to actually decrease atmospheric methane levels. Further, the research showed that all geoengineering methods analyzed in the study led to an increase in particulate matter pollution, which even exceeded air quality standards in some locations.

“We could buy ourselves about 50 years and avoid some of the immediate impacts of climate change if we did this, but no one had actually previously done any side-effects studies to see what was going to happen,” Haskins said. “This is very first paper to assess any air quality side effects of such geoengineering solutions.”

The study authors are not completely discrediting these technologies, but they do warn that more research and consideration is necessary before actually executing these methods.

“There’s potential that future research could show that the air quality impacts of placing these towers close to methane point sources is minimal if they’re activated at certain times of the year, and far from large population centers,” said Alfred Mayhew, co-author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher with the Wilkes Center for Climate Science & Policy at University of Utah. “If that’s the case, then this technology (or similar approaches) could play a very small role in combatting warming, but it’s clear from our work that the air-quality side effects should be placed as a central consideration for any proposed real-world implementation of technology like this.”

The post Geoengineering Technology to Remove Methane From Atmosphere Deemed Ineffective in New Study appeared first on EcoWatch.

While scientists have long known that pesticide use could impact pollinators, a new study reveals how fertilizer could negatively impact these important organisms. Not only that, but the research, which was conducted at the site of the longest ecological experiment in global history, revealed that high fertilizer use could also lead to a decline in flowering plants.

A team led by researchers at the University of Sussex and Rothamsted Research examined fertilizer use over a two-year period at the Park Grass Experiment, Rothamsted. The site is home to the longest-running ecological experiment in the world, which was originally established in 1856 to determine how inorganic fertilizers versus organic manure impacted hay yields, but researchers in the 1850s found that these fertilizers and manures were negatively affecting local species. Following that discovery, the site has become an ongoing experiment to test impacts of varying factors on ecology and soil health. 

A sign describes the Park Grass Experiment at Rothamsted Estate in Hertfordshire, England. Paul Gravestock / Flickr

After increasing the amounts of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and magnesium (Mg) through fertilizer use on the site, the researchers found significant impacts on the number of pollinators and, in turn, the species variety and abundance of flowers.

The amount of pollinators in the untreated land plots were about 95% higher than in areas with high fertilizer use, and bees in particular had up to a 9.35 times higher rate of abundance in untreated plots. Plots with higher amounts of fertilizers had higher amounts of flies and beetles. 

The team also determined that fertilizer use negatively impacted flowering plants, which had better abundance and diversity when pollinator abundance was higher. The researchers published their findings in the journal npj Biodiversity.

In total, higher levels of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus led to a five-fold decline in flowering plants and a 50% decline in pollinators, as The Guardian reported.

“As you increase fertilisers, pollinator numbers decrease – that’s the direct link that​ to our knowledge has never been shown before,” Nicholas Balfour, lead researcher of the study, told The Guardian. “It’s having a drastic effect on flowers and insects. The knock-on effect goes right up the food chain.”

The researchers determined that other land management strategies, such as using lime or clover, could help maintain better yields while reducing biodiversity loss. The results showed that plots with lime had 50% more pollinators, 70% more pollinator species richness, 15% more flower abundance and 68% more flower species richness, compared to plots without lime.

According to the study, agricultural grasslands make up about 25% of Earth’s land, but artificial nitrogen fixation and using other fertilizers on these lands makes up about 1.4% of global carbon emissions. Further, fertilizer use leads to soil eutrophication, which changes ecosystems and can lead the grasslands to lose biodiversity of native plants and pollinators.

As The Guardian reported, the UK uses about 100 kilograms of fertilizer for every 1 hectare of agricultural grassland. In the study, the highest amount of fertilizer use was about 144 kilograms of fertilizer per hectare, which led to around 50% declines in pollinators, with the biggest impacts on native bees.

According to the study authors, reducing fertilizer use on agricultural grasslands could lead to improved biodiversity, better resilience to extreme weather, natural pest control, improved soil health, reduced air pollution, and other benefits.

“To realize these benefits, well-designed policies are needed to incentivize the sustainable management of pastoral landscapes,” the authors concluded. “Our data indicate that soil nutrients management strategies that favour nitrogen-fixing legumes, i.e. low to zero N and intermediate P, K and Mg inputs, with lime addition can lessen the trade-off between biodiversity and yield in agricultural grasslands.”

The post Higher Fertilizer Use Reduces Pollinators by Half and Plants Suffer in Response, Study Finds appeared first on EcoWatch.

According to a new proposal put forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Florida manatee, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee, will remain listed as a threatened species and will be submitted separately for protections from another subspecies, the Antillean manatee. The Antillean manatee has been proposed to be listed as an endangered species.

The proposal determined that although Florida manatees face threats from boat strikes, algal blooms, loss of their food source (seagrasses) and loss of warm-water refuge areas, the subspecies still does not meet the criteria to relist Florida manatees as endangered. 

According to a survey by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Florida manatee population was between 8,350 and 11,730 manatees as of 2021–2022. The Antillean manatee, which has been proposed for an endangered listing, has fewer than 7,000 individuals remaining in the wild.

Florida manatees were formerly considered endangered until they were delisted and labeled threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2017. 

In 2022, experts piloted a feeding program to save Florida manatees amid a cold snap following the death of 1,101 manatees in 2021. Another 800 Florida manatees died in 2022, 555 in 2023 and 565 in 2024.

In September 2024, USFWS proposed expanding habitat protections for both Florida and Antillean manatees to reduce the threat of pollution to both vulnerable subspecies, which remains under an extended public comment period due to Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton.

“It’s great news that Puerto Rico’s Antillean manatees finally won the endangered status they need to get on the road to recovery, but I’m disappointed the Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t give Florida manatees the same protection,” said Ragan Whitlock, a Florida-based attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The agency’s denial completely failed to account for the ongoing die-off that is weakening the manatees’ chance at long-term survival. Thousands of manatees have starved to death in the last few years, and that should have been accounted for.”

USFWS stated that it made its latest proposal to maintain the threatened status of Florida manatees while uplisting Antillian manatees as endangered based on the estimate that the Florida manatee’s likelihood of extinction in the next 150 years was lower than 1%.

“For almost 60 years, the Service has worked closely with conservation partners to save Florida and Antillean manatees from extinction,” Mike Oetker, Southeast regional director for USFWS, said in a statement. “The best available science always drives our decision-making, and we are committed to ensuring the protection and recovery of both subspecies of the West Indian manatee.”  

However, environmentalists have argued that the Florida manatee should be relisted as an endangered species.

“They should never have been downlisted, and so this was the time to fix that error,” Pat Rose, executive director of the Save the Manatee Club, told Inside Climate News. “You add the pollution levels, the harmful algae blooms, the loss of seagrass and the climate change issues together. I don’t see how they could hold to what their decision was back in 2017, that according to the Endangered Species Act they’re supposed to have determined with the best scientific information that the risks and threats to manatees are under control. That’s just not accurate.”

The proposal includes a public comment period, and USFWS will accept comments until March 17, including during a virtual public hearing on Feb. 26 starting at 5 p.m. EST (registration required).

The post Florida Manatees Denied Endangered Species Protections Despite ‘Ongoing Die-Off’ appeared first on EcoWatch.

As deadly wildfires continue to blaze around greater Los Angeles, the economic cost of the fires has now been estimated to be over $200 billion. That has made this tragedy, which started on January 7, potentially the most expensive wildfire event in U.S. history.

At least 24 people have died as of the time of writing, according to CBS News.

As Earth.org reported, the fires have already burned around 40,000 acres and counting, totaling an amount of land larger than San Francisco. More than 12,300 structures have been destroyed.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Earth.Org (@earthorg)

Of the five major fires burning in the Los Angeles area in early January, three are still active. The Hurst fire has burned 799 acres and is 97% contained at the time of writing. The Eaton fire has burned 14,117 acres of the Altadena and Pasadena areas and is currently 35% contained. The largest of the five fires, the Palisades fire, has burned ‎23,713 acres and is 17% contained as of 8 a.m. PT on Tuesday, January 14, according to data available from CAL FIRE.

Map of active LA fires on Jan. 14, 2025). California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

Official estimates of the damage have yet to be released; however, AccuWeather meteorologists have estimated the cost of these wildfires to be between $250 billion and $275 billion, an increase from the company’s initial estimates of $135 billion and $150 billion.

“These fast-moving, wind-driven infernos have created one of the costliest wildfire disasters in modern U.S. history,” AccuWeather chief meteorologist Jonathan Porter said in a statement. “Hurricane-force winds sent flames ripping through neighborhoods filled with multi-million-dollar homes. The devastation left behind is heartbreaking, and the economic toll is staggering.”

The Palisades fire burned through a high cost of living area, where homes have a median value of more than $2 million, according to Porter.

“Should a large number of additional structures be burned in the coming days, it may become the worst wildfire in modern California history based on the number of structures burned and economic loss,” Porter added.

However, the economic damage does not just include the cost of multimillion dollar homes, but also lost businesses, relocation costs, job losses and emergency and long-term healthcare costs for fire-related injuries and exposure to poor air quality from the smoke.

“Tragically, lives have been changed forever in just a matter of minutes. Many families may not be able to afford to rebuild or repair and return. Businesses may not be able to recover, and jobs will be permanently lost. Thousands of people are in desperate need of help, initially the basic and life-sustaining needs of food, water and shelter, as this tragedy unfolds,” Porter said. “Many families will face significant unexpected costs to relocate to another area in Southern California. The recovery process will be extremely expensive and emotionally challenging in the months and years to come.” 

AccuWeather is not alone in its prediction that this will be the costliest wildfire event in U.S. history. Aon PLC, an insurance broker, and Moody’s, a data analytics company, both echoed the sentiment, although they did not provide cost estimates, The Associated Press reported.

The Los Angeles wildfires are expected to cost at least $20 billion in insured losses, Reuters reported. This would cause these fires to surpass the previous most costly wildfire, the 2018 Camp Fire in Butte County, California, which killed 85 people and cost $12.76 in insured losses.

Residents now fear a worsening housing crisis in the greater Los Angeles area, as rental prices have already started spiking despite a law preventing price increases of more than 10% for housing, food, medical supplies and other essentials during emergencies. As LAist reported, Zillow listings in Los Angeles were found to increase by 15% to 64% in the wake of the fires.

“It will put a squeeze, especially on the adjacent communities,” Michael Lens, a professor of urban planning and public policy at University of California, Los Angeles, told LAist. “That might be particularly acute from the Palisades effect on the Westside.”

The post Los Angeles Fires Lead to Over $200 Billion in Losses, Potentially the Most Expensive Wildfire Event in U.S. History appeared first on EcoWatch.

According to a new analysis by the nonprofit organization Oxfam Great Britain (Oxfam GB), the wealthiest 1% of people in the world have already exhausted their annual share of the global carbon budget.

One’s annual share of the carbon budget is the amount of carbon emissions per person that can be added into the atmosphere while remaining within the target for no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming compared to pre-industrial times. 

The richest 1%, which includes 77 million people such as billionaires and millionaires, surpassed their share of the carbon budget in just the first 10 days of 2025. By comparison, someone in the poorest 50% of the global population would use up just their share of the annual global carbon budget in 1,022 days.

“The future of our planet is hanging by a thread, yet the super-rich are being allowed to continue to squander humanity’s chances with their lavish lifestyles and polluting investments,” Chiara Liguori, senior climate justice policy advisor for Oxfam GB, said in a statement. “Governments need to stop pandering to the richest polluters and instead make them pay their fair share for the havoc they’re wreaking on our planet. Leaders who fail to act are culpable in a crisis that threatens the lives of billions.”

The carbon budget that Oxfam GB used in the analysis is based on the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which noted that maintaining under 1.5 degrees Celsius warming would allow for a median of about 24 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) by 2030, at which time population is estimated to be around 8.5 billion. As Oxfam GB reported, this total divided by the 8.5 billion people gave the estimated carbon budget per person per year to be around 2.1 metric tons.

Not only are the ultra-wealthy using well beyond their share of the carbon budget, but the ways that they are emitting are not providing economic benefits to society. According to a separate report by Oxfam GB titled Carbon Inequality Kills, just 50 billionaires took 184 flights on private jets in one year, emitting the same amount of carbon an average person outside of the 1% would in 300 years. One year of private yacht use by this group of the world’s wealthiest individuals emitted the same amount of carbon an average person would in 860 years, the report found.

In total, the use of luxury private jets and super-yachts, alongside polluting investments, led the 50 richest billionaires to emit more carbon in 2.78 hours than it takes for an average person in Britain to emit in their entire lifetime.

Previous research from Oxfam GB found that in 2019, the wealthiest 1% were responsible for 15.9% of all carbon emissions, while the lower 50%, totalling 3.9 billion people, accounted for a total of 7.7% of global emissions that year. A separate study similarly found that the bottom 50% of earners has been responsible for only 16% of all global emissions since 1990, while the top 1% are responsible for 23% of all emissions in that timeframe.

Another study published in 2023 found that the wealthiest 10% of people in the U.S. made up 40% of the country’s total emissions.

In order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the wealthiest 1% of people globally need to reduce their emissions per capita by 97% by 2030. However, Oxfam GB found that the 1% is currently on track to reduce emissions by only 5%.

As The Guardian reported, the wealthiest 1% are surpassing their share of the global carbon budget, yet they have the resources to escape the worst impacts of climate change through amenities like air conditioning and climate-resilient housing. Meanwhile, people earning the lowest incomes globally hardly contribute to emissions while facing the worst of extreme heat, flooding, poor air quality, and other harmful and deadly effects of climate change.

“As global temperatures continue to climb, the UK must show how it will generate its own share of new, fair funding to meet the escalating climate finance needs and fight inequality — significantly higher taxes on polluting luxuries like private jets and superyachts is an obvious place for the Government to start,” Liguori said. 

According to Oxfam GB, if the UK taxed luxury vehicles such as private jets and yachts fairly, the country could have generated up to £2 billion ($2.44 billion) to put toward climate action.

At the latest COP29 United Nations Climate Conference, the wealthiest countries in the world further refused to pay a more equitable share toward climate resiliency, offering $250 billion to lower-income countries to split among themselves for climate action. Experts have noted that developing countries would require at least $1.3 trillion per year, if not $5 trillion or more, by 2030 for adequate climate adaptation and resiliency.

The post Wealthiest 1% Have Used Up Their Share of World’s Carbon Budget in Just 10 Days, Analysis Finds appeared first on EcoWatch.