Monday, September 27, 2021

DEEP DIVE
Our smushed-faced dogs are quietly suffering for us
A century of inbreeding is destroying flat-faced canines like bulldogs. Is it time to stop breeding them?


By MATTHEW ROZSA
SALON
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 26, 2021
Pug (Getty Images/mlorenzphotography)


Why do humans love dogs with smushed faces? Indeed, some of the most popular purebred dogs are those with noses that look as though they were pressed up against glass in utero: Pugs, English bulldogs, French bulldogs, and Boston terriers all fall into these categories. The technical term for these types of smushed-face dogs is "brachycephalic." (The root brachy- means "short," while cephalic means "of the head.") Perhaps humans love them because, with their snouts squished toward their skulls until their faces are flat, brachycephalic dogs are unbearably adorable. Their big, round eyes seem friendly, curious and kind; their wrinkled visages convey a delightful spectrum of moods, from grumpy to overjoyed; and when their tongues stick out of their mouths, as often happens, they look like they're blowing raspberries.

"I think there's a good reason to believe that one of the things we like about a shorter-nosed dog is that they more resemble a human primate face," Alexandra Horowitz, a cognitive scientist and the author of "Our Dogs, Ourselves," said during an interview last year with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. "We need to acknowledge that it's gone too far."

Appearances can be deceiving, however. While brachycephalic dogs may seem to lead the lives of happy cartoon characters, their actual day-to-day lives can be full of discomfort — and often worse. From illnesses to genetic diseases, brachycephalic dogs not only have problems — their problems are getting worse. That's because as time has passed, such breeds are becoming more inbred than they were 100 years ago — which, for some dog lovers and vets, raises ethical questions about continuing to breed them. Indeed, humans may be dogs' best friend, but in our quest to breed more best friends we may have inadvertently hurt the ones we claim to love.

What it's like being a brachycephalic dog

It starts with the elimination of the snout; though aesthetically pleasing to breeders and owners, this anatomical alteration forces the dog to breathe through nasal passages that are simply too small.

"We might imagine when we have a cold and it's harder to breath and we tend to snore a lot," Erica Feuerbacher, an associate professor at Virginia Tech's Department of Animal and Poultry Science, wrote to Salon. "That could be what it might be like for these dogs."

It is an affliction that may literally be unimaginable for humans. Humans are occasionally born with brachycephaly, though their symptoms are not the same as it is for these dogs. Molly H. Sumridge, an instructor of anthrozoology at Carroll College, noted to Salon that humans with brachycephaly usually do not have the extreme symptoms intentionally bred into many dogs. "In humans, this is corrected in infants through the use of a cranial reforming helmet," Sumridge told Salon.

"Due to malformation of the skull and muzzle, a lot of brachycephalic dogs have stenotic nares [a condition caused by malformed nasal cartilage that strains the larynx], bulging eyes and deep nasal skin folds," Marjan van Hagen, a professor of animal behavior at Utrecht University, told Salon by email. This means that many of the animals are constantly experiencing shortness of breath, which "has a major impact on their day-to-day lives, as they have to gasp for air with every breath they take." They also may painful eye disorders because of their malformed sockets; pugs, for instance, are particularly prone to ocular proptosis, a condition in which their eyes pop out of their skulls.

That is not all. The list of diseases related to being brachycephalic is long, and "continues to grow" as we study them, Van Hagen says. Van Hagen can attest to dogs with abnormalities in their inner-ear structures and tear ducts, having accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid in the spinal cord and craniums too small for a dog's cerebellum (which helps control muscle activity). Even the jaws that make English bulldogs seem simultaneously ferocious and silly are often, in fact, a source of pain: brachycephalic dogs can have crowding of teeth because there is not enough space in their jaws, resulting in inflammation.

There is also a good reason why bulldogs like Uga, the famous mascot for the University of Georgia, need to be constantly air conditioned if they stay in the sun for too long.

"Their brachycephaly also contributes to them not being able to thermoregulate as well and they can overheat easily, again meaning that they are limited in what activities and in what conditions they can participate," Feuerbacher explained. She also mentioned it is common for English and French bulldog puppies to need to be delivered through C-sections, which affects the mother's welfare.

Smaller brachycephalic dogs are also prone to a condition known as hanging tongue syndrome. When their tongues are too large, they're missing teeth or they have an abnormal jaw bone, the floppy pink muscular organ will constantly stick out or droop down from their mouths. While this may appear cute, it can be very uncomfortable for the dogs. If they are not able to pull their tongue into their mouth enough to keep it moist, it can dry out, crack, blister and get infected. Imagine the feeling of having uncomfortable chapped lips but on your tongue.

The inter-canine language barrier

Smushed-face dogs may also struggle to have conversations with their canine companions.

"Brachycephalic deformities can also inhibit a dog's ability to effectively communicate with other dogs through facial body language," Sumridge told Salon. In other words, because their facial structure appears odder to other dogs, they are inhibited in their ability to communicate.

If it is so difficult for many of these dogs to survive, "talk" and in some cases even to reproduce, how do they exist at all? Surprisingly, they have been around for a while — albeit in healthier form.

"The origins of brachycephalic dogs depend on what characteristic you're looking to measure," Sumridge explained. Pugs, Shih Tzus and Pekingese dogs are very ancient, for example, but the extreme nature of their current flat faces are more recent.

"The breeding for flatter faces seems to have increased mostly in the last 50-100 years to accentuate the 'baby face' that many owners love and are attracted to," Sumridge told Salon.

Modern dog breeds were created in the 19th century, as the concept of "purebreds" became fashionable among Victorian Europeans. As with so many things, this phenomenon can be linked to racism, specifically the eugenics movements which held that knowledge about genetics could be manipulated to create "perfect" specimens in the human and animal world.

Even if purebred brachycephalic dogs did not have this uncomfortable history, there would still be considerable ethical concerns about continuing to breed them.

"Veterinarians all over the world argue that there is widespread evidence of a link between extreme brachycephalic phenotypes and chronic disease, which compromises canine welfare," van Hagen said. "The selection of dogs with progressively shorter and wider skulls has reached physiological limits. To continue breeding them in this way, with this knowledge, therefore can be considered unethical."

Feuerbacher noted that it is not simply brachycephalic breeds who have congenital health issues. A number of purebred dogs have health problems because of inbreeding, such as German shepherds who are bred to have increasingly sloped backs and therefore develop back, hip and leg problems.

"I think we have a responsibility to our animals to breed them to be as healthy as we can, rather than give in solely to our desire for certain aesthetics," Feuerbacher wrote. "We can certainly select for different aesthetics, but if we keep in mind the welfare of the animal when we are making these selection decisions, hopefully we'll find a balance and not select for extreme characteristics that can negatively impact the animal."

The solution, experts agree, is to discourage overbreeding. It is possible for dogs to continue to come in a variety of colors, shapes and sizes, and yet still lead healthy lives. The key, experts agree, is to make sure that there is genetic diversity in their lineage. Inbreeding, as the name itself makes clear, is bad.

MATTHEW ROZSA is a staff writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.
South Korea's President Moon raises dog meat ban

Issued on: 27/09/2021 -
Anti-dog meat protests have grown in South Korea as more people embrace canine companionship in the country Ed JONES AFP

Seoul (AFP)

South Korea's President Moon Jae-in raised banning the eating of dogs in the country on Monday, his office said, a traditional practice that is becoming an international embarrassment.

The meat has long been a part of South Korean cuisine with about one million dogs believed to be eaten annually, but consumption has declined as more people embrace dogs as companions rather than livestock.

The practice is now something of a taboo among younger generations and pressure from animal rights activists has also been mounting.

"Hasn't the time come to prudently consider prohibiting dog meat consumption?" Moon told Prime Minister Kim Boo-kyum during a weekly meeting, according to the presidential spokeswoman.

South Korea's pet industry is on the rise, with a growing number of people living with dogs at home -- the president among them.

Moon is a known dog lover and has several canines at the presidential compound, including a mutt he rescued after taking office.

Adopting Tory was one of Moon's pledges during his presidential campaign and the pooch became the first rescue dog to make its way into the Blue House.

Moon made the remarks as he was briefed on a plan to improve the care system for abandoned pets, his spokeswoman said.

South Korea's current animal protection law is intended mainly to prevent the cruel slaughter of dogs and cats but does not ban consumption itself.

A dog owned by South Korean President Moon Jae-in delivered a litter of six puppies in 2018
 handout The Blue House/AFP

Nonetheless, authorities have invoked the law and other hygiene regulations to crack down on dog farms and restaurants ahead of international events such as the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics.

© 2021 AFP

 

These Engineers Have Invented an Entirely New Approach to Recycling Plastic

27 SEPTEMBER 2021

Our planet and everything that lives on it is buckling under the weight of all the plastic waste we're producing. The volume of these non-biodegradable materials discarded after use is only increasing, so we need new ways to tackle them, and fast

A new study demonstrates the proof-of-concept of an entirely new approach to plastic recycling, inspired by the way nature naturally 'recycles' the components of organic polymers present in our environment.

The approach takes guidance from the fact that proteins within organic polymers are constantly broken down into parts and reassembled into different proteins, without losing the quality of the building blocks. In essence, when it comes to recycling plastic – a synthetic polymer – without degrading it, we have to think smaller.

Proteins are one of the main organic compounds that act as building blocks for everything biological. They're long chains of molecules (or monomers) known as amino acids, and researchers think that the way these molecules can be broken up and reconfigured suggests a potential strategy for recycling synthetic polymers.

"A protein is like a string of pearls, where each pearl is an amino acid," says materials scientist Simone Giaveri, from the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland.

"Each pearl has a different color, and the color sequence determines the string structure and consequently its properties. In nature, protein chains break up into the constituent amino acids, and cells put such amino acids back together to form new proteins – that is, they create new strings of pearls with a different color sequence."

The researchers have called their approach "nature-inspired circular-economy recycling", or NaCRe for short.

In lab tests, the team was able to divide selected proteins into amino acids, then assemble them into new proteins with different structures and uses. In one case, they turned the proteins from silk into green fluorescent protein, which is a glowing tracer used in biomedical research. Despite this deconstruction and reconstruction, the quality of the proteins remains constant.

(Giaveri et al., Advanced Materials, 2021)

According to the team's analysis, the mechanisms that naturally occur in proteins could be applied to plastics as well, though developing and scaling up the necessary technology is going to take some time.

There are major differences between natural and synthetic polymers to be taken into account, but the researchers say this new approach to recycling is feasible – and would keep materials in use for the longest possible time.

"It will require a radically different mindset," says materials scientist Francesco Stellacci, from EPFL. "Polymers are strings of pearls, but synthetic polymers are made mostly of pearls all of the same color and when the color is different, the sequence of color rarely matters."

"Furthermore, we have no efficient way to assemble synthetic polymers from different color pearls in a way that controls their sequence."

Even biodegradable plastics create waste residue that must be stockpiled or buried after the recycling process is finished, with the usual knock-on effects for the environment in terms of land usage and pollution. The new strategy could help fix that.

The researchers estimate that across a 70-year lifespan, a person throws away around 2 metric tons of plastic on average – and considering almost 8 billion people are on the planet right now, that's a catastrophic amount of waste.

And while we're making some progress in tackling our plastic pollution problem, it's currently nowhere near enough. A radical shift in thinking and action is required if we're going to stop plastics doing further damage to our world and our health.

"In the future, sustainability will entail pushing upcycling to the extreme, throwing a lot of different objects together and recycling the mixture to produce every day a different new material," says Stellacci. "Nature already does this."

The research has been published in Advanced Materials.

Inspiring photos from the worldwide Uproot the System youth climate protest

Fridays for Future, the grassroots climate movement, held its first global in-person strike since the pandemic on September 24.

By Anna Iovine on September 25, 2021


Greta Thunberg and other demonstrators during Fridays for Future on September 24, 2021 in Berlin, Germany. Credit: Florian Gaertner/Photothek Via Getty Images

On Friday, grassroots climate movement Fridays for Future led its first global strike since the pandemic hit: #UprootTheSystem, a name and hashtag meant to bring about an intersectional discussion about climate change.

Fridays for Future began in 2018 when then-15-year-old Greta Thunberg began a school strike for climate. Thunberg's protest quickly sparked a global movement, and — fast forward to yesterday — Uproot the System was worldwide, with estimated 1,400 events in over 80 countries.


Uproot the System encourages all of us to center MAPA, or "most affected people and areas." This includes indigenous people and regions labeled the "Global South" (parts of Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Oceania).

"Without listening to MAPA, embracing intersectionality, and uprooting this system," warned Fridays for Future in their Uproot The System blog post, "we have no hope of stopping the climate crisis."

Thousands of young people around the globe met the call on Friday. Thunberg herself attended the Berlin protest. Here are photos from the international strike:


People during Fridays for Future demonstration in Rome, Italy. Credit: Andrea Ronchini/NurPhoto Via Getty Images



Children in London, United Kingdom for Fridays for Future. Credit: Mark Kerrison/In Pictures Via Getty Images






Activists in Utrecht, Netherlands dressed like politicians are seen setting fire on a circle representing mother Earth during the demonstration. Credit: Ana Fernandez/SOPA Images/LightRocket Via Getty Images



A protester makes a gesture during the demonstration in Warsaw, Poland. Credit: Attila Husejnow/SOPA Images/LightRocket 



Participants seen holding a banner at the protest in New York, New York. Credit: Erik McGregor/LightRocket Via Getty Images


VUB led Science publication shows how climate change is disproportionally affecting children

The kids aren’t alright

Peer-Reviewed Publication

VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL

International research led by Prof. Wim Thiery of the VUB research group BCLIMATE shows that children are to face disproportionate increases in lifetime extreme event exposure – especially in low-income countries. Under current climate policy, newborns across the globe will on average face seven times more scorching heatwaves during their lives than their grandparents. In addition, they will on average live through 2.6 times more droughts, 2.8 times as many river floods, almost three times as many crop failures, and twice the number of wildfires as people born 60 years ago.

Our results highlight a severe threat to the safety of young generations and call for drastic emission reductions to safeguard their future.” says Thiery, climate scientist at VUB and lead author of the study.

The Fridays for Future movement led by the world’s youth has drastically increased awareness around the importance of climate change mitigation for future generations. Next to school strikes and protest marches, young people are now also suing their governments, for instance for violating their fundamental rights under the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.

First study to bridge climate science and demography  

Scientifically, aspects of climate change like droughts or heatwaves are often studied by comparing different time windows or discrete levels of warming. However, this ruling paradigm in climate and impact research has so far not quantified how younger generations will experience a different climate change burden.  Current research therefore insufficiently grasps how the climate change burden differs across generations and countries.

Bridging between climate science and demography, the international research team now for the first time quantified lifetime exposure to droughts, heatwaves, crop failures, river floods, tropical cyclones, and wildfires. They computed lifetime exposure for every generation born between 1960 and 2020, and this for every country in the world and for every global warming scenario between today’s 1°C and 3.5°C above pre-industrial. To this end, the team generated an unprecedented collection of climate change impact simulations and combined these with future global temperature trajectories and demographic information on life expectancy, population density, and cohort size.

The results show that for a 3°C global warming pathway, a 6-year old in 2020 will experience twice as many wildfires and tropical cyclones, 3 times more river floods, 4 times more crop failures, 5 times more droughts, and 36 times more heatwaves relative to a reference person living under pre-industrial climate conditions. Under a 3.5°C warming scenario, children born in 2020 will even experience 44 times more heatwaves.

At and above 1.5°C of warming, lifetime exposure to heatwaves, crop failures, droughts, and river floods for people born after 1980 is unmatched by pre-industrial climate conditions.

This basically means that people younger than 40 today will live an unprecedented life even under the most stringent climate change mitigation scenarios”, says Thiery.

Regional differences

Behind these global numbers hide important regional variations. Young generations in low-income countries will face by far the strongest increases with a more than fivefold increase in overall lifetime extreme event exposure. While 53 million children born in Europe and Central Asia since 2016 will experience about four times more extreme events under current pledges, 172 million children of the same age in sub-Saharan Africa face an almost sixfold increase in lifetime extreme event exposure, and even 50 times more heatwaves.

The combined rapid growth in population and lifetime extreme event exposure highlights a disproportionate climate change burden for young generations in the Global South”, adds Thiery. “And we even have strong reasons to think that our calculations underestimate the actual increases that young people will face”.

Youth summit and COP26

With the UNFCCC Youth Summit running from 28 – 30 September in Milan and with COP26 upcoming in Glasgow end of October, international climate negotiations are gaining critical momentum.

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C instead of following current policy pledges substantially reduces the intergenerational burden for extreme heatwaves, wildfires, crop failures, droughts, tropical cyclones, and river floods,” says Prof. Joeri Rogelj, climate change expert at Imperial College London and co-author of the study. “The results of the study published in Science and the accompanying report curated by the NGO Save The Children therefore highlight the utmost need to ramp up ambitions and embark on immediate action.”

Our results underline the sheer importance of the Paris Agreement to protect young generations around the world,” adds Thiery. “If we manage to drastically reduce our emissions in the coming years, we can still avoid the worst consequences for children worldwide. At the same time, a sobering message for the youth in low-income countries emerges, where incredibly challenging extreme events are robustly projected, even under the most stringent of climate action futures.

Contact

Wim Thiery

wim.thiery@vub.be

+32 485 70 80 18

Notes to editors

Link to Science paper: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi7339

Link to Save The Children Report: https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/library/born-climate-crisis-why-we-must-act-now-secure-childrens-rights  

The study was accomplished by researchers from Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), ETH Zurich, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Imperial College London, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Climate Analytics, Humboldt University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), MeteoSwiss, East China Normal University, Zhejiang University, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (IPSL), The Cyprus Institute, University of Liège, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, University of Nottingham, National Institute for Environmental Studies Japan, Goethe University Frankfurt, Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F), Universidad Pablo de Olavide, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University, Technical University of Crete, China Agricultural University, University of Vienna, Zhejiang University, and Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon.


CATTLE FARTS
Stanford-led research reveals potential of an overlooked climate change solution

Analyses lay out a blueprint for speeding development of atmospheric removal and modeling how the approach could improve human health and have an outsized effect on reducing future peak temperatures.


BY ROB JORDAN
Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment
SEPTEMBER 26, 2021

Earlier this month, President Biden urged other countries to join the U.S. and European Union in a commitment to slashing methane emissions. Two new Stanford-led studies could help pave the way by laying out a blueprint for coordinating research on methane removal technologies, and modeling how the approach could have an outsized effect on reducing future peak temperatures.


Agricultural operations, such as this feedlot at the Harris Ranch in
California, are among the largest sources of human-caused methane emissions. 
(Image credit: Getty Images)

The analyses, published Sept. 27 in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, reveal that removing about three years-worth of human-caused emissions of the potent greenhouse gas would reduce global surface temperatures by approximately 0.21 degrees Celsius while reducing ozone levels enough to prevent roughly 50,000 premature deaths annually. The findings open the door to direct comparisons with carbon dioxide removal – an approach that has received significantly more research and investment – and could help shape national and international climate policy in the future.

“The time is ripe to invest in methane removal technologies,” said Rob Jackson, lead author on the new research agenda paper and senior author on the modeling study. Jackson is the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Provostial Professor of Energy and Environment in Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences.
The case for methane removal

The relative concentration of methane has grown more than twice as fast as that of carbon dioxide since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Removing methane from the atmosphere could reduce temperatures even faster than carbon dioxide removal alone because methane is 81 times more potent in terms of warming the climate over the first 20 years after its release, and about 27 times more potent over a century. Methane removal also improves air quality by decreasing the concentration of tropospheric ozone, exposure to which causes an estimated one million premature deaths annually worldwide due to respiratory illnesses.





Graph shows globally averaged, monthly mean atmospheric methane abundance determined from marine surface sites since 1983. (Image credit: NOAA)

Unlike carbon dioxide, the bulk of methane emissions are human-driven. Primary culprits include agricultural sources such as livestock, which emit methane in their breath and manure, and rice fields, which emit methane when flooded. Waste disposal and fossil fuel extraction also contribute substantial emissions. Natural sources of methane, including soil microbes in wetlands, account for the remaining 40 percent of global methane emissions. They further complicate the picture because some of them, such as thawing permafrost, are projected to increase as the planet warms.

While development of methane removal technologies will not be easy, the potential financial rewards are big. If market prices for carbon offsets rise to $100 or more per ton this century, as predicted by most relevant assessment models, each ton of methane removed from the atmosphere could then be worth more than $2,700.
Envisioning methane removal’s impacts

The modeling study uses a new model developed by the United Kingdom’s national weather service (known as the UK Met Office) to examine methane removal’s potential impacts while accounting for its shorter lifetime than carbon dioxide – a key factor because some of the methane removed would have disappeared anyway. The researchers created a set of scenarios by varying either the amount removed or the timing of removal to generalize their results over a wide range of realistic future emissions pathways.

Under a high emissions scenario, the analysis showed that a 40 percent reduction in global methane emissions by 2050 would lead to a temperature reduction of approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius by 2050. Under a low emissions scenario where temperature peaks during the 21st century, methane removal of the same magnitude could reduce the peak temperature by up to 1 degree Celsius.

“This new model allows us to better understand how methane removal alters warming on the global scale and air quality on the human scale,” said modeling study lead author and research agenda coauthor Sam Abernethy, a PhD student in applied physics who works in Jackson’s lab.
From research to development

The path to achieving these climate and air quality improvements remains unclear. To bring it into focus, the research agenda paper compares and contrasts aspects of carbon dioxide and methane removal, describes a range of technologies for methane removal and outlines a framework for coordinating and accelerating its scale-up. The framework would help facilitate more accurate analysis of methane removal factors ranging from location-specific simulations to potential interactions with other climate change mitigation approaches.

Methane is challenging to capture from air because its concentration is so low, but burgeoning technologies – such as a class of crystalline materials called zeolites capable of soaking up the gas – hold the promise of a solution, according to the researchers. They argue for increased research into these technologies’ cost, efficiency, scaling and energy requirements, potential social barriers to deployment, co-benefits and possible negative by-products.

“Carbon dioxide removal has received billions of dollars of investments, with dozens of companies formed,” said Jackson. “We need similar commitments for methane removal.”


Jackson is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Precourt Institute for Energy and chairman of the Global Carbon Project. Coauthors of the research agenda paper include Josep Canadell of the Global Carbon Project; Matteo Cargnello, an assistant professor of chemical engineering at Stanford, Steven Davis and Chaopeng Hong of the University of California at Irvine; Sarah Féron, a postdoctoral fellow in Earth system science at Stanford at the time of the research; Sabine Fuss of Humboldt Universität in Germany; Alexander Heyer and Hannah Rhoda, PhD students in chemistry at Stanford; and Edward Solomon, the Monroe E. Spaght Professor of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford and professor of photon science at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory; Maxwell Pisciotta and Jennifer Wilcox of the University of Pennsylvania; H. Damon Matthews of Concordia University in Montreal; Renaud de Richter of Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Montpellier in France; Kirsten Zickfeld of Simon Fraser University in Canada. Coauthors of both papers include Fiona O’Connor and Chris Jones of the Met Office Hadley Centre.

Both papers were funded by the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment’s Environmental Venture Projects program, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Joint UK BEIS/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme. The paper led by Sam Abernethy was also funded by the Stanford Data Science Scholars Program and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Crescendo Project.

To read all stories about Stanford science, subscribe to the biweekly Stanford Science Digest.

GREENWASHING

'Carbon Footprint' and 'Net Zero' Don't Mean What You Think

ILLUSTRATION: MICHELLE URR

Words that imply strong emission reduction policies have adopted slippery meanings intended to imply companies are doing more to reduce emissions than they actually are.
20.9.21

Almost every day, Motherboard reporters receive press releases from companies and governments large and small boasting of some new effort to reduce emissions. While it is obviously a good thing these entities—or, at least, their PR departments—are thinking about their environmental impacts, we've also noticed an unfortunate trend. These releases routinely misuse and abuse basic climate change concepts. In some cases, they even introduce new and misleading terms by slapping "green" or "eco" in front of some pollutant

You've probably heard many of these terms before: carbon neutral, net zero, zero emissions. These terms sound simple, even self-explanatory. But the basic concepts they express are laden with complexities. And by getting repeated in the media without being fully defined, these terms have adopted slippery meanings, a slipperiness very much intended to imply companies and governments are doing more to reduce emissions than they actually are. Not all of these cases fit the traditional definition of "greenwashing"—in which companies express concerns about the environment while doing little to address those concerns—but many of them do. 

To try and—ahem—clear the air, Motherboard has created this glossary of key terms relating to how corporations and governments talk about reducing emissions. We have assembled this guide in the hopes that it will help all of us more critically evaluate the claims corporations make about their attempts to be environmentally responsible. 

To be clear, this is not a comprehensive guide to all important climate change-related terms. For that, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s glossary is a good place to start. Nor do we cover all aspects of greenwashing, which cover far more than emissions, including waste/recycling, water pollution, etc. But we have chosen to focus specifically on emissions-related terms here because they are among the most abused

There is a very clear, achievable, and direct path to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions soon: Curb consumption, electrify everything, and clean up the grid with proven, cheap, renewable, zero-emission energy sources like wind and solar. The explanations of the terms below relate to how corporations delay, obscure, or otherwise obstruct that path, extending a decades-long trend of behavior that prioritizes profits ahead of the continued sustainability and habitation of this planet. 

What is a carbon footprint?

This term refers to the overall emissions an individual is responsible for in their day-to-day activities: Driving, shopping, flying, and other rudimentary actions all come with a certain environmental impact, and the concept aims to sum that up while holding individuals accountable for their own role in the climate crisis. While aiming to limit ones’ own consumption and contribution to a system that’s polluting our planet is noble, the idea of a carbon footprint is highly individualistic and places onus on the person to solve a global crisis, allowing large polluting sectors to skirt responsibility in turn. In fact, the term was popularized by oil giant British Petroleum (BP) in the early aughts as part of a marketing campaign crafted to redirect attention for solving climate change away from fossil fuel corporations; in 2004, the company worked with a public relations firm to launch a carbon footprint calculator to help the individual assess their own role in global warming. But as Rebecca Solnit writes for The Guardian, “The revolution won’t happen by people staying home and being good.” 77 percent of all emissions in the U.S. come directly from transportation (29 percent), electricity (25 percent), and fossil fuels and industries that rely on them to manufacture goods (23 percent), according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Slashing emissions at the scale required to slow the climate crisis will require systemic policy changes. 

What does carbon neutral, or carbon neutrality, mean?

Carbon Neutral, or carbon neutrality, is the goal often targeted by businesses, corporations, and governments in climate pledges. The basic concept is to measure an entity's carbon footprint, reduce that amount as much as possible, and purchase offsets for the emissions that can't be avoided. According to this logic, at that point, a corporation is theoretically not adding more carbon into the atmosphere. While auditing an entity's carbon footprint can be a helpful step towards reducing emissions simply because it forces the entity to realize where and when it is harming the planet, at this time the concept of carbon neutrality is only as viable as the offsets purchased.

A "CO2 NEUTRAL" FREEZER TRUCK. PICTURE ALLIANCE VIA GETTY IMAGES

What are offsets?

In which a polluting entity pays someone else to do something that will in theory remove carbon from the atmosphere or prevent carbon from being emitted that otherwise would have been. As the non-profit Climate Neutral, which certifies climate-neutral businesses, explains, such offsets have to meet six criteria in order to be certified by them: They must be "real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and additional." Once a broadly accepted tool in the CO2 reduction toolkit, offsets are now increasingly regarded as at best difficult to achieve in an unregulated, segmented market with varying standards and at worst outright scams. 

Even the most basic form of carbon offsets, like planting trees which naturally absorb CO2, is proving subject to complications or scam-like behavior. Trees planted in offset programs burn down in wildfires, releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere. Offsets can also be used in blatant greenwashing schemes, like when Shell, a major international oil company, declared it is planting trees in China to brand liquified natural gas as "carbon neutral." The green-branded fintech firm Aspiration sells a credit card that advertises customers can "Drive your car–without hurting the planet" because the company will purchase offsets for fuel purchases. And offsets create a fictitious market for carbon-intensive activities that otherwise wouldn't exist for the sole purpose of receiving offset funds. For example, the Massachusetts Audubon Society refrained from razing 9,700 acres of forest it preserves, thereby making $6 million from offset purchases to not do something it never intended to do. 

On balance, experts increasingly believe offset programs actually increase emissions. And some corporations are acknowledging this. Walmart declared a goal of zero emissions by 2040 "without relying on carbon offsets." One expert advised the Financial Times that, for the time being, offsets should be deemed "guilty until proven innocent."

What is carbon negative, and how is it different from carbon neutral?

Carbon Negative is the same as carbon neutral but offsets or other mitigation efforts to remove CO2 exceeds the emissions generated. Any claim today that an entity is carbon negative should be treated with utmost skepticism because carbon removal efforts like offsets are either experimental or speculative while the emissions they are designed to offset are definite and locked in.

What is net zero?

You might see this term used interchangeably with “carbon neutrality,” though it’s slightly broader, in that it encompasses emissions of all greenhouse gasses, like methane and nitrous oxide, not just carbon dioxide. Broadly, being “net zero” means that the emissions of a given entity have been matched by reductions over a slated period of time. Like carbon neutrality, the term is often used in government and corporate pledges, like the one the Biden Administration made to shrink national emissions by 2050.

But the term has also come under fire for being imprecise and a vehicle to excuse continued emission with what many environmental justice groups perceive to be false promises. Crucially, if a company has achieved net zero emissions, that does not mean that it is not emitting at all—hence, the common slogan, “net zero is not zero.” Rather, it is likely purchasing offsets that equal its emissions in volume, which, as we've learned, are not a sure thing. 

What are “green” and “blue” hydrogen?

Hydrogen is an element that exists in a number of compounds on earth—alcohols, petroleum, and hydrocarbon, but most prominently, in water, when combined with two oxygen atoms (H20—you’ve probably heard of this!) It’s the lightest of all gasses, and can be used as a fuel source; it’s most commonly produced from water molecules and distilled into a pure form via a process called hydrolysis, and from hydrocarbons, when separated from carbon molecules via steam. It’s an emissions-free energy source, emitting only water vapor and warm air when burned.

It’s gotten particular attention as a “clean” energy source as of late, from both fossil fuel companies and the Biden Administration, as a tool to meet emissions reduction goals. In June, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced her aim to reduce the price of the fuel by 80 percent by 2030; a few months later, the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure plan included several billion for research and development around hydrogen technology. “Clean hydrogen is a game changer,” Granholm said in a press release in June. “It will help decarbonize high-polluting heavy-duty and industrial sectors

But progressive environmental groups call bullshit, noting that most processes for producing hydrogen at scale require fossil fuels. Green hydrogen, specifically, is made with renewable energy sources, which would truly be emissions-free—but the industry for this is extremely small. Today, oil and gas companies produce nearly all of the country’s annual supply of hydrogen, according to non-profit environmental advocacy group EarthJustice. Hydrogen produced from fossil fuels is more commonly referred to as “blue hydrogen,” which is not a clean energy source, despite how much oil and gas companies want us to think it is. Transitioning from fossil fuels requires eliminating them from our energy palate entirely, environmentalists argue; investing in technologies that require them is antithetical to the goal of transitioning to an emission-free economy. 

What is carbon capture?

Carbon Capture, also called Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), Carbon Capture and Storage, Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS), and a number of similar terms and acronyms, broadly refer to any effort to take CO2 from the air, atmosphere, or polluting source and either put it back in Earth or re-use it. It is frequently touted as a promising and even necessary intervention to keep the planet from catastrophic warming. 

As humanity continues to fail at reducing global CO2 emissions at a level that will prevent catastrophic climate change, that failure makes technologies like carbon capture all the more necessary. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now considers such technology necessary to achieve net-zero or net-negative emissions. But the fact that the stakes for technology like carbon capture panning out are now so high doesn't guarantee they’ll work. To date, CCS facilities have several high-profile failures and few success stories. And the CO2 pulled from such facilities are often not returned to Earth at all but are used to extract more fossil fuels. Hundreds of environmental groups in the U.S. and Canada are opposed to the technology because it prolongs dependence on fossil fuels and the necessary infrastructure poses serious risks to nearby communities.

What is direct air capture?

Direct Air Capture (DAC) is a type of carbon dioxide removal. Instead of sucking the CO2 straight from a fossil fuel plant before it goes into the air, DAC is a standalone facility that takes CO2 from ambient air. The world's largest DAC plant is in Iceland. In one year it can remove the equivalent CO2 emissions of about 870 cars. DAC does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere and many questions remain about whether it can be scaled to have a meaningful impact on atmospheric CO2 levels as well as how to store the carbon safely for eternity. For these and other reasons, the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council said it would not support DAC efforts.


THE WORLD'S LARGEST DIRECT AIR CAPTURE PLANT IN ICELAND.                CREDIT: BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY

What does zero emission mean?

Often used in the context of electric vehicles, zero emission typically refers to the fact that fully electric vehicles do not have any direct tailpipe emissions, which improves air quality. But the term can be misleading by implying electric cars do not use fossil fuels. It is possible one day the U.S. energy grid will be 100 percent renewable energy using no fossil fuels whatsoever, but we are very far from that today. Electric cars use lots of electricity, and that electricity comes from a power grid that is currently a mixture of wind, solar, hydroelectric, and mostly fossil fuels. Electric vehicles generally use less energy and create fewer emissions than gas-powered cars. The Union of Concerned Scientists has a calculator for comparing the real-world emissions of an electric vehicle based on the energy source for any given zip code. While an electric vehicle is the cleaner option in nearly every case, it is only "zero emissions" in a very narrow sense.

What is biofuel, or biodiesel?

Biofuel, or biodiesel, is an energy source that comes from biomass, or organic, non-fossil matter, like dead leaves, trees, algae, municipal waste, corn, and cow shit, all of which have stored chemical energy. These materials are typically converted into a liquid fuel by being heated and deconstructed into a distilled form. It’s been lauded as a “bridge fuel” in the transition away from coal and oil and gas because it is a renewable resource. But converting biomass into fuel, and burning said fuel, comes with its own emissions, and in some scenarios, creates pollution that is worse for human health than burning coal. A large faction of the environmental movement believes that relying on bridge fuels only stalls the transition to carbon-free renewables, like wind and solar. One need look only at the history of other "bridge fuels," such as natural gas, to see the folly of such "bridge fuel" arguments. Today, natural gas is seen as a fuel source we need to phase out entirely. 

What is renewable energy?

Renewable energy is a catch-all term that describes any fuel source that comes from a “renewable” resource, or a resource that is naturally replenishing and that we have an endless store of, like wind, sun rays, water, and biomass (dead trees or organic matter, for example.) By contrast, “non-renewable” resources are those of which there is a limited supply on earth, like petroleum, gas, and coal produced from fossils and rock formations found deep underground. In general, renewable resources are more reliable long-term than non-renewable resources—it is better to use something that you have an exponential supply of than something you don’t. But renewable energy doesn’t automatically mean emission-free; geothermal energy, for example, emits small amounts of carbon dioxide, and as do the reservoirs of hydropower dams, which also release methane, a greenhouse gas that’s short-lived in the atmosphere but approximately 86 times more potent in its warming potential than CO2.

CorrectionsThis article previously cited a letter from environmental groups in the section about direct air capture. The letter is in opposition to carbon capture and sequestration. That sentence has been moved to the appropriate section. We also removed the term “Carbon Dioxide Removal” as a synonym for carbon capture.