How large solar panel farms in China affect bird diversity, foraging and breeding behavior

Bad news! So much for so called (intermittent and unreliable) renewable energy!

Notice here again the AAAS use of awful climate change demagoguery! Or is the AAAS even admiring/promoting an authoritarian regime by the Communist Party of China?

Notice the study below also seems to confuse/conflate solar power farms and the replacement of diverse natural landscapes with dense homogeneous vegetation.

So solar panel farms do not only spoil nature!

We have known for a long time that wind turbine farms are mass killers of birds, bats, and insects! Plus, besides spoiling nature, they cause noise pollution! 

"... In China, strong governmental policy has led to solar panels covering thousands of square kilometers.

Since birds are highly responsive to transformations in habitat and vegetation that can impact their breeding and migratory sites, assessing corresponding changes in bird diversity can serve as an indicator of wider ecological disturbance.

Researchers analyzed the overlap between pro-solar governmental policies and bird observations, as well as changes in land use, vegetation, and agricultural productivity, from 2014 to 2023 in 2344 Chinese counties. They found that stronger solar policies correlated with a reduction in bird biodiversity, especially in wealthy and nondesert regions. ..."

"... Just as climate policy requires credible estimates of climate damages [???] to inform the social cost of carbon, credible estimates of biodiversity values are needed when sustainable development policies alter ecosystems."

"Editor’s summary

The world needs to develop clean, renewable energy [???]. However, given the enormous human population and our energy needs, clean energy also will have a large footprint on nature.

Solar energy represents one of the cleanest forms [???] of renewables, but solar farms can greatly alter the environment.

Zhang et al. looked at the effects of solar power–promoting policies on bird diversity across over 2000 counties in China ... They found that counties with the most pro-photovoltaic policies had reductions in bird diversity, primarily due to land conversion. They argue that solar developments must be proactive about countering such losses, especially focusing siting efforts in regions such as deserts [???], where vegetation alteration can be minimized. ...

Abstract

Could the global transition to renewable energy create a green dilemma that pits carbon reduction against biodiversity conservation?

This study examined the effect of policies promoting solar photovoltaics on local avian biodiversity using a panel dataset covering 2344 counties in China from 2014 to 2023. Policies that favored photovoltaic expansion led to reductions in bird diversity, disproportionately affecting wealthier and nondesert regions, as well as widespread species.

The mechanism operated primarily through land conversion: Cropland and grassland were transformed into developed areas, reducing the diversity of vegetation.

Paradoxically, the leaf area index increased, a pattern we term “inferior greening,” whereby diverse natural landscapes were replaced by dense but ecologically homogeneous vegetation.

We argue that future photovoltaic development should be accompanied by strict biodiversity safeguards, especially in economically developed regions with high habitat complexity."

From the paper:

"The global imperative [???] to mitigate climate change has catalyzed an unprecedented expansion of renewable energy, with solar photovoltaics at the forefront. This transition, essential for decarbonization [???], can entail a profound transformation of land use, creating a potential conflict with biodiversity conservation. Nowhere is this dynamic more pronounced than in China, where the carbon neutrality strategy [???] is driving a massive expansion of solar capacity projected to constitute nearly 45% of its energy mix by 2060. ...

The large-scale deployment of solar arrays driven by these policies often results in severe habitat fragmentation and the loss of essential foraging and breeding grounds, threatening avian populations regardless of flock size. ..."

ScienceAdviser

Beyond carbon in renewable energy policy (perspective, open access) "China’s policy-driven solar expansion shows why climate policy appraisal should look at biodiversity impacts"

China’s solar expansion policy reduces bird diversity (open access)

Many counties in China supporting solar energy development had reductions in bird diversity, potentially reflecting the ecological consequences of land conversion. [Does this not look really awful!]

Fig. 1. The spatial distribution of solar energy expansion and bird diversity across China.

The figure presents county-level choropleth maps illustrating the geographic patterns of key variables. White areas indicate missing data.

(A) Photovoltaic policy stringency index (PSI), measured as the weighted sum of policy documents at provincial, municipal, and county levels.

(B) The total area of centralized photovoltaic power stations within each county.

(C) Bird diversity (ShannonBD), calculated as the negative sum of the proportion of each bird species multiplied by its natural logarithm. Nanhai Zhudao, South China Sea Islands.

Sponging up sea water pollution

Good news! This is very preliminary, but promising research!

"... Sponges filter water through their pores, removing heavy metals, organics and bacteria while recycling nutrients.

Since shipping ports suffer from high concentrations of oil and toxins, researchers thought hardy sponges might provide a natural cleaning service. A team collected members of five sponge species for introduction to the Mediterranean port Marina Palamós. They began by growing the sponges on ceramic plates in the lab, then transplanted 42 specimens onto metal grids coated in calcium carbonate which were located within the port. ...

But the chicken liver sponge, Chondrosia reniformis, had a 92% survival rate over 455 days, even reproducing asexually. The sponge also showed an ability to “creep” away from threats such as pollution and UV radiation to more hidden crevices. ..."

"... “Here we show that some sponge species have exceptional potential for use in the restoration of degraded harbor habitats,” ...

“Unlike many sponges, the chicken kidney sponge can ‘creep’ away if local conditions deteriorate – for example, when nearby organisms compete. It can also relocate from the exposed upper surface of a rock, where it is subjected to UV radiation, polluted sediments, and predators, to sheltered crevices where these stresses are greatly reduced.

It also reproduces asexually by fission: this allows populations to expand rapidly and later reproduce sexually, increasing the chances of successful fertilization.” ..."

From the abstract:

"Harbor infrastructures impose strong environmental stress on coastal marine communities, limiting the persistence of many native species and hindering ecological restoration.

Identifying resilient habitat-engineering organisms is therefore key to developing effective and affordable renaturalization strategies. In this study, we evaluated the suitability of five Mediterranean sponge species to withstand the process of collection, laboratory manipulation, and transplantation to a recreational harbor, where they were monitored over 455 days using image-based morphometric analyses coupled with computational modeling.

Among the species tested, only Chondrosia reniformis showed high resilience under harbor conditions, with 91.7% survival. In contrast, all individuals of Corticium candelabrum, Crambe crambe, Scalarispongia scalaris, and Ircinia oros died during laboratory preparation or shortly after deployment in the harbor. Individuals of C. reniformis initially underwent a moderate size reduction but subsequently stabilized their biomass.

The sponges demonstrated remarkable morphological plasticity, including continuous substrate crawling (up to 12.7 cm of total displacement) and the capacity to recover from disease.

Some individuals underwent body fission [asexual reproduction?] during warm months, generating clonal offspring that nearly doubled the size of the experimental population in the harbor.

Collectively, the results indicate that the high survival of this species in the degraded harbor environment, together with its resistance to disease, its ability to proliferate clonally, and its capacity to reposition itself for improved environmental adaption, makes C. reniformis a highly suitable candidate as putative habitat engineer in future multitrophic approaches aimed at enhancing biodiversity and renaturalizing degraded harbor environments and other anthropogenically impacted coastal habitats."

ScienceAdviser

Chicken kidney sponge could be ‘outstanding’ at cleaning up polluted ports "Hardy sea sponge shows great promise as an ecosystem engineer to clean up and rewild degraded harbors"

In search of resilient sponges as candidate habitat engineers for the renaturalization of polluted harbor environments (open access)

Specimen of the chicken kidney sponge Chondrosia reniformis transplanted into the harbor

Zu laut: Windräder in Uhingen müssen nachts abgeschaltet werden

Neues von den Schildbürgern der Bananenrepublik D! Der Artikel ist etwas älter, aber immer noch relevant

Nur zwei Windräder?

"... Die Anlagen auf dem Schurwald oberhalb des Nassachtals waren erst im Dezember 2024 in Betrieb gegangen. Seitdem klagen Anwohner über Wisch- und Brummgeräusche. Nach der DEKRA-Kurzzusammenfassung wurde nicht an der Anlage, sondern im Ort gemessen, also dort, wo der Schall ankommt. Mit Tonzuschlag werden bis zu 45 dB(A) erreicht, mit weiteren Zuschlägen bis zu 50 dB(A). Für allgemeine Wohngebiete gilt nachts ein Richtwert von 40 dB(A). ..."

Zu laut: Windräder in Uhingen müssen nachts abgeschaltet werden "Zwei Windräder im Uhinger Stadtteil Baiereck müssen nachts stillstehen: Ein Gutachten weist unzulässige Brummtöne und Überschreitungen von Richtwerten nach. Der Fall zeigt, wie Windkraft an Topographie und Physik scheitert."

Remediating PFAS pollution in Europe could cost €100 billion a year. Really!

The alarmism and hysteria about PFAS won't die! It is only a matter of time until we come up with better solutions!

Fact is that PFAS are extremely useful chemicals!

The first PFAS were introduced in the 1940s. If PFAS are so dangerous, then a large part of the world population should be severely affected or dead by now. 

Notice also this study included/mixed PFAS and precursors, which may or may not be dubious!

"A new study suggests Europe could spend more than €100 billion (£85 billion) a year remediating PFAS pollution while still capturing less than 2% of current emissions. Researchers say the findings reinforce the need to prioritise reducing PFAS use and releases at source rather than trying to clean up contamination after it occurs. ..."

EPA: "... Current scientific research suggests that exposure to certain PFAS may lead to adverse health outcomes. However, research is still ongoing to determine how different levels of exposure to different PFAS can lead to a variety of health effects.

Research is also underway to better understand the health effects associated with low levels of exposure to PFAS over long periods of time, especially in children. ..."

From the abstract:

"Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are widespread in environmental media. Concentrations are currently increasing due to substantial ongoing emissions. One approach to mitigating environmental PFAS exposure is the remediation of existing stocks, contaminated sites, landfills, and drinking water. However, the costs to achieve this on a regional scale and amounts of PFAS that could be addressed through remediation remain uncharacterized.

To address this, costs for “legacy” and “emerging” PFAS remediation scenarios in Europe were developed based on publicly available site data, remediation cost data, and an expert assessment of currently scalable technologies, through collaboration within a cross-border, collaborative investigation network entitled the “Forever Lobbying Project”. The “legacy” scenario reflects remediation to remove previously emitted, long-chain PFAS that are currently widely regulated in Europe from selected hotspot sites and drinking water. The “emerging” scenario targets nearly all PFAS, including ultra-short chain PFAS, across a wider range of intermediate receptors, including wastewater effluent and biosolids.

Legacy remediation costs across all 27 EU countries were estimated to be approximately €37 billion over 20 years (€1.8 billion per year), which would lead to a reduction in health impacts.

Emerging costs that address shorter chain PFAS in more media were estimated to be about 20 times more expensive at €100 billion per year. However, even this level of investment may be insufficient. This emerging scenario treating 1636 heavily contaminated European soil sites plus all large wastewater plant effluents, large drinking water zones, agriculturally applied sludges, and collected landfill leachate would only address 3 ton per year to 50 tons per year of PFAAs and precursors, which is less than 2% of current estimated EU emissions. The substantial difference in costs between scenarios and the low proportion of emissions that can be addressed with remediation highlight the urgency of implementing use restrictions and source control for PFAS. Preventing PFAS pollution would be less costly and more impactful than relying on remediation after release."

Remediating PFAS pollution in Europe could cost €100 billion a year | Research | Chemistry World

EPA: Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS

PFAS remediation across Europe: costs and limited impacts (open access)

Visual Abstract

Solar desert power: Inside China's mega farm

What an environmental disaster created by the communist party of China!

Davos Reality Check: Pollution Hurts Indian Economy More Than Tariffs with Palki Sharma

Serious stuff! When will India clean up?

President Trump has exempted coal used in steelmaking from Biden-era Clean Air Act

Good news! Excessive environmental protection?

"President Trump has exempted coal used in steelmaking from Biden-era Clean Air Act regulations for two years, overriding a rule limiting the release of certain pollutants from coal-fed coke ovens."

"... When it issued the rule, the EPA estimated it would apply to 11 facilities, costing them about $500,000 each for compliance. The Trump exemption applies to 11 facilities. ...

The Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year set up a portal to make it easier for companies to request exemptions to Clean Air Act rules. 

Since that time, the Trump administration has exempted dozens of polluters from regulations, including oil refineries, coal plants and medical device sterilizers. ..."

Tuesday, November 25, 2025 - Join The Flyover

Trump exempts coal used in steelmaking from Clean Air Act rule

Image of the day

Russian glass fiber pollution in eastern Ukraine. All these white colored wires represent dozens or hundreds of glass fibers used for Russian drones.

By the way, the frequent reports by Julian Röpke about the Russo-Ukraine war are excellent and highly recommendable.

Source

Light pollution makes birds sing longer. Really!

More light pollution please! So I can hear more bird singing e.g. in the morning! Caution: satire!

I don't think light pollution in urban areas has become much worse of the past several decades. If so, then birds have adapted to urban light pollution for decades without much fanfare and notice! What is the fuss about?

"If you’re an avid birdwatcher, then you’ll know that most of our feathered friends stick to a fairly predictable schedule: a burst of vocal activity early in the morning, known as the “dawn chorus,” followed by some more singing throughout the day and at dusk. But according to new research, birds living in areas with lots of artificial light are staying awake much longer than usual.

To find out how light pollution—which now affects 23% of the Earth’s surface—impacts avian activity, scientists analyzed millions of bird calls from more than 500 species around the world. The data, collected as part of a global citizen science project called BirdWeather, revealed that birds in light-polluted urban areas are waking earlier and settling down later than their rural counterparts. “We were shocked by our findings,” study co-author Brent ..."

"Birds that are active during the day sing later into the night in places with significant light pollution, according to research by a Southern Illinois University Carbondale professor and his colleague. ..."

From the editor's summary and abstract:

"Editor’s summary

Light pollution has become ubiquitous across much of the planet. This situation has the potential [???] to widely affect a variety of species because most living organisms have evolved to respond, in one way or another, to the circadian light-dark cycle. Pease et al. looked at the influence of light pollution on activity patterns in more than 500 species of birds globally. They found that birds were generally vocal for nearly an hour longer in the presence of light pollution. Furthermore, birds that are more exposed, or entrained, to light were more affected, such as those with large eyes and open nests. ...

Abstract

Light pollution disrupts light–dark cues that organisms use as timetables for life. Although studies—typically focusing on individual species—have documented earlier morning onset of bird vocalization in light-polluted landscapes, a synthesis of light pollution effects across species, space, and season is lacking. We used a global acoustic dataset of more than 60 million detections, representing 583 diurnal bird species, to synthesize effects of light pollution on avian vocalization.

On average, light pollution prolonged vocal activity by 50 min. Light pollution responses were strongest for species with large eyes, open nests, migratory habits, and large ranges and during the breeding season.

Prolonged activity may confer negative, neutral, or positive fitness effects; documenting these fitness effects and curbing light pollution are challenges for 21st-century conservation."

ScienceAdviser

SIU research finds birds in light polluted areas stay up late (original news release)

Light pollution prolongs avian activity (no public access)

"BirdWeather, which makes sophisticated recording devices with Wi-Fi, GPS and sensors connected to the BirdNET database and its machine learning from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the Chemnitz University of Technology. BirdWeather’s dashboard provided a better visualization of what bird species were in the area."

Bio-based fibers could pose greater threat to environment than conventional plastics

Beware of alternative solutions! They might even be worse!

Terms like "environmentally friendly" or "clean energy" are often misnomers if not demagoguery!

"... To address that, a study ... has tested the effects of conventional polyester fibers and two bio-based fibers—viscose and lyocell—on earthworms, a species critical to the health of soils globally.

The study found that in high concentrations of fibers, 30% of earthworms died after 72 hours when exposed to polyester, while those exposed to the bio-based fibers experienced much higher mortality of up to 60% in the case of lyocell and 80% for viscose.

A second experiment, using environmentally relevant concentrations of the fibers, indicated that earthworms housed in soils containing viscose fibers exhibited reduced reproduction compared to those exposed to polyester fibers. Earthworms in the soils containing lyocell fibers showed reduced growth and also higher rates of burrowing within the soil compared to exposure to the other types of fiber. ..."

From the abstract:

"Biobased plastics are sometimes promoted as “environmentally friendly” compared to their conventional petrochemical-based counterparts, but their ecotoxicity is only partially understood. Biobased fibers are widely used in clothing and wet wipes and can accumulate in soils through the application of biosolid fertilizers. This study examined the lethal thresholds and sublethal toxicity of chemically characterized, additive-free, biobased (viscose and lyocell) compared to petrochemical-based (polyester) fibers on the key ecosystem engineer, Esenia fetida. Viscose and lyocell had LC20 values of 14.00 and 22.66 mg·L–1, respectively, and no observed effect concentrations (NOEC) of 0–2.8 mg·L–1 (72 h, OECD TG207 filter paper method), while for polyester these were LC20 15.6–31.3 mg·L–1 and NOEC 0–15.6 mg·L–1. Following 28 days of exposure to soils (OECD TG222) contaminated with environmentally relevant concentrations (100 mg kg–1), viscose significantly reduced the mass of progeny compared to polyester. Earthworms exposed to lyocell had a marginal growth reduction (−18%; compared to −11% to −13% in other treatments) linked to increased bioturbation activity. The biobased fibers examined here have greater acute toxicity at high concentrations and broadly similar sublethal effects on E. fetida compared to polyester. Our study highlights the importance of detailed testing before advocating specific materials as plastic alternatives/substitutes to conventional plastics."

Bio-based fibers could pose greater threat to environment than conventional plastics "Bio-based materials may pose a greater health risk to some of the planet's most important species than the conventional plastics they are designed to replace, a new study has shown."

Bio-based fibres could pose greater threat to the environment than conventional plastics (original news release)

Are Biobased Microfibers Less Harmful than Conventional Plastic Microfibers: Evidence from Earthworms

Graphical abstract

Light pollution is shrinking the brains of city-dwelling spiders, study says. Really!

How much can a small brain shrink? 😊 

Will the brains swell again if we were to turn off city lights at night? 😊

Light pollution is also one of the terms of art of propaganda & demagoguery! The history of (often unfounded) complaints about night time light pollution is decades long and voluminous!

A case of alarmism and hysteria? Probably!

Of course, this study was picked up by the leftist The Guardian and other leftist leaning outlets! In this case, it was spread by the famous Royal Society!

"Light pollution is shrinking the brains of city-dwelling spiders in ways that could affect their ability to climb and hunt, according to new research.

The study published in the journal Biology Letters found exposing juvenile garden orb weaving spiders to light pollution reduced their brain development, particularly in an area used for vision. ..."

From the abstract:

"Artificial light at night (ALAN) is an increasingly pervasive pollutant that alters animal behaviour and physiology, with cascading impacts on development and survival. Recent evidence links exposure to ALAN with neural damage, potentially due to its action on melatonin synthesis, a powerful antioxidant. However, these data are scarce and taxonomically limited. Here, we used micro-CT to test the effects of short-term ALAN exposure on brain volumes in the Australian garden orb-weaving spider (Hortophora biapicata), a species commonly found in urban areas and, specifically, around street lights. We found that short-term ALAN exposure was linked to reductions in the volumes of brain structures in the primary eye visual pathway, potentially as a consequence of oxidative stress or plastic shifts in neural investment. Although the effects of ALAN were subtle, they provided new insights into potential mechanisms underpinning the behavioural and physiological impacts of ALAN in this important urban predator."

Light pollution is shrinking the brains of city-dwelling spiders, study says | Environment | The Guardian

Credits: The Royal Society: Public Newsletter

The effects of artificial light at night on spider brains (open access)

Figure 1. Schematic for the central nervous system (dorsal view) of H. biapicata. 

Antidepressant pollution is rewiring fish behavior and reproduction

How depressing! It is all in the food chain. Don't choke!

Is this a case of alarmism and hysteria? How much are artificial lab results comparable to reality? How much of this kind of research is more comparable to a worst case scenario?

The possible effects of medications dissolved in bodies of water has been reported for several decades. So  far it seems we have managed the issue quite well without causing a catastrophe or anything like it. 

The strengths of this study seems to be that it is a long-term study (five years) over several generations of subjects.

"An international study ... has revealed how long-term exposure to pharmaceutical pollutants is dramatically altering fish behavior, life history, and reproductive traits. ...

Pharmaceutical pollutants, especially antidepressants like fluoxetine, have become a pervasive issue in water bodies worldwide. These pollutants, often introduced through wastewater discharge, persist at low levels in rivers, lakes, and oceans. ...

The five-year investigation, focusing on wild-caught guppies exposed to the widely prescribed antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac), highlights the profound and interconnected effects of this pollutant on aquatic ecosystems. ..."

From the abstract:

"1. In our rapidly changing world, understanding how species respond to shifting conditions is of paramount importance. Pharmaceutical pollutants are widespread in aquatic ecosystems globally, yet their impacts on animal behaviour, life-history and reproductive allocation remain poorly understood, especially in the context of intraspecific variation in ecologically important traits that facilitate species' adaptive capacities.

2. We test whether a widespread pharmaceutical pollutant, fluoxetine (Prozac), disrupts the trade-off between individual-level (co)variation in behavioural, life-history and reproductive traits of freshwater fish.

3. We exposed the progeny of wild-caught guppies (Poecilia reticulata) to three field-relevant levels of fluoxetine (mean measured concentrations: 0, 31.5 and 316 ng/L) for 5 years, across multiple generations. We used 12 independent laboratory populations and repeatedly quantified activity and risk-taking behaviour of male guppies, capturing both mean behaviours and variation within and between individuals across exposure treatments. We also measured key life-history traits (body condition, coloration and gonopodium size) and assessed post-copulatory sperm traits (sperm vitality, number and velocity) that are known to be under strong sexual selection in polyandrous species. Intraspecific (co)variation of these traits was analysed using a comprehensive, multivariate statistical approach.

4. Fluoxetine had a dose-specific (mean) effect on the life-history and sperm trait of guppies: low pollutant exposure altered male body condition and increased gonopodium size, but reduced sperm velocity. At the individual level, fluoxetine reduced the behavioural plasticity of guppies by eroding their within-individual variation in both activity and risk-taking behaviour. Fluoxetine also altered between-individual correlations in pace-of-life syndrome traits: it triggered the emergence of correlations between behavioural and life-history traits (e.g. activity and body condition) and between life-history and sperm traits (e.g. gonopodium size and sperm vitality), but collapsed other between-individual correlations (e.g. activity and gonopodium size).

5. Our results reveal that chronic exposure to global pollutants can affect phenotypic traits at both population and individual levels, and even alter individual-level correlations among such traits in a dose-specific manner. We discuss the need to integrate individual-level analyses and test behaviour in association with life-history and reproductive traits to fully understand how animals respond to human-induced environmental change."

Antidepressant pollution is rewiring fish behavior and reproduction, biologists reveal

Antidepressant pollution is rewiring fish behaviour and reproduction, study finds (original news release)

Long-term effects of widespread pharmaceutical pollution on trade-offs between behavioural, life-history and reproductive traits in fish (open access)

Fig. 1 Schematic of the exposure protocol and experimental design.

Government regulation abruptly and drastically reduced sulfur content in shipping fuel associated with increased maritime atmospheric warming

The so called unintended consequences at work! Cleaner air, warmer earth! Poetic justice! 😊

Since climate models are junk, can we trust this modeling study? The study also uses the very controversial term "anthropogenic green house gases" indicating  politicization!

These scientists even suggest more government intervention into nature by calling for more geoengineering! It can be a curse to be a PhD leading to a pretense of knowledge!

"An 80% reduction in sulfur dioxide shipping emissions observed in early 2020 could be associated with substantial atmospheric warming over some ocean regions, according to a modeling study published in Communications Earth & Environment. The sudden decline in emissions was a result of the introduction of the International Maritime Organization's 2020 regulation (IMO 2020), which reduced the maximum sulfur content allowed in shipping fuel from 3.5% to 0.5% to help reduce air pollution. ..."

From the abstract:

"Human activities affect the Earth’s climate through modifying the composition of the atmosphere, which then creates radiative forcing that drives climate change. The warming effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has been partially balanced by the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols. In 2020, fuel regulations abruptly reduced the emission of sulfur dioxide from international shipping by about 80% and created an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock with global impact. Here we estimate the regulation leads to a radiative forcing of 

Wm−2 averaged over the global ocean. The amount of radiative forcing could lead to a doubling (or more) of the warming rate in the 2020 s compared with the rate since 1980 with strong spatiotemporal heterogeneity. The warming effect is consistent with the recent observed strong warming in 2023 and expected to make the 2020 s anomalously warm. The forcing is equivalent in magnitude to 80% of the measured increase in planetary heat uptake since 2020. The radiative forcing also has strong hemispheric contrast, which has important implications for precipitation pattern changes. Our result suggests marine cloud brightening may be a viable geoengineering method in temporarily cooling the climate that has its unique challenges due to inherent spatiotemporal heterogeneity."

Reduced sulfur content in shipping fuel associated with increased maritime atmospheric warming

Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming (open access)

What a pseudoscience or demagoguery chart looks like (there is absolutely no evidence that the linear trend would continue):

Fig. 3: Time series of global temperature anomaly since 1980 (Lensen et al., 2019).

Study: Heavier electric vehicles Release More Toxic Emissions through tire wear particles than Gas-Powered Cars

Maybe, EVs are not as environmentally friendly as advertised and promoted!

Perhaps, EVs are the future when fossil fuels run out or fossil fuels can not be replaced by synthetic fuels, but they are not as clean as claimed! What about e.g. manufacturing all these batteries etc. etc.

"... Emission Analytics found in its 2022 study that brakes and tires on electric vehicles release 1,850 times more particle pollution than tailpipes on gas-powered vehicles, which are considered to have “efficient” exhaust filters. ...

Most most pollution from vehicles today reportedly comes from tire wear, as most of them are made from petroleum, crude oil, and other harmful elements, which generates particle pollution and releases harmful chemicals into the air as the tires wear down, Emission Analytics said.

Notably, electric vehicles are on average 30 percent heavier than gas-powered vehicles, so the brakes and tires on EVs wear out much faster. This problem is made worse by the heavy batteries in Tesla EVs, which will only get worse as larger electric trucks are introduced into the market. ..."

Study: EVs Release More Toxic Emissions and Are Worse for the Environment than Gas-Powered Cars Electric vehicles including EVs produced by Elon Musk’s Tesla release more toxic emissions into the atmosphere and are worse for the environment than gas-powered vehicles, a resurfaced study from 2022 revealed.

Gaining traction, losing tread Pollution from tire wear now 1,850 times worse than exhaust emissions

Harm to human health from air pollution in Europe: burden of disease 2023 — European Environment Agency

The usual alarmism and hysteria! Air pollution in most Western countries has improved tremendously in recent decades!

What about existing morbidities of EU citizens (e.g. obesity) and their effects?

Concepts like burden of disease or attributable deaths or years of life lost are rather dubious and open to manipulation!

"Toxic air killed 500,000+ people in Europe in 2021, according to an EU report released Friday; reducing those pollutants to WHO-recommended levels could have prevented half of those deaths. The Guardian"

"Key messages

Air pollutant concentrations in 2021 remained well above the levels recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) in its air quality guidelines. Reducing air pollution to these guideline levels would prevent a significant number of attributable deaths in EU Member States (EU-27); 253,000 from exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5); and 52,000 from exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Furthermore, reducing the short-term exposure to ozone (O3) would have avoided 22,000 attributable deaths. ..."

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Global Health NOW

Harm to human health from air pollution in Europe: burden of disease 2023 — European Environment Agency

Chart of the day

Looks like Western countries are hardly to blame, except for their massive exports of plastic waste to developing countries!

Alert: Plastophobia is a serious disease. Please seek immediate medical attention! (Caution: satire)

"... One river alone, the Pasig in the Philippines, is responsible for 6.4 percent of the waste that enters the world’s oceans through rivers ...
After all, Europe in particular is literally exporting its plastic problem. In 2019 alone, the EU exported 1.5 million metric tons of plastic waste to developing countries, which are clearly overburdened with the task of recycling and recovering such masses. ..."

Source: Where to Go with the Mountains of Plastic?

How Our Medicines Pollute the Environment

Recommendable! Reason for concern, but not for alarmism! The issue needs to be monitored! Better wastewater treatment plants may need to be developed etc.

"... In the 1970s, scientists began to detect the presence of drugs in aquatic ecosystems: antibiotics, analgesics, anti-inflammatory drugs, antihistamines, contraceptive oestrogens, clofibrate against cholesterol, and beta-blockers for hypertension, among others. Pharmacological contamination is now so ubiquitous that up to 631 active ingredients have been detected in 71 countries on all continents, according to a review of studies published by the German government in 2016. ...
Globally, the main source of this pollution is urban wastewater, i.e. drugs thrown away or expelled in the urine, although certain areas are affected by discharges from industry, hospitals or livestock farming. ...
that new advanced treatment technologies, such as oxidation using ultraviolet light and ozone, filtering water through activated carbon or reverse osmosis can improve removal."

How Our Medicines Pollute the Environment | OpenMind