There’s a Way to Plant Trees Every Time You Search the Internet — and It’s Free

What if the next question you asked a search engine could help save the planet?
That’s the idea behind Ecosia, a free browser extension that uses advertising revenue from basic search queries to reforest our planet. Once the extension is installed on their browser, users are free to search the internet as they usually do — all while Ecosia collects a few cents from every click on a sponsored search result. 
For every 45 searches, Ecosia earns enough money to plant a tree. Through their efforts, they’ve been able to plant over 62 million trees since first launching in 2009.
Though the act of planting trees may sound simple on its surface, at scale, it might be one of the most effective means of stemming the catastrophic effects of carbon emissions on our planet. According to a July 2019 study in the journal Science, a sustained worldwide effort to plant 1 trillion trees is the most powerful lever we can pull to limit further global temperature rises and protect human life on our planet. 
Planting a forest roughly the size of the United States is an undoubtedly daunting task, but Ecosia makes it free and easy for anyone who uses the internet to play her part — and it’s catching on. According to Forbes, in 2018 Ecosia more than doubled the number of trees it had planted since its founding. 
It’s on track to beat that record again in 2019.
The company currently has tree-planting projects in 15 countries with strong forest ecosystems, including Brazil, Nicaragua, Haiti, Uganda and Indonesia. They partner with local organizations that have the expertise to plant and foster healthy new trees in their respective environments, helping to ensure the trees’ survival, improve biodiversity, and create employment opportunities in impoverished agricultural regions.
Ecosia also built its own solar plant to run all their servers on clean power, making the company carbon negative. “This means that if Ecosia were as big as Google, it could absorb 15% of all global CO2 emissions!” says its blog. “That’s enough to offset vehicle emissions worldwide.”
Of course, reforestation cannot solve climate change in a vacuum (and certainly one company cannot solve it alone). Global leaders will still need to focus on ending emissions from coal and gas while curbing deforestation so the influx of new trees won’t be negated by the rapid depletion of the world’s forests. 
But in the toolkit of environmental solutions, reforestation has the potential to be the most powerful, cost-efficient and scalable option we have. 
“The beautiful thing is that it is a universal issue,” Jean-Francois Bastin, the Science study’s lead author, said in an interview. “It can unify us against a common threat, where anyone can have a role to play, by acting on supporting the restoration of ecosystems, but also by changing the way we are living on the planet.” 
More: Sucking Carbon Out of the Air Is One Way to Help Save Our Planet

Sucking Carbon Out of the Air Is One Way to Help Save Our Planet

Swiss company Climeworks has developed a system to remove carbon dioxide from the air and keep it from being re-released into the atmosphere.
Their technology uses a process called direct air capture, which processes air through filters that can capture and trap carbon dioxide. The air exits the system with 90 percent less carbon than air entering the system. At a geothermal plant in Iceland, Climeworks technology has been used to create the world’s first negative emission power plant, which removes more CO2 from the air than it produces.
While captured carbon can be used to create carbon-neutral fuel, plastic and a range of other materials, the Iceland plant has found a way to inject it underground and transform it into stone, preventing the carbon from being re-released into the atmosphere for millions of years.
So far, direct air capture is only a small part of the global effort to mitigate climate change. It is currently prohibitively expensive and small in scale, but is developing quickly and attracting funding from power investors like Bill Gates.
For the world to meet the goals laid out in the Paris Agreement, we’ll very likely need to not only reduce carbon emissions but also remove emissions from the air. Direct air capture plants like Climeworks and others aim to do so while providing jobs and powering a “new, clean economy.”
Watch the video above to see the new technology in action.
Homepage photo by Arni Saeberg.
MORE: Can the U.S. Continue to Reduce Its Carbon Emissions?

This Is How You Make Electric Vehicles More Accessible to Renters

Americans have now purchased more than 800,000 electric vehicles, counting both plug-in hybrids and all-electric models. That may sound like a lot of EVs, and it is a big jump from the less than 5,000 that were on the road in 2010. But this is still less than 1 percent of all U.S. registered vehicles, despite the recent availability of longer-range, more affordable EV models like the Chevrolet Bolt.
Policymakers nonetheless see EVs as having great potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other forms of pollution, and are supporting tax credits and other policies to encourage people to buy EVs. California, for example, aims to have 5 million of them on its roads by 2030.
But to meet ambitious goals like that, EVs will need to stop being a niche product and appeal to as many drivers as possible.
I am an energy economist working on transportation policy, and I’ve looked at newly available data to try to understand why people purchase EVs. It turns out that renting a home may be one of the biggest barriers.

A STRIKING DIFFERENCE

New federal data show that homeowners are more than three times more likely than renters to own an EV. And since 43 million U.S. households — 37 percent of all households — rent their homes, it is worth thinking hard about why this gap exists.

EV 2
Source: National Household Travel Survey

By analyzing the Transportation Department’s newly released 2017 National Household Travel Survey data, I found striking differences in EV ownership between homeowners and renters. In California, homeowners are three times more likely to own an EV than renters.
The gap is even wider for the rest of the U.S., where homeowners are six times more likely to own an EV than renters.

INCOME ISN’T EVERYTHING

You might be thinking that this gap is caused by income. It is true that EV ownership is higher for richer people, which is only natural since EVs cost more to buy than comparable gasoline-powered vehicles (although charging them is cheaper than filling a tank).
But I learned that homeowners are more likely than renters to own EVs, even when they have similar income levels. For example, among households earning between $75,000 and $100,000 per year, 1 in 130 homeowners owns an EV, compared to 1 in 370 renters.

EV 3
Source: National Household Travel Survey

PARKING AND CHARGING

The other big difference between homeowners and renters is having a place to park.
Most homeowners have a garage, a driveway or both. That makes charging extremely convenient for them because they can charge their vehicles at night.
It’s not so easy, however, for many renters. Renters are more likely to live in multi-unit buildings and parking spots may not be assigned, or there may not be any parking spots at all. The federal data doesn’t provide any information about parking availability, but this likely helps explain the disparity between homeowners and renter EV ownership rates.
There is also the related question of charging equipment.
For homeowners, it is relatively straightforward to invest in a 240-volt outlet, electric panel upgrades and other improvements to speed up charging. These investments can cost $1,000 or more, but are a good investment for a homeowner planning to stay put.
Making this investment is trickier for renters, however. They may not want to invest their own money in a property they don’t own and their landlords may be unwilling to let them do it in any case due to liability and other concerns.
This quandary is what economists call a landlord-tenant problem. In theory, a landlord could make investments like this, and then charge higher rent to recoup the cost. In practice, however, this can get complicated.
Even if the current tenant has an EV, the next tenant may not. And if future tenants don’t have EVs then they won’t need  or appreciate — having charging equipment handy. Several studies, including work by economist Erica Myers, show that renters tend not to value the energy-related investments their landlords make.

EV 4
An electric car charging station in a Miami parking garage.

PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR CHARGING

California policymakers are well aware of these challenges and that is a big reason why they are investing heavily in charging stations. The state is spending $2.5 billion to bring 250,000 charging stations statewide by 2025. Each of these stations will support several EVs, so this will make charging much easier for EV owners.
Much of this funding will cover the cost of building charging stations in communities with a lot of renters. The big utility Pacific Gas & Electric, for example, is making multifamily residences a high priority as it builds thousands of new charging stations across the state. As this charging infrastructure grows, the EV market is bound to expand as well.
I’m eager to see whether these investments will narrow the homeowner-renter gap.
While writing this article, I searched on the Zillow real estate website for rental listings in San Francisco and could find only four apartments that mentioned EV charging as an amenity.
The Conversation
This isn’t many compared to the more than 1,000 of the apartments on the market, but I have no doubt that there will be many more landlords giving their tenants a place to plug in their cars as more renters buy EVs in the near future.

Lucas Davis is a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. This article was originally published on The Conversation

Can the U.S. Continue to Reduce Its Carbon Emissions?

President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord is a blow to work done by the Obama administration to address climate change. It’s possible, however, that the move won’t affect the country’s ability to hit the agreement’s first milestone, but it’s highly unlikely that the U.S. will hit the next target in 2025.
Even without U.S. participation, current domestic environmental policies and economic trends — which favor clean energy — make it possible that by 2020, carbon emissions in this country will be reduced nearly 17 percent below 2005 levels.

During that year, the U.S. released more than 6,500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In the decade since, the amount of pollutants has decreased dramatically as states began enacting their own set of policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions and federal emissions regulations were put on vehicles and power plants.
Those efforts have already resulted in a 13.7 percent reduction in carbon emissions, according to the research analysis firm Rhodium Group.
But if the current administration does away with existing policies such as waivers that allow for more stringent state environmental laws or higher fuel efficiency standards for cars, experts doubt whether the U.S. will come close to the 2020 goal.

Hope in the Amazon

When discussing solutions to climate change, conversations usually center on reducing carbon emissions. Equally important is preserving and restoring natural ecosystems, like the Amazon rainforest, that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
In Brazil, three decades of ranching and farming development have leveled large tracts of Amazon. This growth has made the South American country one of the largest exporters of beef in the world, but it’s also come at a severe cost to the environment.
Since 1988, The Nature Conservancy has worked in the Brazilian Amazon to ensure that the forest can regenerate after ranching operations move out. Much of the organization’s focus is on preserving vegetation around streams and on mountaintops and providing technical expertise to farmers interested in sustainable crops.
Watch the video above to see how The Nature Conservancy is working with locals to find climate solutions and click here to learn about the organization’s efforts across the globe.

Obama Promised to Make the Environment a Main Policy Issue. Did He?

“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” That’s what Barack Obama promised in 2008 upon winning the Democratic nomination. Seven years later, he’s returning to his pledge as he ponders his legacy and his final 500 days in office.
Was this really the moment when climate change reversed course? NationSwell asked dozens of scientists, historians, jurists, former EPA administrators, legislators and presidential candidates a simple question: How will future generations judge Barack Obama’s record on energy and the environment? Not surprisingly, the responses vary. Some were glowing (“Barack Obama is destined to go down as the greatest climate change-fighting president in history,” says Ed Chen, national communications director for the Natural Resources Defense Council), while others were hesitant to issue a verdict: “It’s a very unfinished climate legacy, full of steps forwards, sideways, and back,” says Bill McKibben, former staff writer at The New Yorker and founder of 350.org, a grassroots climate change movement.
Indeed, the 44th president faltered on environmental legislation in his first term, preferring to expend his political capital on the Affordable Care Act. But Obama’s use of regulatory authority and his agreement with China likely ensure his place in the pantheon of modern environmental champions.
[ph]
BACKPEDALLING FROM CAMPAIGN PROMISES
It’s taken nearly two full terms to bring his labors to fruition. Shortly after defeating Sen. John McCain in the race for the Oval Office, Obama set two bills in motion on which he would stake his legacy: the health care law in the upper chamber, and in the lower, a comprehensive environmental bill that included a market-based carbon cap-and-trade system and renewable energy standards, co-authored by Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat whose amendments strengthened the Clean Air Act in 1990.
In June 2009, Waxman’s bill narrowly passed the House by a vote of 219-212. “There was an apparent window of opportunity” in that moment, says D. James Baker, a scientist who headed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under Bill Clinton, but by December, “the administration was eager for a quick victory and opted for health care.” The climate change bill became Obama’s “stepchild,” a senior official told The New Yorker.
Offering concessions to earn goodwill from the Republican caucus, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to delay implementation of carbon regulations for another year. Soon after, the president announced huge sections of U.S. waters along the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico open for drilling and withdrew support for the versions of Waxman’s cap-and-trade bill being negotiated in the Democratic-led Senate.
“Whether with Obama’s support [a nationwide cap-and-trade law] could have happened is a good question,” says Baker, “but there is no question that the decision to back off was demoralizing to the environment and climate change community.” Days later, as oil bubbled up from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Democrats hung their heads in defeat. “The missing piece of his legacy is national climate change legislation, which he and Congress failed to pass,” says Kenneth Kimmel, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
MAKING USE OF REGULATION, NOT LEGISLATION
That’s not to say Obama failed completely during his first term. The 2009 stimulus bill designated $90 billion for a bevy of green initiatives: retrofitting homes for energy efficiency, fueling development in wind and solar power, modernizing the grid, training employees for green jobs, building high-speed rail, researching carbon capture for coal-burning plants and manufacturing cleaner cars.
“The stimulus package gave President Obama a chance to invest in renewables early in his first term, allowing him to make progress on the issues unlike most other recent presidents, who have been forced for political reasons to leave critical environmental issues to their second terms,” says Baker. If anything, the president’s preference for working outside the legislature set the standard for his later environmental accomplishments. After the bruising battle over healthcare and the Republican sweep of the 2010 midterm elections, Obama took the path of least resistance.
Waxman retired last year after 20 terms, but you can still sense his frustration with the gridlock that killed his legislation. In an email, he tells NationSwell that Congress “refuses to learn from the overwhelming scientific consensus on the dangers we are facing.” He applauded President Obama for circumventing the increasingly partisan legislature by using “the power to act domestically and internationally based on existing laws on the books, even without Congress passing new laws.” Bolstered by a Supreme Court ruling in 2007 that George W. Bush’s administration had shirked their duties, Waxman’s Clean Air Act amendments provided all the authority Obama needed.
[ph]
In the past month, much of the focus has been on the Clean Power Plan, which will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030. But that’s only the latest in a long series of administrative actions. During Obama’s first term, the EPA and the Department of Transportation set new fuel efficiency standards: All cars built after 2025 must get at least 54.5 miles per gallon. This summer, those same agencies proposed raising standards for medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles as well. Despite litigation that’s made its way all the way to the Supreme Court, the EPA slashed the acceptable levels of ozone that clouds city skylines, mercury released by coal-fired plants and methane billowing from oil fields, landfills and farms.  When it comes to conservation, Obama’s designated more land and water as national monuments under the Antiquities Act — 260 million acres total — than any other president.
In creating “the first-ever framework for the United States to achieve long-term emissions reductions,” says Richard Revesz, former dean of New York University School of Law, these achievements will outlast Obama’s two terms — regardless of whom the next president is. “Even if the Democrats lose the White House in 2017, the new greenhouse gas regulations will still need to be implemented,” says Steven Cohen, executive director of Columbia’s Earth Institute. Those guidelines, along with states’ actions, “will probably end the use of coal as a source of energy in the U.S.”
Despite the likely positive outcomes, several Republicans interviewed chastised the president for his reliance on regulations, instead of legislation. “It will be seen as a failure that he wasn’t able to get anything through that is enforceable,” says Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor who was George W. Bush’s first appointee as EPA administrator. She argues that using the “heavy-handed tool” of the EPA “will make things more difficult for the agency going forward.”
[ph]
Others had even harsher words. “President Obama has dogmatically used energy as a political tool rather than a building block of renewed economic vibrancy,” says Mike Leavitt, former governor of Utah and Whitman’s successor as EPA administrator. Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, agrees. “He was the president who deepened the partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats over these crucial intersecting issues” of energy and the environment.
CONFRONTING CLIMATE CHANGE HEAD ON
Perhaps because the president has been “hamstrung by politics,” as one historian phrased it, he’s not staking his legacy on any one bill or rule. Instead, as his recent photo-ops in Alaska demonstrates, Obama seems to be focusing on perceptions. His prominence on the global stage — including his role in negotiating the limited Copenhagen Accord in 2010 and the recent deal with China to curb their emissions by 2030 — “helped move the issue of global environmental sustainability to the center of the American and international political agenda,” says Cohen.
As the commander-in-chief prepares to convene with leaders from 196 countries to sign a treaty at the United Nations Climate Change Conference this December, his legacy on climate change “lies in his success in making climate change a central policy obligation,” says Carol M. Browner, Obama’s advisor who directed the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy from 2009 to 2011, when Waxman’s cap-and-trade bill foundered. If the president can get millions of Americans, industry and other stakeholders to think about it while also facing opposition from Congress, he’ll be remembered for changing how climate policy is developed and implemented.
As the effects of climate change become more visible, the challenges facing Obama aren’t disappearing like glaciers are. Perhaps surprisingly, some of the president’s loudest critics are on the left. They’re fuming over the Keystone XL pipeline and off-shore oil and gas exploration in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans.
“With the president’s permission, Shell is now drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic, and his administration has authorized the future sale of 10.2 billion tons of coal,” says Annie Leonard, Greenpeace USA’s executive director. “It’s clear that President Obama is serious about cementing his climate legacy, but until he takes steps to ensure the vast majority of fossil fuels remain in the ground, his legacy is as vulnerable as an Arctic ice sheet.”
 

5 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Let Your Car’s Engine Idle

It might not seem like a big deal to leave your car’s engine on while waiting to pick someone up, but did you know it’s better for you and the environment if you simply turned the car off?
There’s a common misconception that it takes more gas to restart your car than to keep it running — but that’s simply not true. In fact, if you’re going to idle more than 10 seconds, it’s better to switch off the engine and restart it when you’re ready to go.
As Sustainable America points out, idling is “a crucial economic, health, and environmental issue” and changing this bad driving habit can make a big difference. EcoWatch recently pointed out 10 excellent reasons why you should turn off an idling car, and here are some of our favorites:
1. Get more miles out of your tank
The average American spends 16 minutes a day idling their vehicle, according to this infographic. While you shouldn’t turn off your car in the middle of the road or stopped at an intersection, EcoWatch writes that, for example, “if you idle for five minutes warming up your car in the morning, three minutes at the bank drive-thru and four minutes listening to the end of an NPR story in your driveway, you’ve burned enough gas to drive 24 miles.”
2. Save money
The Ohio Air Quality Development Authority found that the average idle car consumes about 0.156 gallons of gas per hour. Even though that doesn’t sound like a lot, Slate crunched the numbers and found that if you were to cut 10 minutes of idling a day and restart your car four more times a day as a result, you could save around 8.9 gallons of gas a year. Based on today’s gas prices, that’s an extra $30 you get to keep in your pocket. Multiplied by every driver in the U.S., the country as a whole could save about $13 million annually, EcoWatch reports.
3. You could be breaking the law
Idle car bans already exist in about 30 states. In New York state, for example, heavy-duty vehicles (such as diesel trucks and buses) cannot be idle for more than five minutes at a time. In New York City, the anti-idling rule goes even further: cars, taxicabs and buses can not idle outside of the city’s schools for more than a minute because exhaust fumes worsen the quality of air both inside and outside the school, CNN reported.
4. Better air quality
We’ve mentioned before that half of the toxic pollutants in the air are caused by petroleum-chugging motor vehicles. And when your car is idling, it emits just as many harmful emissions as a car on the go. “Every 10 minutes of idling you cut from your life, you’ll save one pound of carbon dioxide — a harmful greenhouse gas — from being released into the atmosphere,” EcoWatch writes.
5. Improved health
Air pollution is linked to asthma attacks, lung disease, allergies, even cancer. Because a lot of idling happens around fast-food drive thrus, the EPA even warned via a tweet to avoid them entirely:  “Although convenient, the idling of your car worsens air quality for you and your kids.” No idling = Better air = Happy lungs

[ph]
DON’T MISS: 5 Very Simple, Practical Things You Can Do to Curb Climate Change

Scientists Have Figured out How to Convert CO2 Into a Useful Material

We all know that carbon dioxide, or CO2, isn’t just plant food. Due to human activity (from burning petroleum, coal and natural gas), too much of this naturally occurring gas is released into the air, where it becomes a greenhouse gas that traps heat and bakes our planet, contributing to climate change.
However, several companies are finding ways to capture this excessive carbon and turn it into a wide range of useful products. National Geographic recently featured three of these businesses that are sparing the atmosphere from this harmful pollutant.

1. Baking soda — Skyonic in Austin, Texas

This environmental engineering firm’s patented SkyCycleTM technology can capture more than 94 percent of emitted CO2 from a plant’s flue gas stream, according to MarketWatch. It then converts the captured emissions into baking soda and other chemicals that can be sold to cattle and oil industries. “We can take something that’s waste and turn it into something that’s profit,” President and CEO Joe Jones tells Bloomberg. “In a world that’s unsettled on carbon, we’re making actual progress.”

2. From wasted CO2 to fuel — Joule in Bedford, Massachusetts

This biofirm uses genetically engineered pond scum that can turn CO2 straight into fuel through photosynthesis. Sounds a little sci-fi, but what this company has done is created liquid fuel without needing a dinosaur to fossilize for millions of years underground, as National Geographic puts it. “What we are producing is really the same product that is being produced by the fuel industry today. We’re just doing it in real time,” says Tom Jensen, the company’s head of corporate development. Incredibly, if this technology is successfully scaled up, Joule’s fuel would only cost $50 a barrel, or $1.20 gallon, the company says.

3. Green plastics — Novomer in Waltham, Massachusetts

This chemical company uses carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide as a raw material to produce plastics, polymers and other chemicals. According to the company, while most plastics are manufactured almost entirely from fossil fuels, Novomer’s technology replaces up to half of the fossil fuels in the materials with carbon dioxide. National Geographic reports that the company currently sells its products in three forms: hot-melt adhesives (for autos, shoes, furniture, textiles), rigid insulating foam (used for insulating homes and buildings) and coatings (used for decoration and protection of metal, plastic and wood). “Converting carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide from pollution into valuable materials has the potential to transform the plastics and materials landscape on a global scale,” says CEO Jim Mahoney.
DON’T MISS: This Technology Will Let You Recycle Plastic Bottles to Make Anything

Thanks to Uncle Sam, Our Trains Are Finally Getting a Sweet Upgrade

Let’s face it, America’s antiquated rail lines aren’t much to brag about. But it finally looks like they will enter the 21st century after the government put down some serious cash for some sleek new trains.
As Think Progress reports, the Illinois Department of Transportation has spent $225 million on 32 diesel-electric passenger locomotives last month. If things go according to plan, by 2016, you will be able to hop aboard one of these trains (that travel at speeds of up to 125 mph) in Illinois, California, Michigan, Missouri and Washington.
MORE: Why Salt Lake City May Become the New Leader in Public Transportation
Citizens shouldn’t balk at this hefty price tag since these trains will actually play a big part in cutting carbon emissions. How so? According to a press release from Siemens (the manufacturer of the trains), “these modern locomotives are powerful and efficient and will deliver a cleaner ride, with better air quality and reduced emission rates ensuring compliance with the Federal Railroad’s EPA Tier IV regulation required to be in place in 2015.” Tier IV standards, by the way, require emissions of planet-harming particulate matter (soot) and nitrogen oxide (a powerful greenhouse gas) be reduced by about 90 percent.
Rail transportation is one of the greenest ways to travel. As Think Progress writes, trains account for about two percent of transportation emissions while cars are responsible for a whopping 70 percent. Since transportation is one of the biggest culprits to climate change, it’s about time the government makes a big investment on greener infrastructure such as this.

San Francisco’s Aggressive Plan Could Abolish Carbon Emissions

The Bay Area recently passed a climate protection resolution that will slash carbon emissions in the region 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. If successful, the policy could dramatically change the city’s transportation landscape. According to Quartz, “The Bay Area has California’s most extensive public transportation system and its tech-savvy drivers have been earlier adopters of electric cars… But [in order to make this work] the [air district board] will also need to convert more of the region’s bus and truck fleet to carbon-free fuels and electrify diesel-powered ports.” Beyond getting more people in battery-powered cars and electric buses, the agency acts as an incubator for new technologies. “For instance, it’s helping to fund a pilot project to create an electric taxi service to link regional airports in San Francisco to the region’s cities,” according to Forbes. If these progressive measures to slash carbon emissions work in a car-centric city like San Francisco, the policy could serve as a model for the rest of the country.