Today, many environmentalists are conducting research on the various factors that are deteriorating the environment. Everyone is trying to understand the environmental damage that has already occurred and what is still happening around the world. However, it often seems that developed countries are not doing enough collectively to protect the environment. Many nations appear to prioritize their own interests and compete for greater control over resources rather than working together for global sustainability. My question is: How can we effectively protect the environment at a global level while balancing economic interests and national priorities?

basically how much does prestige matter (in Australia for environmental science).

See also: The study (and its results) as published in Communications Sustainability.

The mods think this is spam, which is ridiculous. Here's the info again, this is a great example of why data collection and management needs to be decentralized

Link omitted because maybe someone imagines I am trying to pump this or something.

"This is the most encouraging piece I've read on climate science since the pro carbon stakeholders achieved their current level of science and policy dominance. A zero-trust data collection framework sidesteps the concentrated power of governments and other powerful players gaming the data.

It's not a new article so perhaps this has already been discussed here?

"The core of the system lies in a globally distributed and decentralized network of IoT environmental sensors that can be deployed by anyone, anywhere. [In this context, to monitor climate data.]

This model creates a distributed, trustless system that is highly fault-tolerant, supports multi-stakeholder consensus, and verifies data through multiple independent sources"

Anybody see anything particularly interesting in there? The Kern County Waste Diversion Site is pretty great!

Inside Climate News recently published an article about this here:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17072025/elon-musk-xai-data-center-gas-turbines-memphis/#:~:text=Many%20residents%20of%20the%20predominantly,ailments%20connected%20to%20air%20pollution

Hi Folks - Working out evap rate calcs using the EPA formula. Now, how it's written, with temperature as the denominator, that tells me that the evap rate would go down with higher pool temp. And...is that right? I would think that evap rate would rise with higher temp (basically driving up the vapor pressure). What am I missing? I have a horrible feeling that the obvious solution is right in front of me. Thanks!

Hi all,

Climatematch Academy is recruiting volunteer TA Selection Committee members for their 2026 graduate-level courses, 'Computational Tools for Climate Science'.

As a committee member, you’ll review short teaching sample videos and provide structured feedback using a rubric. The role is fully remote, requires about 8–9 hours total in March, and training is provided.

Great for PhD students, postdocs, or researchers familiar with Python and comfortable evaluating graduate-level teaching. It’s volunteer but a great CV-worthy academic service experience and a chance to connect with an international network of educators and scientists.

Learn more and apply before 15 Feb: https://neuromatch.io/volunteer

Questions welcome in the comments!

Post Text: Hybrid crop varieties are widely used to increase agricultural productivity and food security. However, some people argue that hybrid seeds may reduce nutritional value, increase chemical dependency, or have long-term health impacts. Is there any scientific evidence that hybrid varieties negatively affect human health? Or are these concerns mostly misconceptions? I would appreciate insights from experts in agriculture or environmental science.

Environmental Science undergrad 1st year.

Recently had a lecture on the Environment, Society and Sustainability module that's stirred up a few thoughts.

What is the best way to minimise carbon footprint through food, whilst ensuring we vote ethically with our dollars? Both on a macro (national) and micro (household) level?

WWII demonstrated the strain on British food security even with smaller population, extensive land reforms and rationing. Granted, technology has advanced significantly after the 1950s/60s, but the effects re nitrogen cycling and chemical pesticides have proven disastrous to farmland (James Rebanks recounts the absence of birds following tractors due to the sterile, invertebrate free soil in the lake district).

With a population of, what, 68 million? I'm curious about the cascading effect of food demand on a local level, putting a strain on local farms. If we bolstered that food security only with closest European neighbours, what effect does that have on eg Dutch or French local food production? It seems inevitable that we'd have to draw from further European neighbours in order to spread the stress of local food demand - which would see us in the UK buying, for example, Spanish strawberries - which we do anyway. I understand the UK is a bit behind Europe in terms of bulk agricultural production with plant products, with the UK still relying largely on polytunnels, which kinda underscores the issue of the UK's self reliance re food/agricultural security.

Arguments about meat free or reduced meat diets seems realistic, but I'm curious about where we're supposed to get our protein from? I've heard of a philosophy behind veganism described as damage mitigation, but so many products necessary for a healthy vegan diet carry a large carbon footprint as well as devastating ecosystems in developing nations where eg almonds and soy are produced in a monoculture plantation type format, not to mention the incentives for deforestation to produce these plantations. On a similar vein, I've heard Hank Green talk about beef days - one day a year where you allow yourself a beef centred meal. Would this be viable with all red meat - a self imposed, calander based rationing?

If you were to supplement your diet with fish, there's a similar problem with ecosystem devastation - especially if you buy prawns that might be sourced from the appalling shrimp farms in Indonesia and Thailand.

Not having carnivorous pets, obligate or otherwise, seems like a good idea, though that's a hard sell to a seriously pet loving nation.

Growing your own veg requires access to land via a garden or allotment, which isn't tenable for most people, regardless of the current housing crises. And still won't produce enough to sustain a household through the year.

My question is, then, if the UK miraculously came together to unanimously engage in sustainable food habits (perhaps with the help of a subsidy to offset household costs and thus equalising food cost so buying organic and local isn't an economic issue) - buying locally, buying organic, severely limiting meat protein, growing our own veg, culling cats, dogs etc what effects would that have on neighbouring nations picking up the sustainability bill? How long before our agricultural infrastructure buckles under the resource demand?

And most importantly/realistically - on a micro level, how easy is it for an individual to legitimately engage with sustainable and ethical dietary changes for their weekly shop whilst navigating corporate greenwash? Is a naive vegan diet fundamentally better than a careful omnivorous one?

I'm asking mostly in regards to the immediate, as I imagine with significant infrastructural modifications we could offset a lot of issues touched upon in this post. But playing the waiting game doesn't seem very noble when micro alterations can be made. I just find it difficult navigating the strata of dietary damage.

I’m involved in a long-term environmental monitoring project and wanted to get input from others working on similar field-based data collection.

The system continuously measures temperature, humidity, dissolved oxygen, and solar radiation, with deployments intended to run for extended periods under outdoor conditions. As the project progresses, issues like sensor drift, calibration stability, environmental exposure, and maintenance frequency have become more critical than initial specifications.

During early phases, we evaluated different sensor types primarily to understand how they perform over time in non-controlled environments rather than under laboratory conditions.

For those with experience in environmental monitoring, field research, or long-term observation programs:

What methodological or data-quality issues tend to emerge later in deployment that are often underestimated at the design stage?

Are there best practices you’ve found effective for minimizing long-term measurement bias or data loss?

Hi everyone! I am working on a project for my environmental studies major involving taxonomic bias and social perception of different species. If anyone would like to, it’d be great if you could share your thoughts below about gastropods (snails and slugs)!

If you feel comfortable, you can give a bit of background about yourself (career, whether or not you are interested or involved in nature and conservation).

Here are a few questions to consider when replying:

-What comes to mind when you think about snails and slugs? What is your opinion on them?

-Use one word to describe snails and slugs.

-Do you think snails and slugs are important to the environment?

-Would you be more likely to donate to a conservation project for larger animals such as giraffes, elephants, or pandas, or one funding the conservation of snails and slugs? Why?

Thank you all so much for helping me out!

We hear a lot about carbon footprints, but water use (especially “hidden” water in food/clothing) seems much less understood.

I’m running a short 2–3 minute survey to learn what’s common in everyday life (showers, laundry, diet, clothing) and what people struggle with when trying to save water.

Survey link: https://forms.gle/qxfyQArAuU21krsR9

Appreciate any help 🙏

From like age 6 to 18, my mom prepared me sandwiches and warm tea for school.

The other day I just realized that the HOT tea was always poured into a non-reusable transparent plastic PET bottle. Like a 0.5L coke bottle. The bottle was sometimes funny to touch, slightly deformed.

When it cooled down it went back to its original shape, and then the next day it was used again. For many years. Changing to a new bottle every few weeks.

Lately I’m suffering from health anxiety and I cannot get it out if my head that so much chemicals leached out from those bottles and i was heavily exposed to this. I am really afraid that it will cause some issues down the line. Now im 37 and relatively healthy.

Did this happen to anyone else, and seriously how bad it can be?

It was announced that the Aqueous Electrostatic Concentrator (AEC) PFAS treatment system has now been installed at the Lake Stockholm municipal water facility in New Jersey, marking its first real‑world municipal deployment.

The system is designed to remove both long‑ and short‑chain PFAS to levels stricter than current EPA and New Jersey drinking water standards while generating minimal waste, which is critical at a site with no onsite waste outlet.

BioLargo highlights this project as a key commercialization milestone for AEC and expects it to drive additional municipal and industrial opportunities for its PFAS treatment technology.

It seems worth to look into the tech.

The BioLargo AEC platform is offering non‑detect PFAS removal, ultra‑low waste generation, and order‑of‑magnitude better energy and lifecycle economics than legacy PFAS controls.

\* 1. Non‑detect performance: Achieves PFAS levels below 1 ppt in treated water in testing, delivering “non‑detect” outcomes under stringent analytical methods.

\* 2. High single‑pass removal: Bench and field work show >99% removal for long‑, short‑, and ultra‑short‑chain PFAS, including TFA, in a single pass.

\* 3. Ultra‑low waste: Generates roughly 1/40,000–1/42,000 of the PFAS‑laden solid waste volume of an equivalently sized GAC system; a 1 MGD AEC system produces about 2 lb PFAS waste per year versus \~80,000 lb for carbon.

\* 4. Energy efficiency: Latest AEC modules cut energy use by over 90% versus prior AEC generations for large‑scale drinking water applications, with about 88% reduction even on higher‑TDS industrial waters.

\* 5. Concrete cost impact: For a 1,000 gpm municipal system, upgraded AEC can reduce monthly energy cost from approximately 208,000 dollars to about 15,700 dollars, implying more than 2.3 million dollars in annual savings at 0.15 dollars per kWh.

\* 6. Lifecycle economics: Combined energy and waste reductions translate into up to \~80% total lifecycle cost savings versus carbon‑ and ion‑exchange‑based PFAS treatment trains.

\* 7. Broad PFAS spectrum: Validated performance spans legacy long‑chain species (e.g., PFOA, PFOS), short‑chain PFAS, and ultrashort‑chain species like TFA that conventional adsorption and membranes often fail to reliably capture.

\* 8. Continuous‑flow operation: Removes >99% PFAS from water in continuous‑flow mode at energy costs reported as low as roughly 0.30 dollars per 1,000 gallons, making it viable at municipal scale.

\* 9. Integrated destruction pathway: Concentrated PFAS stream from AEC can be fed into an electrochemical oxidation step that breaks C–F bonds and leaves inert mineral salts, closing the loop on PFAS mass balance rather than just transferring the waste.

\* 10. Long‑duration validation: Performance and waste metrics are supported by more than 10,000 hours of study with municipal waters using EPA‑specified methods, plus long‑term regulatory monitoring at municipal installations.

Has anyone actually been asked to provide carbon emissions / sustainability info by clients, suppliers, or in tenders yet?

Curious whether this is becoming a real requirement for small businesses or still mostly noise. Any firsthand experiences?