Cabot Institute for the Environment blog – A blog about environmental research at University of Bristol

Britain’s nuclear future? What small reactors, fusion and ‘Big Carl’ mean for net zero

Posted on May 6, 2025May 6, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Former UK prime minister Tony Blair recently argued nuclear power is an “essential part of the answer” to net zero. Writing in the foreword of a report by his thinktank, the Tony Blair Institute, he claimed small modular nuclear reactors, nuclear fusion and other advanced technologies can help lower the emissions of the electricity sector.

It’s worth looking at what these technologies involve, and how far off the UK is from integrating them into its electricity system. But we should first recognise great progress in the electricity sector in the past 15 years, and how dramatic reductions in the cost of wind and solar have led to huge increases in renewable capacity across the globe.

The UK completely removed all coal-fired power in 2024, largely replaced by offshore wind and gas. However, relying on any one technology makes an electricity grid less resilient, and nuclear is zero-carbon and can help stabilise the grid when so much electricity comes from intermittent renewables.

Historically, nuclear has contributed around 15% to 25% of the UK’s electricity supply, however most reactors have closed or are approaching the end of their life. The fleet of 26 Magnox reactors built in the 1960s finished operation by 2015 and are now being decommissioned.

Over the past three years three other sites have also closed, with the remainder currently anticipated to run until 2028-2030. At this point, what was once 41 reactors will have shrunk to just Sizewell B, a power plant operational on the Suffolk coast since 1995.

Replacing this drop in electricity production must be a big priority. The construction of two new reactors at Hinkley Point C in south-west England started in 2016 but won’t finish until at least 2029. Significant planning has taken place for an identical site at Sizewell C in Suffolk, and a final decision is expected shortly.

The pressurised water reactor design at these two sites produces significantly more electricity than past UK designs, and these four reactors will together produce 6.4GW of electricity, replacing all 14 of the reactors that are retiring.

Supporting the construction of new reactors at Hinkley Point and Sizewell is essential for maintaining the UK’s electricity supply, but basically returns the country to the status quo. Beyond, there are number of exciting new developments.

SMRs

Small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced modular reactors (AMRs) have frustratingly similar names, but have become the main way to categorise the two options. The “small” in SMRs is because they produce between 30MW and 300MW of electricity, compared to 1,600MW for each reactor at Hinkley Point C.

The “modular” is driven by a desire to produce multiple identical reactors at once in a factory, rather than constructing on site. This can dramatically reduce manufacturing and installation time, potentially making them much cheaper.

A combination of new SMRs and one or two new Hinkley C-sized reactors would enable UK nuclear capacity to expand beyond the status quo in the 2030s, further reducing the carbon emissions of the electricity sector.

The next generation

Further into the future, exciting research is taking place on the next “generation IV” nuclear designs: advanced modular reactors (AMRs).

Some AMRs can run at much higher temperatures, which could help decarbonise tricky industries like steelmaking or produce hydrogen for energy storage or low-carbon plane fuel. Some designs can even reuse nuclear waste, reducing how long it needs to be stored safely.

Even further in the future, nuclear fusion – the same process that powers the sun – could offer clean electricity without producing long-lasting radioactive waste. The UK is supporting this by building a demonstration fusion plant called STEP which aims to start operating by 2040.

One of the biggest criticisms of nuclear is the cost. Building a nuclear plant is a massive project that can take many years or even decades. Hinkley Point C, for example, has up to 10,000 workers and more than 100 cranes on site, including the world’s biggest crane “Big Carl”.

Because plants take so long to build, the money is borrowed years before any electricity is generated, gathering significant interest in the meantime. These interest payments can ultimately make up as much as two-thirds of the total cost.

A new funding model, similar to that used for big infrastructure projects like Crossrail, should lower costs.

But once a nuclear plant is built and paid off, it’s one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity – especially as modern reactors can run for up to 80 years. That’s why government support to cover upfront construction costs can pay off in the long run.

The previous UK government ambition was to build 24GW of new nuclear power by 2050 – about four times more than the country has today. However, the current government has not confirmed it will stick to this target.

To get there, the UK would need to approve several new nuclear projects every few years starting in 2030, which will require major investment in skills, resources and collaborations.

We urgently need to decarbonise our energy system, and future nuclear reactors can play an important role in that alongside renewables and other technologies.

——————–

This blog is written by Tomas Martin, Associate Professor in Materials Physics, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The role of carbon dioxide in airborne disease transmission: a hidden key to safer indoor spaces

Posted on April 23, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

We’ve long known that environmental factors – from humidity and temperature to trace chemical vapours – can influence how pathogens, such as viruses, bacteria and fungi, behave once released into the air. These tiny droplets of respiratory fluid, or aerosols, carry viruses and bacteria and can float for minutes or even hours. But while we’ve been busy focusing on physical distancing and surface cleaning, a quieter factor may have been playing a much bigger role in airborne disease transmission all along: carbon dioxide (CO₂).

During the pandemic, we studied what happens to a virus when it travels through the air in tiny droplets from our breath – known as aerosols. In earlier research, we found that the droplet’s pH (how alkaline it is) can affect how quickly the virus loses its ability to infect people. Our more recent research, though, suggests that CO₂ levels in indoor air may significantly affect how long viruses survive once airborne – and the implications are profound.

Airborne virus survival

When someone coughs, sneezes, talks or sings, they release microscopic droplets into the air. These droplets start out in a warm, moist and CO₂-rich environment inside the lungs, where CO₂ levels reach a staggering 38,000 parts per million (ppm). Once expelled, they encounter the cooler, drier and typically much lower-CO₂ environment of indoor or outdoor air. This rapid change triggers a chain reaction inside the droplet.

One key component inside these droplets is bicarbonate, which acts as a buffer and is formed when CO₂ dissolves in liquid. As CO₂ diffuses out of the droplet into the air, bicarbonate leaves with it. This causes the droplet’s pH to rise – becoming increasingly alkaline, sometimes reaching pH 10.

Why does this matter? Viruses like COVID-19 don’t like alkaline environments. As the pH rises, their ability to infect decreases. In other words, the higher the pH, the quicker the virus becomes inactive. However, when the ambient CO₂ concentration is high, this pH shift is delayed or minimised, meaning the virus remains in a more hospitable environment – and stays infectious longer.

What role does CO₂ play?

While CO₂ doesn’t transmit viruses itself, it acts as a proxy for indoor crowding and poor ventilation. The more people in a space, the more CO₂ builds up from exhaled breath. When there isn’t enough ventilation, these levels stay high as do the chances that airborne viruses can linger longer and infect others.

Outdoor CO₂ levels are around 421ppm, but in crowded or poorly ventilated spaces, indoor levels can easily exceed 800ppm. That’s the tipping point identified in the study, where the air starts allowing droplets to maintain a lower pH, increasing the survival time of viruses. In the 1940s, global CO₂ levels were much lower – around 310ppm – meaning indoor air offered less of a survival advantage to airborne pathogens.

Looking ahead, climate projections estimate CO₂ levels could reach 685ppm by 2050, making this issue not only one of pandemic response but also of climate and public health policy. If we don’t address this now, we may be heading into a future where viruses survive longer in the air due to everyday indoor conditions.

Can we fix it?

The good news? These findings suggest solutions we can implement right now.

First, improve indoor ventilation. Increasing airflow and introducing outdoor air into enclosed spaces dilutes both CO₂ levels and any virus-containing aerosols. This simple change can significantly reduce the risk of airborne transmission – not just for COVID-19, but for future respiratory viruses as well.

And, in the not-too-distant future, we might have indoor carbon capture technology. These devices, which are still being developed, could help remove excess CO₂ from the air, especially in hospitals, classrooms and public transport where the risk of spreading illness is higher.

Also, monitoring indoor CO₂ levels using affordable sensors can empower individuals, schools and businesses to assess the indoor air quality and adjust the ventilation accordingly. If CO₂ levels rise above safe thresholds (often considered about 800ppm), it’s time to open windows, use air purifiers or ask some people to leave the room.

This research reshapes the way we think about air quality. It’s no longer just about stuffiness or comfort – it’s about infection risk. As we face rising global CO₂ levels and continue to recover from the COVID pandemic, it’s clear that managing indoor air environments is essential to public health.

By taking CO₂ seriously – not just as a climate metric but as a health indicator – we have a unique opportunity to reduce disease transmission in our everyday environments. Because when it comes to viruses in the air, the air itself might be our greatest ally – or our biggest threat.

—————————-

This blog is written by Dr Allen Haddrell, Research Fellow, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol and Dr Henry Oswin, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Faculty of Science, School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Queensland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

‘Heavy metals’ contaminate 17% of the world’s croplands, say scientists

Posted on April 23, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

arsenic poisoning showing as black spots on a persons hands. — Arsenic poisoning. Image credit: Anita Ghosh-REACH

Nearly 17% of the world’s croplands are contaminated with “heavy metals”, according to a new study in Science. These contaminants – arsenic, cadmium, lead, and others – may be invisible to the eye, but they threaten food safety and human health.

Heavy metals and metalloids are elements that originate from either natural or human-made sources. They’re called “heavy” because they’re physically dense and their weight is high at an atomic scale.

Heavy metals do not break down. They remain in soils for decades, where crops can absorb them and enter the food chain. Over time, they accumulate in the body, causing chronic diseases that may take years to appear. This is not a problem for the distant future; it’s already affecting food grown today.

Some heavy metals, such as zinc and copper, are essential micronutrients in trace amounts. Others – including arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead – are toxic even at low concentrations.

Some are left behind by natural geology, others by decades of industrial and agricultural activities. They settle into soils through mining, factory emissions, fertilisers or contaminated water.

When crops grow, they draw nutrients from the soil and water – and sometimes, these contaminants too. Rice, for instance, is known for taking up arsenic from flooded paddies. Leafy greens can accumulate cadmium. These metals do not change the taste or colour of food. But they change what it does inside the body.

The quiet health crisis beneath our crops

Long-term exposure to arsenic, cadmium, or lead has been linked to cancer, kidney damage, osteoporosis, and developmental disorders in children. In regions where local diets rely heavily on a single staple crop like rice or wheat, the risks multiply.

The Science study, led by Chinese scientist Deyi Hou and his colleagues, is one of the most comprehensive mapping efforts. By combining recent advances in machine learning with an expansive dataset of 796,084 soil concentrations from 1,493 studies, the authors systematically assessed global soil pollution for seven toxic metals: arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel, and lead.

The study found that cadmium in agricultural soil frequently exceeded the threshold, particularly in the areas shaded in red in this map:

shaded world map — A map of the aggregate distribution of seven heavy metals reveals lots of hotspots around the world.
Hou et al / Science

The authors also describe a “metal-enriched corridor” stretching from southern Europe through the Middle East and into south Asia. These are areas where agricultural productivity overlaps with a history of mining, industrial activity and limited regulation.

How science is reading the soil’s story

Heavy metal contamination in cropland varies by region, often shaped by geology, land use history, and water management. Across central and south-east Asia, rice fields are irrigated with groundwater that naturally contains arsenic. That water deposits arsenic into the soil, where it is taken up by the rice.

Fortunately, nature often provides defence. Recent research showed that certain types of iron minerals in the soil can convert arsenite – a toxic, mobile form of arsenic – into arsenate, a less harmful species that binds more tightly to iron minerals. This invisible soil chemistry represents a safety net.

In parts of west Africa, such as Burkina Faso, arsenic contamination in drinking and irrigation water has also affected croplands. To address this, colleagues and I developed a simple filtration system using zerovalent iron – essentially, iron nails. These low-cost, locally sourced filters have shown promising results in removing arsenic from groundwater.

In parts of South America, croplands near small-scale mines face additional risks. In the Amazon basin, deforestation and informal gold mining contribute to mercury releases. Forests act as natural mercury sinks, storing atmospheric mercury in biomass and soil. When cleared, this stored mercury is released into the environment, raising atmospheric levels and potentially affecting nearby water bodies and croplands.

Cropland near legacy mining sites often suffers long-term contamination but with the appropriate technologies, these sites can be remediated and even transformed into circular economy opportunities.

Evidence-based solutions

Soil contamination is not just a scientific issue. It’s a question of environmental justice. The communities most affected are often the least responsible for the pollution. They may farm on marginal lands near industry, irrigate with unsafe water, or lack access to testing and treatment. They face a double burden: food and water insecurity, and toxic exposure.

There is no single fix. We’ll need reliable assessment of contaminated soils and groundwater, especially in vulnerable and smallholder farming systems. Reducing exposure requires cleaner agricultural inputs, improved irrigation, and better regulation of legacy industrial sites. Equally critical is empowering communities with access to information and tools that enable them to farm safely.

Soils carry memory. They record every pollutant, every neglected regulation, every decision to cut corners. But soils also hold the potential to heal – if given the proper support.

This is not about panic. It’s about responsibility. The Science study provides a stark but timely reminder that food safety begins not in the kitchen or market but in the ground beneath our feet. No country should unknowingly export toxicity in its grain, nor should any farmer be left without the tools to grow food safely.

——————————

This blog is written by Dr Jagannath Biswakarma, Senior Research Associate, School of Earth Sciences and Cabot Institute for the Environment, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How a lack of period product regulation harms our health and the planet

Posted on April 4, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Did you know that in the UK period products are regulated under the same consumer legislation as candles? For 15 million people who menstruate each month, these items are used internally or next to one of the most sensitive parts of the body for extended times.

Consumers should be entitled to know what is in their period products before choosing which ones to buy. Yet, because of the current lack of adequate regulation and transparency, manufacturers are not required to disclose all materials. And only basic information is available on brand websites. Campaigners are now calling for better regulation.

Independent material testing shows that single-use period pads can contain up to 90% plastic. An estimated 4.6 million pads, tampons and panty liners are flushed away daily in the UK. These contribute to blocked sewers and fatbergs. They also pollute rivers and oceans.

Meanwhile, reusable period products are promoted by aid charities as a way to tackle period poverty and reduce waste. But independent tests by organisations such as Which? have found harmful chemicals inside both single-use and reusable period products.

These include synthetic chemicals that disrupt hormones – known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals – and forever chemicals or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that don’t degrade. These chemicals have been associated with a range of health harms from cancers to reproductive disorders and infertility. They have no place in period products.

I work as a women’s health researcher at the University of Bristol’s Digital Footprints Lab alongside a team of data scientists. We harness digital data, such as shopping records, to study public health issues. My research looks at how things like education affect which menstrual products people choose.

In collaboration with the charity Women’s Environmental Network, I am exploring intersections between gender, health, equity and environmental justice – especially among marginalised women and communities. But social stigma prevents open discussions about menstruation and how best to improve period product regulation.

Menstrual stigma influences everything from the information and support people who menstruate receive to the types of products we use and how we dispose of them. In a study of menstrual education experiences in English schools, my colleague and I found evidence of teacher attitudes perpetuating menstrual stigma.

Lessons typically lacked content about the health or environmental consequences of period products. Our study showed that just 2.4% of 18- to 24-year-olds surveyed were taught about sustainable alternatives to single-use tampons and menstrual pads.

four women sat looking at period product information — An environmenstrual workshop hosted by the charity, Women’s Environmental Network.
Women’s Environmental Network / Sarah Larby, CC BY-NC-ND

For decades, period product adverts portrayed menstrual blood as a blue liquid. The social taboos around periods, largely created and reinforced by period brands over decades of fear-based marketing, has left its mark.

For example, in response to customer’s anxieties about supposed menstrual odour, manufacturers are increasingly using potentially environmentally harmful antimicrobials like silver and anti-odour additives in period products. This is despite there being no evidence that period products such as menstrual pants or pads transmit harmful bacteria that need sanitising. The silver also washes out after a couple of washes.

The role of regulation

In New York state, the Menstrual Products Right To Know Act means that a period product cannot be sold unless the labelling includes a list of materials. In Scotland, a government initiative provides free period products to anyone who needs them.

Catalonia in Spain has introduced a groundbreaking law that ensures access to safe and sustainable period products, while also working to reduce menstrual stigma and taboos through education.

A new European “eco label” is a step forward, but companies don’t have to use it. This voluntary label, which shows a product is good for the environment, doesn’t cover period underwear.

Now, campaigners at the Women’s Environmental Network are calling for the UK government to adopt a Menstrual Health, Dignity and Sustainability Act, backed by many charities, academics and environmentalists. This will enable equal access to sustainable period products, improved menstrual education, independent testing, transparent product labelling and stronger regulations.

The regulation of period products is currently being considered as part of the product regulation and metrology bill and the use of antimicrobials in period products is being included in the consumer products (control of biocides) bill introduced by Baroness Natalie Bennett. By tackling both health implications and environmental harms, period products can be produced in a safer way, for both people and planet.

———————————

This blog is written by Poppy Taylor, PhD Candidate, Women’s Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Climate change isn’t fair but Tony Juniper’s new book explains how a green transition could be ‘just’

Posted on April 2, 2025April 2, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Inequality – between the rich and poor or between the powerful and the weak – is the main factor stalling action on environmental problems including biodiversity loss, pollution and climate change, according to British environmentalist Tony Juniper.

In his new book, Just Earth: How a Fairer World Will Save the Planet, he argues that “if we want to build a secure future, both environmental priorities and social justice must be pursued together”. Much of this is about how decisions are made: “Disadvantaged groups rarely have a say, while those deciding on policy continue to comprise a narrow social segment.”

It is interesting to see Juniper’s views on the topic of a just transition, given his decades of experience. Juniper has served as the executive director of environmental charity Friends of the Earth, he was a Green party parliamentary candidate in the 2011 general election and previously led The Wildlife Trusts. He is currently chair of Natural England, the official government organisation working for the conservation and restoration of the natural environment.

His views on this subject certainly matter. His key message that social justice is at the heart of solving environmental problems helps to explain why we have collectively failed to address these.

This injustice is an issue that has been raised for decades by those most affected by environmental issues, those who work in the environment sector and academics like me who focus on environmental justice.

The UK environment sector, for example, is notoriously one of the least diverse, with only 3.5% of those working in environmental jobs identifying as an ethnic minority. In addition, the climate change movement is sometimes portrayed by the media as a middle-class preoccupation. Research shows a tendency for mainstream media to position environmentalism as a position of the wealthy. That’s reflected by the use of distancing terminology such as “middle-class tree huggers”.

However, 39% of UK working class voters experience climate anxiety. That’s only slightly below the 42% of middle-class voters.

Levels of climate concern have stayed high throughout both the COVID-19 pandemic and cost of living crises, while support for government action on climate mitigation policies, such as decreased meat consumption and flying, has remained steady.

At the global level, there have always been tensions between developed and developing countries in terms of what is “fair”. Entrenched power dynamics ensure that developed countries have historically won out when deciding what a fair future looks like.

Most recently, those tensions have been evident in the lack of clarity around how loss and damage will be funded and managed – who will pay out when an island disappears, or a village becomes inhabitable to due drought, for example? There’s also much debate around how a new finance goal should be defined, with huge disagreements between the developed and developing countries.

As Juniper explains, not only is it unclear what fairness means at global negotiations, there is clear evidence that these tend to favour the more powerful countries, such as the US or members of the EU, and create an unjust regime. Steven Vanderheiden, one of the earliest climate justice philosophers, claims that developing nations are usually offered a “take it or leave it” deal, such as the new finance goal of US$300 billion (£232 billion) or about half of what developing countries were asking for, once developed nations have made decisions without them.

A fairer vision

In response to these inequalities and ongoing tensions, Juniper sets out a vision for a fairer, greener society – also known as a just transition.

A just transition is hard to define. It was once a relatively well demarcated and clearly grounded concept associated with worker’s rights.

Over time, it has become an increasingly all-encompassing policy objective, untethered from any specific policies, political objectives or priorities. Indeed, while there are certainly overlaps between the different visions of a just transition, significant aspects directly contradict one another.

book cover, Tony Juniper Just Earth — Just Earth by Tony Juniper is out now.
CC BY-NC-ND

Many of the messages in Juniper’s book have been shouted by those less privileged for decades. By using his platform to amplify the importance of climate justice, he is striving to make a difference. However, the voices of those from affected communities in developing countries, the working class in richer countries, and women (who will be hardest hit by climate change) are somewhat absent.

Juniper neatly encompasses 40-plus years of global negotiations on climate change and biodiversity, reflecting on core issues blocking progress, such as populism and fossil fuel interests. Getting your head around negotiations is a complex task – and it’s one that Juniper executes very well.

Juniper also discusses rising inequality, especially post-COVID, and the intersecting relationship between affluence and environmental destruction, with the richest consuming far more than the poorest and the top 10% wealthiest individuals having emitting more greenhouse gases than the poorest 50%.

He sets out the impacts of consumption, particularly of the wealthiest, and the unfairness of those being hit hardest consuming the least. He carefully dissects why indefinite growth of GDP can no longer be taken as a given.

Then he sets out his vision for a just transition with a ten-point agenda, including new measures of progress. He suggests focusing on wellbeing and sustainable consumption, not GDP.

He highlights the importance of financing the future and raising the transition war chest – that involves carbon tax regimes and additional public resources for environmental protection to build climate resilience. He advises switching subsidies to green energy rather than fossil fuels, and also advocates for the use of ecocide law to protect future generations.

While progress is possible, Juniper is a realist. He outlines how much our culture needs to shift away from consumption, competition, devaluing nature, and towards a fairer society for all. As he puts it: “We have nowhere else to go. There is just Earth.”

——————————————-

This blog is written by Dr Alix Dietzel, Senior Lecturer in Climate Justice, University of Bristol Cabot Institute for the Environment. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Embedding Education for Sustainable Development into higher education: a successful case study at the University of Bristol

Posted on March 26, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Dr Andy Wakefield is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Biological Sciences. He’s been working closely with the Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) team on undergraduate biology curriculum at the University of Bristol. Here he outlines the benefits this has brought to the department.

Working with the ESD team has been valuable to the School of Biological Sciences. With their support we have made lots of progress to include sustainable development content in our undergraduate teaching. Their curriculum review process helped us take a step back, providing a broader sense of where the effort is being invested and where we may be missing out. Having recurring meetings also serves as a nice nudge. We now regularly revise the good ideas we have and what we are planning to do, as well as celebrate the positive things we’ve already done.

One major advantage of the ESD team is the ESD Network of events we can attend. In Summer 2023 Professor Steve Simpson and I attended their Climate Fresk event, a 3-hour Climate Education workshop using facts from the IPCC Reports. This was my first time trying one of these workshops. At the end of the workshop, we both made pledges to include the Fresk in our curriculum, which we have now done.

What encouraged me to take that step was the active nature of the session. I already had a lecture within my Ecology and Conservation unit that related to climate change and its causes and consequences for biodiversity and people. The Fresk uses the same concepts but presented them in a more active and immersive way than a traditional one-sided didactic lecture. Students now work collaboratively to critically discuss and map the causes and consequences of climate change and they seem to have a better appreciation for feedback loops; probably due to the task of drawing arrows to link the various cards within the game. The format is ready to go and very easy to facilitate. This is a much better format that fits with my pedagogy of active learning.

We integrated the workshop in two stages. First, we embedded facilitator training within our Science Communication for a Better Planet MSc programme. These 17 Masters students then co-facilitated a large Fresk for 140 second-year Ecology and Conservation students.

The Masters students reacted very well to our integration of this workshop. Their understanding of climate change has evolved, and they’ve improved their communication skills, particularly how to facilitate rather than teach as well as how to tailor their communication to specific audiences.

As for the undergraduates who participate, they voluntarily stayed for the entire workshop which is always a good sign. However, some students were upset by the end of the game having discussed the various negative impacts upon people and planet. I use this a springboard for discussing eco-emotions, providing a good opportunity to talk about climate anxiety and eco-grief, but also eco-hope using case studies that show positive action/trajectories. Students have reacted very well overall, but it’s not without its challenges for staff/facilitators.

In the past, this content was presented as a lecture or a set of online resources. These were solid but those formats missed opportunities for dialogue, student pledges and scope for motivation via collective action. Having the active, in-person workshop is a better format for engaging with climate science.

As part of the Masters students’ assessments, we also partnered with the Bristol Cathedral Choir School with whom our MSc students t co-facilitated Fresks to pupils in years 7, 8 and 9,  reaching over 350 students. The school was very happy and have since shared with us that many of the parents had made positive comments about the education provision.

This year, we are repeating these activities. Our Masters students have already facilitated a Fresk for undergraduate students in Week 14. During National Science Week, we also facilitated another (junior) Fresk at the Cathedral Choir school for another 150 students. We plan to continue this for as long as funding is available for training our MSc students. Some students from previous cohorts have even facilitated their own Fresks outside of the university for local charities.

The ESD team supported us in integrating Climate Fresks by helping us to arrange training for our students, ensuring we had the right contacts, and providing aftercare support and facilitator resources. They have a Teams group for facilitators and can help with resources and guidance for setting up your own events and training.

In future, we are also considering integrating carbon literacy training (led by Lucy Westover in the Medical School), which could help students gain sustainability-related jobs as well as challenge the assumption that academics in our School understand climate science.

——————————

This blog is written by Dr Andy Wakefield and edited by Josie Maskell.

Find out more about Education for Sustainable Development at the University of Bristol.

Why peat is a key ingredient in whisky and the climate crisis

Posted on February 17, 2025February 17, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Burnt. Smoky. Medicinal. Each of these represents a subcategory of “peaty” whisky in the Scotch Whisky Research Institute’s brightly coloured flavour wheel.

A more chemistry-focused flavour wheel might include names like lignin phenols, aromatic hydrocarbons or nitrogen-containing heterocycles. Perhaps less appealing, but these chemicals define the flavours of Scotch whisky and represent just a few of the many types of organic carbon that are stored in peatlands.

However, when peat is burned for the production of whisky, ancient carbon is released into the atmosphere. Approximately 80% of Scotch whisky is made using peat as a fuel source for drying barley during the malting process. The aromas of the burning peat, or “reek” as it is known in the industry, are steeped into the grains providing the intense smoky flavours associated with many Scotch whiskies.

Historically, peat was a critical fuel resource for Scotland – a nation famously rich in peatlands with few trees for wood-burning. But as the industry has modernised, peat burning in whisky manufacturing has become less a story of adapting to resource limitations and more one of tradition and distinctive flavouring.

There is little debate about the importance of peat burning in generating some of the most highly sought-after flavours in the world of whisky. Some enthusiasts identifying as “peat heads” track the parts per million (ppm) of peaty compounds in their favourite brands. The ppm measure represents phenol concentrations (a group of aromatic organic compounds) in the malted barley. But this does not represent how peaty your whisky will taste as much will get lost in subsequent processes. Nor does the ppm represent how much peat was burned in production.

Most of the peat that is extracted in Scotland is used in horticulture as compost to grow things like mushrooms, lettuce and houseplants. However, both the Scottish and UK governments are making efforts to reduce peat extraction for gardening needs.

The Scotch whisky industry makes up about 1% of total peat use in Scotland. But, as horticulture practices change, this may represent a larger portion of peat use in the future.

In 2023, the Scotch whisky industry outlined a long-term sustainability plan that expresses goodwill but lacks clearly defined goals towards peatland restoration.

Such policies that ban or limit the use of peat in certain industries have followed an increased awareness of how important peatlands are to locking carbon away instead of releasing it into our atmosphere. Despite making up only about 3% of Earth’s land surfaces, peatlands store more carbon than all the world’s forests.

So, should you worry about the climate consequences of peat use in Scotch whisky?

No matter how you slice it, harvesting peat is not good for the environment – and getting your hands on a nice dry slab of peat to extract those smoky flavours is no easy task. Peat is formed by waterlogged, oxygen-poor conditions that slow the natural breakdown process of plant material.

While it is critical for healthy peatlands, excess water is not ideal for burning or transporting peat. Hence, peat extraction usually involves the extensive draining of peatlands. This halts the natural peat accumulation process and releases greenhouse gases from the now-degraded peats into the atmosphere.

More than 80% of Scotland’s peatlands are degraded.

Some recovery efforts are being made, and it has been suggested that the whisky industry can offset their peat degradation by investing in peat restoration. But, peatland restoration is a long-term and imprecise solution that might take decades to properly assess, while existing peatlands are needed as a natural carbon sink now.

Flavour innovations

There are reasons for “peat heads” (both whisky fans and climate warriors) to feel optimistic about the future of this industry.

For decades, the barley malting industry has focused on extracting the most flavour out of the least peat. Innovations in enhanced peat burning efficiency and investigations into peat flavouring alternatives are just some of the ways that the whisky industry is decreasing its peat footprint.

Change in this sector takes time. Any innovations in whisky made today must age for at least three years before being ready for the “flavour wheel”. This delay underscores the urgency of developing new methods as it will take time to find the perfect eco-friendly recipe that compromises neither the taste nor tradition of Scotch whisky.

In the meantime, whisky drinkers can seek out distilleries that are taking active steps to decrease their environmental impact and try drinking peat-free or peat-efficient whiskies.

To continue celebrating the uniqueness of peat as a flavour in whisky, we need to better acknowledge the effect it has on peatland degradation and continue to advocate for positive changes in the industry.

The story of peat use in Scotch whisky will continue to evolve. But while experimenting with future flavours, Scotland must preserve one of this nation’s most precious environmental resources.

——————————-

This blog is written by Toby Ann Halamka, Postdoctoral Researcher in Organic Geochemistry, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol and Mike Vreeken, PhD Candidate in Geochemistry, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A transformative experience at the University Scholars Leadership Symposium 2024

Posted on February 17, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

The University Scholars Leadership Symposium is an annual event organised by Humanitarian Affairs Asia, dedicated to empowering and inspiring young leaders to develop innovative solutions for pressing global challenges. In 2024, the 12th edition of the event took place at the United Nations Conference Centre in Bangkok, Thailand, from August 6th to 9th. The symposium brought together 500 delegates from 47 countries, and I was honoured to be among them. As a Master’s student in Global Environmental Challenges at the Cabot Institute, I am deeply grateful to the institute for introducing me to this opportunity and enabling me to participate in such an enriching experience.

Attending this prestigious event was both immersive and inspiring. It was a week filled with discussions on global issues and how we, as emerging leaders, can contribute to advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Each day offered opportunities to attend talks on a wide range of topics, including water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), digital inclusion, female genital mutilation (FGM), elephant conservation, and refugee crises.

What made many of the talks particularly compelling were the speakers themselves—individuals actively working to make positive changes in communities around the world. Their stories, often rooted in personal experiences, were powerful and motivating.

One talk that stood out to me was by Shomy Hasan, a young woman from Bangladesh. After losing her mother to diarrhoea, she became a passionate advocate for WASH issues. “I find it unacceptable that people die from a preventable disease,” she said. Shomy went on to co-found Awareness 360, a non-profit organisation dedicated to empowering young individuals to lead community service projects aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Another inspiring story was shared by Sangduen Lek, who overcame significant obstacles in her remote Thai village to protect maltreated elephants by founding the Save Elephant Foundation. Her perseverance highlights the impact one determined individual can have on wildlife conservation. Similarly, Jack Growden’s story stood out—after donating his laptop to a school, he now leads a digital equity charity that has transformed the lives of over 200,000 students across Asia-Pacific and Australia by providing repurposed computers to schools.

The symposium also included an informative session on the global refugee crisis, delivered by Dunya Khan from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. This talk deepened my understanding of the complex reasons that force people to flee their countries, highlighting the importance of combating prejudice against migrants and refugees.

Inspiring and authentic, Ifrah Ahmed is a survivor of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Somalia, and her story even inspired a movie. In her fight against FGM, she emphasised the importance of understanding the cultural context when engaging with communities. Her message was clear: effective communication and partnerships must be built on respect, humility, and honesty.

The breaks between talks offered valuable opportunities to exchange ideas and network with other delegates. It was very interesting to meet students from every continent, each bringing diverse academic backgrounds and perspectives. While some expressed concerns about lacking direct experience in certain areas, I believe every field of study has a role in driving positive change. The diverse skills and knowledge we contribute can help create a more just and sustainable world.

A highlight of the symposium for me was our visit to a refugee camp and school in a community near the border with Myanmar. The refugees we met were Karen people from Myanmar, a country currently embroiled in civil conflict. Interacting with the children, learning about their culture, and playing with them was heartwarming and eye-opening. As an environmental engineer, I was particularly struck by the severe water and sanitation challenges faced by the community—no access to safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation, and poor waste management, all exacerbated by precarious housing conditions. Despite the language barrier, we found ways to communicate and connect, and I was reminded of the striking similarities between this refugee camp and rural communities in Brazil. The struggles may be similar, but so too are the generosity and hospitality of the people.

These are the very issues I study, and seeing them firsthand in the refugee camp reinforced the importance of my work. In settings like these, both children and adults are at heightened risk of diseases due to the lack of basic services. This experience has deepened my commitment to improving the living conditions in deprived communities and inspired me to continue my research on environmental engineering controls to prevent leptospirosis in Brazilian slums. Witnessing how inadequate WASH services directly impact health underscores the urgency of my work, and motivates me to find solutions that can make a tangible difference in similar communities around the world.

This incredible experience reinforced several lessons for me. Even if it sounds cliché, there is hope, and together, we can create a better world. It will never be a cliché until we achieve a society characterised by justice, environmental sustainability, and social and gender equality.

————————–

This blog was written by Ana Maria Silva, an MScR student on the Cabot Institute’s MScR in Global Environmental Challenges. Ana Maria’s research is on leptospirosis transmission in slums in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, developing and evaluating a tool to understand the impact of environmental engineering infrastructure. Ana Maria is supervised by Professor Guy Howard and Dr Rodolfo Bezerra Nobrega.

If you would like to learn more about the MScR in Global Environmental Challenges, please contact the Cabot Institute PGR team on cabot-pgr@bristol.ac.uk.

Postgraduate learnings from the University Scholar’s Leadership Symposium

Posted on February 17, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Pursuing a PhD is a journey mostly about academic brain shaping, building your academic argument through literature, and finding your unique contribution to the research community. Believe me, that is amazing! However, doctoral students are often overshadowed by achieving daily tasks, scrutinizing data and information, building intellectual narratives, and most times forgetting why they started pursuing the PhD in the first place.

What is often overlooked, but is profoundly important, are the opportunities given to postgraduate research students outside their research spaces that link to their passions and personal abilities to positively contribute to change. We have different stories, experiences, and backgrounds but nothing compares to sitting in a room with fellow young people with a shared goal of being change-makers, while listening and speaking to people who have taken the steps towards that direction. As a Ugandan girl, who at 20 years old had a justified reason to leave school for good but is now a PhD student, I found myself in a room as a delegate representing the University of Bristol at the 12th University Scholar’s Leadership Symposium held at the United Nations Conference Centre in Bangkok, Thailand! What are the odds?!

It was a remarkable opportunity to watch keynote speakers from different career paths share their life experiences, lessons, ambitions, challenges, and the odds they had to defy to be part of the spinning wheel of global change. From one amazing woman, Ifra Ahmed, founder of Ifra Foundation sharing her story of protecting women’s sexuality in our African communities, running for asylum in a foreign country to Prof Peter Mathieson, Principal and Vice-Chancellor at the University of Edinburgh emphasizing the need for: compassionate leadership, team building, learning from past mistakes as a leader, seeking advice from people who have walked the journey, leveraging on our networks, and looking for opportunities to be part of the voices of change.

As David James Begbie, Founder of Crossroads Foundation said, “The hardest job for a person willing to make change is not to attain education or expertise in a specific field or lobby for money to drive the process but rather to change people’s hearts to make them care, have compassion and empathy to commit to a mission of making this world a better place.”

It was clear to me that being a change-maker is about one’s willingness to offer their knowledge, skills, creativity, time, and uniqueness to the world and the places that need it the most. Humanity, compassion, and empathy are far more affordable than education and it takes one commitment for a person to have them.

Watching prestigious and influential people in different capacities talk about their journeys to enact change made me realize that nothing is impossible if we explore new ideas. As a current leader, this opportunity showed me ways in which I can be more compassionate and empathetic towards people I work with and those I am privileged to lead. I realized the importance of listening and appreciating different experiences through people’s voices and ideas. Transformational leadership can start with a small circle and a small cause to create change.

As someone from a background of hopelessness, once on the verge of giving up on the pursuit of my ambition and now a first-generation student in a foreign country I never imagined to be in, this opportunity affirmed the possibility of me pushing boundaries and becoming the beacon of hope to all the girls and women in my home country and community. I believe that rich or poor, famous or unknown, sophisticated or not, we all have a time marker on earth, and we ought to make the most of it. I will start by changing one life at a time.

I extend my profound gratitude to the Cabot Institute for Environment for granting me the opportunity to represent the University of Bristol at the 12^th University Scholars Leadership Symposium.

——————————-

This blog was written by Ritah Pavin Nakanjako, a PhD student in the Climate Change and Health research group. Ritah’s PhD research is on the effectiveness of passive heat adaptation strategies in low-income housing communities in South Africa and Ghana. Ritah is supervised by Professor Guy Howard and Dr Eunice Lo.

Can aching joints really predict the weather? Exploring the science behind the stormy debate

Posted on February 7, 2025February 7, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

umbrellas

For centuries, people have claimed that their aching joints can predict changes in the weather, often reporting increased discomfort before rain or cold fronts. Given the scale and duration, there is a sense of legitimacy to these anecdotes – but this phenomenon remains scientifically contentious.

From shifts in barometric pressure to temperature fluctuations, many theories attempt to explain how environmental factors might influence joint pain. But is there an anatomical basis for this claim, or is it simply an enduring weather-related myth? Are our joints any more reliable than the Met Office?

At the heart of this debate lies barometric pressure, also known as atmospheric pressure – the force exerted by air molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere. While invisible, air has mass, and the “weight” pressing down on us fluctuates with altitude and weather systems.

Higher barometric pressure often signals fair-weather conditions with clear skies and calm winds, whereas lower pressure typically precedes unsettled weather, such as cloudy skies, precipitation and humidity.

Moveable joints are intricate structures cushioned by synovial fluid, the viscous liquid that lubricates joints, and encased in capsules rich in nerve endings. In healthy joints, these components should allow smooth, pain-free movement. However, when joints are compromised by cartilage damage (as in osteoarthritis) or inflammation (as in rheumatoid arthritis), even subtle changes in the environment may be acutely felt.

One leading hypothesis suggests that changes in barometric pressure may directly influence joint discomfort. When atmospheric pressure drops ahead of storms, it can allow inflamed tissues within joints to expand slightly, increasing stress on surrounding nerves and amplifying pain. Conversely, rapid increases in pressure, characteristic of fair-weather systems, may compress already sensitive tissues, leading to discomfort in some people.

Scientific studies offer some support for these claims, though results remain mixed. For instance, a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Medicine found a slight but significant correlation between dropping barometric pressure and increased knee pain in osteoarthritis patients. However, this pattern is not universally observed across all joint conditions.

A 2011 systematic review in Arthritis Research & Therapy examined the relationship between weather and pain in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It revealed highly variable responses: while some people reported increased pain under low-pressure conditions, others noted no change. A few even experienced discomfort during high-pressure fronts.

More recently, a [2019 citizen-science project] called Cloudy with a chance of pain used app-based pain tracking to explore this connection. The study found a modest association between falling pressure and heightened joint pain, but it also highlighted substantial individual differences in how people perceive weather-related pain.

These findings suggest that while changes in barometric pressure may influence joint pain for some, responses are far from uniform and depend on a complex interplay of factors, including the individual’s underlying joint condition and overall pain sensitivity.

Why responses differ

Barometric pressure rarely acts in isolation. Fluctuations in temperature and humidity often accompany pressure changes, complicating the picture.

Cold weather can have a pronounced effect on joints, particularly in people with existing joint conditions. Low temperatures cause muscles to contract and become stiffer, which can lead to reduced flexibility and a greater risk of strain or discomfort.

Ligaments, which connect bones to one another, and tendons, which anchor muscles to bones, may also lose some of their elasticity in colder conditions. This decreased pliability can make joint movement feel more restricted and exacerbate pain in conditions like arthritis.

Cold weather can also cause blood vessels to narrow — particularly in the extremities, as the body prioritises maintaining core temperature. This reduced blood flow can deprive affected areas of essential oxygen and nutrients, slowing the removal of metabolic waste products like lactic acid, which may accumulate in tissues and exacerbate inflammation and discomfort.

For people with inflammatory conditions, the reduced circulation can aggravate swelling and stiffness, especially in small joints like those in the fingers and toes.

Cold also slows the activity of synovial fluid. In lower temperatures, the fluid becomes less effective at reducing friction, which can heighten joint stiffness and make motion more painful, particularly for people with degenerative conditions such as osteoarthritis.

Sudden temperature changes may also play a role. Rapid shifts can challenge the body’s ability to adapt, which might worsen pain in people with chronic conditions. Similarly, high humidity can intensify sensations of heat or dampness in already inflamed areas, further complicating the experience of pain.

However, isolating a single variable – whether humidity, temperature or pressure –proves difficult because of the interplay of overlapping factors.

Responses to weather also depend on individual factors, including the extent of joint damage, overall pain sensitivity and psychological expectations. This variability makes it difficult to link a single meteorological factor to a biological response.

Still, the evidence suggests that people with joint conditions tend to be more attuned to environmental changes, particularly pressure fluctuations.

While the relationship between weather and joint pain remains an imperfect science, the collective evidence indicates that there may be some truth to the age-old belief. For those with chronic joint conditions, shifts in barometric pressure and accompanying weather changes might indeed serve as nature’s warning system – albeit one that’s far from foolproof.

————————–

This blog is written by Michelle Spear, Professor of Anatomy, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.