environment – Cabot Institute for the Environment blog

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.

Lobbying in ‘forever chemicals’ industry is rife across Europe – the inside story of our investigation

Posted on January 22, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Forever chemical or PFAS contamination is widespread, but so too are lobbying efforts.
Melnikov Dmitriy/Shutterstock

A team of academic researchers, lawyers and journalists from 16 European countries has exposed a huge lobbying campaign aimed at gutting a proposed EU-wide restriction on the use of “forever chemicals”. This campaign saw significant increases in the lobbying expenditure of major producers of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as forever chemicals for their persistence in the environment.

This expenditure supported many high-level meetings with European Commission officials, as well as efforts to mobilise other industry players in the lobbying campaign to promote voluntary alternatives and substantial exceptions to this proposed restriction. One result was that the European Chemical Agency’s public consultation on the restriction was buried under a deluge of responses to its proposal.

PFAS are a family of thousands of synthetic chemicals that are implicated in a growing number of illnesses and health complications – ranging from liver damage to compromised immune systems. They share a common characteristic: a carbon-fluorine bond – one of the strongest in organic chemistry – which makes PFAS highly persistent, meaning they can bioaccumulate within plants and animals over time.

The sheer number of PFAS means that restricting them as a class, as is being considered by the EU, is regarded as vital by a growing number of scientists . If this proposed restriction fails and PFAS emissions remain unrestricted, the cost of cleaning up ongoing contamination in Europe is estimated to run to €2 trillion (£1.7 trillion) over the next 20 years – an annual bill of €100 billion.

Without a class restriction, the alternative is a case-by-case approach to assessing toxicity. This would not only be very slow, it would increase the risk of just swapping banned PFAS for other ones that haven’t yet been proven to cause harm – known as “regrettable substitution”.

Historically, banning individual PFAS chemicals has led to their replacement with structurally similar compounds that pose similar or unknown risks. A class-based restriction would reduce the likelihood of such substitutions.

As part of a Europe-wide investigation into PFAS called the Forever Lobbying Project, I have been collaborating with 18 academic researchers and lawyers plus 46 investigative journalists, including Stéphane Horel and Raphaëlle Aubert at French newspaper Le Monde, which coordinated the project. By working together, we can reach a much larger audience across Europe and increase awareness of the costs of PFAS to public health and the environment.

Revelations of the major lobbying campaign and the clean-up costs – the first estimate of its kind for Europe – have come out of this collaboration. Our work has been an inventive combination of investigative journalism and social and applied science methodologies, which aim to extend and underpin existing reporting techniques.

labcoat arm shakes arm in dark suit — A new investigation drew on approaches used to measure lobbies in the fossil fuel and tobacco industry.
Ian Hayhurst/Shutterstock

In 2023, many members of the current team had previously mapped PFAS contamination across Europe, making “unseen science” available to the public for the first time. This first investigation, which identified over 23,000 confirmed contaminated sites, was hugely influential, strengthening calls for the current class-based, EU-wide restriction.

But resistance from chemical manufacturers quickly proved to be fierce. And it was the realisation among journalists within the consortium that the chemical industry might defeat the proposed class-based restriction that kickstarted the idea for this latest investigation into the lobbying campaign.

The cost of policy failure

Two questions are central to making sense of the lobbying campaign for the public. What would the bill be for cleaning up ongoing PFAS pollution if the campaign is successful? And how had the PFAS manufacturers and plastics industry been able to make so much headway with European officials?

The annual cost estimate of €100 billion was one of several calculated – it relates to ongoing clean-up costs in Europe in the absence of effective restrictions and source control. The process of calculating the costs was overseen by environmental engineer Ali Ling and environmental chemist Hans Peter Arp, who developed a methodology with data journalist Aubert. Together, they advised journalists within the team on which data to look for and actively checked datasets.

The annual cost figure is large – roughly the GDP of Bulgaria – yet represents a conservative estimate, reflecting the difficulties in addressing PFAS decontamination. PFAS chemicals escape most traditional remediation techniques and require highly specialised, energy-intensive technologies to eradicate them. This annual cost will continue as long as PFAS are not phased out and continue to accumulate in the environment.

The lobbying campaign essentially rested on three contentions: that most PFAS were not harmful to health so there was no need for a broad restriction; that there were few practical alternatives to PFAS; and that a broad restriction on their manufacture and use would effectively hollow out the European economy, killing the European green transition.

If the chemical industry were being taken seriously by EU officials, EU policymakers would be more likely to be persuaded by these arguments. So, our consortium decided to look at them more closely and “stress-test” them.

To do this, the team – organised by Horel – adapted approaches used to explore the validity of industry arguments used in tobacco and food policy conflicts. Our results are telling.

Interview with American lawyer Rob Billott, a legal advisor for the Forever Lobbying Project.

The industry association that represents European polymer producers, Plastics Europe, for instance, emphasised the concept of “polymers of low concern” to claim that most fluoropolymers were in fact perfectly safe, or at least highly likely to be safe.

But, as one Le Monde article states: “Plastics Europe declined to share the data, assumptions and methods that underpin its dire predictions.” Plastics Europe also declined interview requests from Le Monde.

Plastics Europe arguably had implied that the concept of polymers of low concern encapsulated criteria developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). To the casual observer, this association with a respected international policy organisation gave it a measure of validity.

So, we traced the origins of the concept. Yes, there had been an OECD expert group which had “engaged in discussions on criteria for identifying polymers of low concern” between 1993 and 2009. But there had never been enough reliable data for the OECD to commit to the idea as an institution. The OECD confirmed to Horel that “no agreed-upon set of criteria at the OECD level was finalised”.

Other arguments we stress-tested exhibited different weaknesses, but they typically worked to the same effect. Facts and observations were twisted and exaggerated to present a lose-lose or “dystopian” characterisation of the EU proposals – terrible economic losses globally, with no appreciable health or environmental benefits.

As things stand, the EU restriction is finely balanced. Officials within the European Commission have been reported to be “offering reassuring indications to corporate interests about future decision-making”.

By raising important questions about the consequences of not regulating, and highlighting the dubious arguments put forward to justify doing nothing, we hope our latest investigation has shifted the language and focus of public debate. But whether this will displace the current short-termist emphasis on competitiveness and deregulation being pushed by some members of the European Commission remains to be seen.

————————————

This blog is written by Gary Fooks, Professor in Criminology, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We built an AI model that analysed millions of images of retreating glaciers – what it found is alarming

Posted on January 20, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the global average since 1979. Svalbard, an archipelago near the northeast coast of Greenland, is at the frontline of this climate change, warming up to seven times faster than the rest of the world.

More than half of Svalbard is covered by glaciers. If they were to completely melt tomorrow, the global sea level would rise by 1.7cm. Although this won’t happen overnight, glaciers in the Arctic are highly sensitive to even slight temperature increases.

To better understand glaciers in Svalbard and beyond, we used an AI model to analyse millions of satellite images from Svalbard over the past four decades. Our research is now published in Nature Communications, and shows these glaciers are shrinking faster than ever, in line with global warming.

Specifically, we looked at glaciers that drain directly into the ocean, what are known as “marine-terminating glaciers”. Most of Svalbard’s glaciers fit this category. They act as an ecological pump in the fjords they flow into by transferring nutrient-rich seawater to the ocean surface and can even change patterns of ocean circulation.

Where these glaciers meet the sea, they mainly lose mass through iceberg calving, a process in which large chunks of ice detach from the glacier and fall into the ocean. Understanding this process is key to accurately predicting future glacier mass loss, because calving can result in faster ice flow within the glacier and ultimately into the sea.

Map of Arctic — Svalbard (in red) belongs to Norway and is one of the northernmost places int he world.
Peter Hermes Furian / shutterstock

Despite its importance, understanding the glacier calving process has been a longstanding challenge in glaciology, as this process is difficult to observe, let alone accurately model. However, we can use the past to help us understand the future.

AI replaces painstaking human labour

When mapping the glacier calving front – the boundary between ice and ocean – traditionally human researchers painstakingly look through satellite imagery and make digital records. This process is highly labour-intensive, inefficient and particularly unreproducible as different people can spot different things even in the same satellite image. Given the number of satellite images available nowadays, we may not have the human resources to map every region for every year.

A novel way to tackle this problem is by using automated methods like artificial intelligence (AI), which can quickly identify glacier patterns across large areas. This is what we did in our new study, using AI to analyse millions of satellite images of 149 marine-terminating glaciers taken between 1985 and 2023. This meant we could examine the glacier retreats at unprecedented scale and scope.

Glacier flows into sea — Svalbard is slightly smaller than Scotland yet has more than 2,000 glaciers.
RUBEN M RAMOS / shutterstock

Insights from 1985 to today

We found that the vast majority (91%) of marine-terminating glaciers across Svalbard have been shrinking significantly. We discovered a loss of more than 800km² of glacier since 1985, larger than the area of New York City, and equivalent to an annual loss of 24km² a year, almost twice the size of Heathrow airport in London.

The biggest spike was detected in 2016, when the calving rates doubled in response to periods of extreme warming. That year, Svalbard also had its wettest summer and autumn since 1955, including a record 42mm of rain in a single day in October. This was accompanied by unusually warm and ice-free seas.

How ocean warming triggers glacier calving

In addition to the long-term retreat, these glaciers also retreat in the summer and advance again in winter, often by several hundred metres. This can be greater than the changes from year to year.

We found that 62% of the glaciers in Svalbard experience these seasonal cycles. While this phenomenon is well documented across Greenland, it had previously only been observed for a handful of glaciers in Svalbard, primarily through manual digitisation.

Aerial view of island of mountains and glaciers — Svalbard’s many glaciers grow and shrink with the seasons.
Wildnerdpix / shutterstock

We then compared these seasonal changes with seasonal variations in air and ocean temperature. We found that as the ocean warmed up in spring, the glacier retreated almost immediately. This was a nice demonstration of something scientists had long suspected: the seasonal ebbs and flows of these glaciers are caused by changes in ocean temperatures.

A global threat

Svalbard experiences frequent climate extremes due to its unique location in the Arctic yet close to the warm Atlantic water. Our findings indicate that marine-terminating glaciers are highly sensitive to climate extremes and the biggest retreat rates have occurred in recent years.

This same type of glaciers can be found across the Arctic and, in particular, around Greenland, the largest ice mass in the northern hemisphere. What happens to glaciers in Svalbard is likely to be repeated elsewhere.

If the current climate warming trend continues, these glaciers will retreat more rapidly, the sea level will rise, and millions of people in coastal areas worldwide will be endangered.

———————

This blog is written by Tian Li, Senior Research Associate, Bristol Glaciology Centre, University of Bristol; Jonathan Bamber, Professor of Glaciology and Earth Observation, University of Bristol, and Konrad Heidler, Chair of Data Science in Earth Observation, Technical University of Munich. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.