GET WET!

Baku, Azerbaijan, 13 November 2024 (IUCN) – Forty-four per cent of reef-building coral species globally are at risk of extinction, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ reveals following a global assessment announced today at the ongoing COP29 UN climate conference in Azerbaijan.

The conservation status of 892 warm-water reef-building coral species has now been reassessed for the IUCN Red List, and analysis shows that 44% are threatened. The threats to reef-building corals were last assessed for the IUCN Red List in 2008, and at that time one third were found to be threatened.

“As world leaders gather at the UN climate conference in Baku, this global coral assessment vividly illustrates the severe impacts of our rapidly changing climate on life on Earth and drives home the severity of the consequences,” said IUCN Director General Dr Grethel Aguilar. “Healthy ecosystems like coral reefs are essential for human livelihoods—providing food, stabilising coastlines, and storing carbon. The protection of our biodiversity is not only vital for our well-being but crucial for our survival. Climate change remains the leading threat to reef-building corals and is devastating the natural systems we depend on. We must take bold, decisive action to cut greenhouse gas emissions if we are to secure a sustainable future for humanity.“

Climate change is the main threat to reef-building coral species. The assessments considered the most recent status update of coral reefs from the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), alongside current and future threats, such as the projected increase in warming events and major bleaching events, using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data for future warming scenarios. In addition to climate change and related severe bleaching events, corals are affected by other pervasive threats including pollution, agricultural runoff, disease and unsustainable fishing.

For example, Staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) and Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) are two Critically Endangered species in the Caribbean that have experienced significant declines due to increased warming, water pollution, hurricanes and the severe impacts of coral diseases.

“We need to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions alongside action to address local threats if we want to give coral reefs a chance to survive,” said Beth Polidoro, IUCN Species Survival Commission Coral Red List Authority Coordinator and Associate Professor, School of Mathematical and Natural Sciences at Arizona State University. “By acting now, we can slow the pace of ocean warming and broaden the window of opportunity for corals to potentially adapt and survive in the long term. This is not just about preserving the spectacular beauty of coral reefs. Coral ecosystems also sustain coastal fishing communities, stabilise the shoreline and coastal habitats, and help remove carbon from the ocean, among other benefits.”

The main solution to save corals from extinction is cutting greenhouse gas emissions, accompanied by actions to address other threats, to strengthen species’ resilience. The assessors also recommend more research into if and how corals can adapt to warmer waters, with evidence of limited adaptation so far.

“We’ve known for decades that coral reefs are on the frontline of the global climate and biodiversity crises, and this new result only reconfirms this. Without relevant decisions from those with the power to change this trajectory, we will see the further loss of reefs, and progressive disappearance of coral species at larger and larger scales,” said Dr David Obura, Co-Chair of the IUCN SSC Coral Specialist Group.

The majority of corals are found across the Indo-Pacific. The global assessment of reef-building corals includes 85 Atlantic coral species highlighted in a PLOS One journal article also published today. Atlantic coral species are particularly highly threatened due to annual severe bleaching events, pollution and the impacts of disease.

Today’s global assessment covers all reef-building corals, which are found in shallow, warm water habitats and form the colourful reefs seen in tropical and sub-tropical ocean areas. Red List assessments of cold-water corals, which are found in colder, deeper waters around the world and do not depend on sunlight, are ongoing. Twenty-two species of cold-water coral out of a total of over 4,000 have been assessed so far. The main threats to these species include fishing activity, especially bottom trawling, deep sea mining, drilling for oil and gas, or laying of deep-sea cables. One example of a threatened deep-water coral is the White coral (Desmophyllum pertusum), which was assessed as Vulnerable. Future ocean acidification and warming oceans due to climate change are also a threat.

“Marine species face threats from climate change and human activities, but the impact is sometimes hidden from view; the state of corals highlights this, and also shows how important it is to expand the Red List to include more ocean species,” said Professor Julia Sigwart, Head of Malacology at Senckenberg Research Institute and Museum, a Red List Partner.

Built over tens of thousands of years, coral reefs are the most biodiverse of marine ecosystems. Climate change causes rising water temperatures and more intense solar radiation, which lead to coral bleaching and disease often resulting in mass coral mortality. Reef-building corals have a symbiotic relationship with algae called zooxanthellae, which give corals their vivid colours. Coral bleaching is the result of a stress response to increased water temperatures, whereby the algae are expelled from the tissues.

Supporting quotes

“This Global Coral Assessment raises the alarm for urgent collective action to stop the decline of coral reefs worldwide. The MSC Foundation is proud to partner with the IUCN Coral Red List team, who have done an exceptional job collecting the most reliable data to assess and report on the status of the world’s reef-building corals,” said Daniela Picco, Executive Director of the MSC Foundation. “The IUCN Red List guides our Foundation in making science-based philanthropic decisions, for lasting and impactful conservation efforts that contribute to preserving our blue planet. It will continue to be a vital resource for our family-led foundation for generations.”

“The latest global assessment brings troubling news for corals with more than 340 species now being considered at risk of extinction. Much work remains to be done to secure the future of these species and the vital reefs they form.  An ocean without functioning coral reefs would be a bleak reality, highlighting the urgent need to find solutions to the climate crisis while simultaneously addressing today’s coral crisis,” said Professor David Smith, MSC Foundation Chief Science Advisor. “The IUCN report highlights two key coral species that have been central to our collaborative research focused on identifying resilient coral genotypes enhancing the efficiency—and, by extension, the success—of restoration efforts designed to rebuild critical coral ecosystems.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://iucn.org/press-release/202411/over-40-coral-species-face-extinction-iucn-red-list

United Utilities repeatedly dumped millions of litres of raw sewage illegally into Lake Windermere between 2021 and 2023 and failed to declare it, the BBC has revealed.

Water companies can release untreated sewage when it rains heavily to stop homes being flooded but, as experienced at Lake Windemere, there have been cases where this has been done prematurely.

Without full treatment sewage can cause more damage to the local environment and pose a health risk to swimmers.

How much sewage is released into the sea and rivers in England?

Sewage spills into England’s lakes, rivers and seas by water companies more than doubled in 2023.

According to the Environment Agency, there were 3.6 million hours of spills, compared to 1.75 million hours in 2022.

Water UK, the industry body for sewerage companies, said this was “unacceptable”, but argued that the record levels were due to heavy rain and increased data collection.

However, the Environment Agency said that increased rainfall did not override water companies’ responsibility “to manage storm overflows in line with legal requirements”.

Some environmental charities blame water companies for a failure to fix leaky pipes and other damaged infrastructure – and criticise the regulator for not forcing them to act. 

Why is sewage released into the sea and rivers?

Most of the UK has a combined sewerage system, meaning that both rainwater and wastewater – from toilets, bathrooms and kitchens – are carried in the same pipes.

Wastewater is usually sent to a sewage treatment works.

But capacity can sometimes be exceeded during heavy rainfall, especially if dry ground cannot quickly absorb large quantities of water. 

This could lead to inundation of sewage works and potential flooding of homes, roads and open spaces. 

The system is therefore designed to overflow occasionally, and discharge excess wastewater into the sea and rivers from combined sewer overflows (CSOs) 

However, according to industry regulator Ofwat, some water companies have been “routinely releasing sewage” outside times of heavy downpours as a result of failing to managing their wastewater treatment plants in breach of their permits – known as dry spilling.

Earlier this year, the BBC found 6,000 potential dry spills by England’s water companies in 2022.

Water company permits also require them to treat a minimum amount of sewage before releasing it, even when it is raining. 

BBC Panorama has found evidence that for the last three years United Utilities was discharging sewage into Lake Windemere before reaching this threshold.

• Sewage dumped illegally in Windermere over three years

What is being done to tackle sewage discharges?

In October 2023, Water UK, the industry body, announced plans on behalf of its members to almost double spending to pay for upgrades and cut sewage discharges. 

It said this would be the “most ambitious modernisation of sewers since the Victorian era”, but that customer bills would have to rise by £156 a year to cover the cost.

The exact increase for households over the next five year period is still being negotiated between the water companies and Ofwat. A final decision is expected in December.

• Water bills: How much will I have to pay?

Since taking office in July, the Labour government has announced a series of proposed reforms, promising consumers higher compensation for sewage failures and the power to hold executives to account.

It plans to introduce new measures to ensure that money earmarked for investment and improvements cannot be diverted to pay salaries or dividends.

Ofwat and the Environment Agency are still continuing with their investigations into all water companies in England and Wales.

In August, Ofwat announced the first tranche of fines in its investigation. It is proposing a combined £168m penalty for Thames Water, Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water for failure to adequately invest in their infrastructure, leading to repeated sewage spills. 

What are the health risks of swimming in polluted water?

In May 2024, a team of the UK’s top engineers and scientists warned of the growing public health risk from human faeces in the country’s rivers, and called for more regular testing.

The presence of faeces can expose people to bacteria such as salmonella and E.coli, which cause diarrhoea and vomiting, or viruses like hepatitis A which can lead to liver infection.

Also in May, thousands of residents in Devon were told to drink bottled water after their supply was contaminated with the cryptosporidium parasite – possibly as a result of a faulty valve on private land. Consumption of the parasite can cause prolonged diarrhoea.

How can I check if the sea near me is clean?

Every week between May and September, the Environment Agency measures the water quality at “bathing sites” across England, and in some places it issues daily pollution risk forecasts.

You can search its website by location. There are similar websites where you can find out about beaches and bathing water in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

But outside of these times and locations regularly testing for organisms carrying faecal-oral disease is not carried.

By the end of this year all water companies are expected to have maps showing near real-time discharges at their storm overflows to keep the public better informed.

How clean are UK waters overall?

Sewage spills have only been routinely monitored for a few years, so it is difficult to tell exactly how they have changed over time. 

However, overall water quality has been monitored for decades. This also accounts for other sources of pollution, such as agriculture.

In May 2023, the Environment Agency said that 16% of assessed surface waters in England achieved “good” ecological status, including:

• 14% of rivers and lakes
• 19% of estuaries
• 45% of coastal waters
• 93% of designated bathing waters

Water quality is generally higher in other parts of the UK. 

In Scotland, around two-thirds of surface waters are classed as having “good” ecological status. 

In Wales the figure is 40%, and in Northern Ireland 31%.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-62631320

By Erin Doran & Natalie Balbuena

A growing body of research suggests microplastics are a major health risk and widespread in our drinking water. The EPA can and must address this.

Plastic has become a ubiquitous part of modern life. So ubiquitous, in fact, we eat, breathe, and drink tiny particles of it, known as microplastics, every day. Scientists estimate we ingest a credit card’s worth of plastic each week.  And one of the major ways it enters our body is through our drinking water.

Increasingly, research suggests this is a concerning public health crisis — but what we know is likely just the tip of the iceberg. More information and data will help us understand the scope and scale of the threat and the need for strong protections. That’s why, in November, Food & Water Watch led 175 allies to petition the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require microplastics monitoring in our public drinking water systems. 

Collecting more information about microplastics is key to addressing this emerging crisis. Given that microplastics are everywhere, we need all the information we can get to inform and help enact protective policies.

Microplastics are Everywhere — Even in Our Water and Our Bodies

With use, wear, tear, heat, and disposal, plastic degrades into or sheds microplastics. These plastic bits are less than 5 millimeters across. They can get even smaller, too — nanoplastics are 100 times smaller than the width of a human hair or more.

Because of their size, these tiny bits of plastic spread everywhere. For example, they can float into the air and we breathe them in. They transfer from cookware onto the food we eat. They shed from synthetic clothing in the wash, traveling down our drains and into our water supplies. 

Contaminated by a variety of sources, drinking water is now one of the major and most alarming ways that microplastics are getting into our bodies. In fact, people in the U.S. could be ingesting 4,000microplastic particles or more through tap water each year. Based on one study’s calculations, we estimate that number could grow to 7,000 or even higher. 

Bottled water is not a solution. It’s actually even worse. Relying on bottled water for all our drinking water needs can increase the amount of microplastics we ingest by more than six times. Not only is most bottled water just tap water; the plastic bottles add to the water’s microplastic count.

Microplastics Pose Major Threats to Our Health

The health risks of ingesting microplastics stem from an incredible range of sources. For one, companies add thousands of chemicals to plastic, including hormone disruptors like phthalates, Bisphenol A (BPA), and flame retardants. 

Moreover, microplastics can also carry and accumulate toxic substances they come into contact with in the environment. These include pesticides, heavy metals, and PFAS forever chemicals. When we eat, breathe, and drink microplastics, we’re taking in all these toxics as well.

Once ingested, microplastics can then accumulate in our cells, tissues, and organs. This can lead to induced allergic responses and early cell death. Microplastics are also linked to cancers, liver damage, reproductive harm, and more. There is even evidence that nanoplastics are migrating into vital organs, including the brain.

These threats are not spread evenly. For example, since much of microplastic pollution ends up in the ocean, low-income, rural, and Indigenous communities that depend on fishing for food are especially vulnerable.

The evidence so far is stark and chilling, making a clear case for action. But to make matters worse, there could be so much we don’t yet know. There are so many different types of plastic and plastic additives that may pose different harms to different parts of the body; each combination could pose a unique danger. 

What we don’t know yet is about as scary as what we do. We are in urgent need of more information to understand the threat microplastics pose to our health when they come out of our taps.

EPA Must Start Monitoring Microplastics in Our Drinking Water

Until we can dedicate more regulatory effort and attention to this crisis, we will be left fighting in the dark. That’s why we’re leading a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency to start monitoring for microplastics in drinking water. 

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the agency must develop a monitoring program for emerging contaminants every five years. The data it collects informs its decisions on whether to limit these contaminants in our public drinking water systems under the SDWA. 

As the next five-year cycle approaches, we’re calling on the EPA to start monitoring for microplastics. This would involve testing for microplastics in public drinking water systems — an urgent step to pave the way for future regulation. Given the magnitude of the evidence so far, the EPA cannot wait any longer to start addressing this problem.

Collecting data on microplastics in our drinking water is key to understanding and addressing this emerging crisis. But we also need to stop the crisis from growing by tackling it at the root.

Plastics pose climate and health risks throughout their lifecycle, from the fracking that furnishes plastics’ main ingredients, to widespread microplastics pollution. Toxic fossil fuel extraction, plastic manufacturing, and trash and plastic incineration are especially harmful to nearby communities. To defend our health and our climate, we need to move off of fossil-fueled plastics altogether.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2024/11/25/microplastics-drinking-water-petition/

By Eric Ralls

A new study has unveiled a startling truth about bottled water: it can contain hundreds of thousands of nanoplastics, a number that far exceeds previous estimates.

For the investigation, researchers at Columbia Climate School used a novel microscopic technique focused on nanoplastics, which is a largely unexplored domain. 

These tiny particles, the offspring of microplastics, pose potential threats to human health and ecosystems, as they can infiltrate blood, cells, and even the brain.

The realm of nanoplastics

For years, microplastics — particles formed from the breakdown of larger plastics — have been a growing concern. They have been found in diverse environments ranging from Arctic ice to everyday items like drinking water and food. 

However, the focus has now shifted to bottled water, which was already known to contain thousands of microplastic fragments.

Nanoplastic comprises ever smaller fragments derived from microplastics. The Columbia team counted and identified these nanoplastics in bottled water, discovering an average of 240,000 fragments per liter — a number 10 to 100 times greater than earlier estimates.

Nanoplastics, unlike their larger counterparts, can bypass the intestines and lungs, entering the bloodstream directly. From there, they can travel to various organs, including the heart and brain. 

Their ability to invade individual cells and cross the placenta raises significant concerns about their impact on human health.

Finding nanoplastics in bottled water

The new detection technique used for the study, stimulated Raman scattering microscopy, was co-invented by study co-author Wei Min. 

This method allows for precise identification of nanoparticles and provides a clearer understanding of what these particles are and their potential toxicity.

Study co-author Beizhan Yan, an environmental chemist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, highlighted the novelty of this research. 

“Previously this was just a dark area, uncharted. Toxicity studies were just guessing what’s in there,” said Yan. “This opens a window where we can look into a world that was not exposed to us before.”

Globally, plastic production is approaching 400 million metric tons annually, with over 30 million tons discarded into water bodies or landfills.

Unlike organic matter, plastics do not degrade into harmless substances. Instead, they continue to break down into smaller particles, potentially down to the molecular level. 

Alarming discovery 

Nanoplastics are defined as particles smaller than one micrometer, measured in billionths of a meter. This is significantly smaller than microplastics. 

The discovery of these nanoplastics in bottled water is particularly alarming, considering their potential for biological interaction.

The issue of plastics in bottled water came to the forefront following a 2018 study that detected 325 particles per liter. However, this new research suggests that the actual number could be exponentially higher. 

The challenge has been in detecting particles smaller than one micrometer, which marks the boundary of the nano world.

Identifying nanoplastics

Study lead author Naixin Qian, a Columbia graduate student in Chemistry, explained the limitations of previous studies in identifying nanoplastics.

“People developed methods to see nanoparticles, but they didn’t know what they were looking at,” said Qian. She noted that previous studies could provide bulk estimates of nano mass, but for the most part could not count individual particles, nor identify which were plastics or something else.

The new technique allows for not only detecting these particles but also identifying their composition. This understanding is crucial for assessing the potential health risks posed by different types of plastics.

In their analysis, the researchers found that polyethylene terephthalate (PET), commonly used in water bottles, was not the most abundant plastic. 

Instead, polyamide, a type of nylon likely originating from water purification processes, was more prevalent. This indicates that even processes meant to purify water may contribute to the problem.

Bottled water, nanoplastics, and future research

An intriguing aspect of the study was the discovery that the seven types of plastics identified accounted for only about 10% of all the nanoparticles found.

This means that a vast array of unknown particles are present in bottled water, emphasizing the complexity of this issue.

The team is expanding their research beyond bottled water to include tap water and other sources of potential nanoplastic contamination. 

Collaborative efforts are underway to study nanoplastics in different environments, including Antarctic snow and human tissues, to better understand their ecological and health impacts.

“There is a huge world of nanoplastics to be studied,” said Min. He noted that by mass, nanoplastics comprise far less than microplastics, but “it’s not size that matters. It’s the numbers, because the smaller things are, the more easily they can get inside us.”

More about nanoplastics

As discussed above, nanoplastics are minuscule fragments of plastic, much smaller than microplastics, often measuring less than 100 nanometers in size. 

Despite their tiny dimensions, these particles pose a significant environmental threat due to their widespread presence and potential to harm ecosystems and human health.

Origins of nanoplastics

The origin of nanoplastics primarily lies in the breakdown of larger plastic debris. Over time, factors such as sunlight, physical abrasion, and biological degradation reduce these larger pieces into increasingly smaller fragments. 

Additionally, nanoplastics can originate from consumer products like cosmetics and industrial processes.

Once in the environment, nanoplastics present unique challenges. Their small size allows them to evade filtration systems and disperse widely in water bodies and soils.

This widespread distribution raises concerns about their accumulation in the food chain, as they can be ingested by a wide range of organisms, from plankton to larger animals.

Impact on organisms and human health

The impact of nanoplastics on living organisms is a topic of ongoing research. Studies suggest that these particles can cause physical and chemical harm. 

Physically, they can clog the digestive systems of aquatic animals and reduce nutrient absorption. 

Chemically, nanoplastics may release toxic additives or adsorb harmful pollutants from their surroundings, introducing these substances into organisms that ingest them.

For human health, the implications are equally concerning. Nanoplastics can potentially enter the human body through the consumption of contaminated food and water or inhalation. Once inside, they might cause inflammatory responses or release toxic substances.

Addressing the nanoplastic problem in bottled water

Addressing the nanoplastics issue requires a multifaceted approach. Reducing plastic waste at the source is crucial.

This reduction can be achieved through better waste management practices, promoting the use of biodegradable materials, and enhancing public awareness about the impact of plastic pollution. 

Additionally, advancing filtration and remediation technologies to capture and remove nanoplastics from the environment is essential.

In summary, nanoplastics represent a growing environmental hazard. Understanding their behavior, impacts, and methods to mitigate their presence is vital for preserving ecosystems and safeguarding human health. 

It’s a global challenge that demands immediate and sustained action from individuals, industries, and governments worldwide.

The study is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.earth.com/news/hundreds-of-thousands-of-nanoplastics-found-in-bottled-water/

By Tom Perkins

New research aimed at identifying which US neighborhoods face increased exposure to toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” found those living near “superfund” sites and other major industrial polluters, or in areas with limited access to fresh food, generally have higher levels of the dangerous compounds in their blood.

The study looked at hundreds of people living in southern California and found those who do not live within a half mile of a grocery store have 14% higher levels of PFOA and PFOS – two common PFAS compounds – in their blood than those who do.Meanwhile, those who live within three miles of a superfund site – a location contaminated with hazardous substances – have up to 107% higher levels of some compounds, and people who live near a facility known to use PFAS showed significantly higher blood levels.

The findings highlight how the built environment in low-income neighborhoods presents multiple PFAS exposure routes, said Sherlock Li, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Southern California. The solutions are not easy, he added.

“It’s a difficult question because you can’t tell people to just move or to buy air filters and water filters and eat healthy food,” Li said. “We’re hoping the government will see the analysis and take action … because it’s more cost effective to reduce pollution at the source.”

PFAS are a class of about 15,000 compounds typically used to make products that resist water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and accumulate, and are linked to cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders, birth defects and other serious health problems.

The study also found people who live in neighborhoods with water contaminated with PFAS have 70% higher blood levels of PFOS and PFOA, though there was no correlation among some other compounds.

Researchers say diet is likely a contributing factor to the higher levels in neighborhoods with limited fresh food access. Previous research has found processed and fast foods that are more accessible in these neighborhoods generally contain higher levels of PFAS – the chemicals are commonly added to resist moisture and grease in fast food wrappers and carryout containers. Conversely, eating a diet with more fresh foods may help lower PFAS blood levels.

Though the Food and Drug Administration announced last year that PFAS compounds were no longer approved for use in paper food packaging produced in the US, the chemicals could be on imported wrappers, or in plastic containers.

Packaging is among the “key sources” of elevated levels in the neighborhoods, Li said, but the solution is in part structural – improving access to fresh foods with more grocery stores or community gardens will also have a benefit of lowering PFAS levels.

Some study participants lived near several former Air Force bases and a metal plating facility that are now superfund sites contaminated with PFAS.

The link between groundwater at the site and drinking water was weak, and the authors hypothesize that the higher PFAS blood levels around superfund sites and industrial facilities that use the chemicals largely stems from air pollution. PFAS can be volatile, meaning it lifts into the air from a polluted area, or can get on dust, then is breathed in or ingested.

“We need to be more holistic to reduce water, food, soil air exposure – all of them,” Li said.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/30/pfas-toxic-chemicals-low-income-neighborhoods

By Eric Ralls

You probably know at least a little bit about ocean circulation around the world, also known as currents. In fact, you may have felt smaller currents yourself on a day at the beach.

But have you heard bout the “great global ocean conveyor belt,” which is a vast network of currents that constantly moves water around the entire planet?

This massive system helps distribute heat around the world, influencing everything from temperatures to rainfall. Unfortunately, it’s slowing down and on the verge of total collapse.

Scientists have been studying this phenomenon, and according to recent research published in Nature Geoscience, it’s a bigger deal than we thought. 

Ocean circulation and the AMOC?

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, is like a massive ocean conveyor belt that moves warm and cold water around the Atlantic Ocean. 

It starts in the Gulf of Mexico, where warm, salty water flows northward along the eastern coast of the United States and across the Atlantic towards Europe. 

As this warm water reaches the North Atlantic, it cools down, becomes denser, and sinks deep into the ocean. 

This sinking process pulls more warm water north to replace it, creating a continuous loop that helps regulate the climate by distributing heat across the planet. 

AMOC’s impact on humans

Thanks to the AMOC, regions like Western Europe enjoy milder winters than they would otherwise.

Humans rely on the AMOC in several important ways. By regulating global temperatures, it helps maintain stable weather patterns, which are crucial for agriculture, ecosystems, and our daily lives. 

Researchers point out that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is now weaker than at any other time in the past 1,000 years.

The research team from several leading universities explains that global warming is behind this slowdown. 

Their new modeling suggests that meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet and Canadian glaciers could be the missing piece of the puzzle.

Why should we care ocean water circulation?

“Our results show the Atlantic overturning circulation is likely to become a third weaker than it was 70 years ago at 2°C of global warming,” says the research team. 

“This would bring big changes to the climate and ecosystems, including faster warming in the southern hemisphere, harsher winters in Europe, and weakening of the northern hemisphere’s tropical monsoons.”

Think about that for a second. A weaker ocean current could mean colder winters in Europe and shifts in rainfall patterns that affect millions of people. It’s not just about the ocean; it’s about our daily lives.

Meltwater and ocean circulation

The Earth has already warmed 1.5ºC since the industrial revolution, and the Arctic has been heating up nearly four times faster than the rest of the planet.

All that heat is melting Arctic sea ice, glaciers, and the Greenland ice sheet.

“Since 2002, Greenland lost 5,900 billion tons (gigatons) of ice,” notes the research team. “To put that into perspective, imagine if the entire state of Texas was covered in ice 26 feet thick.”

All this fresh meltwater flowing into the subarctic ocean is lighter than salty seawater, so it doesn’t sink as much. 

That messes with the southward flow of deep, cold waters from the Atlantic and weakens the Gulf Stream — the same current that gives Britain its mild winters.

Ripple effects around the globe

So, what’s the big deal with the Gulf Stream slowing down? Well, for starters, Europe could face harsher winters. 

Places like Britain might start feeling more like their chilly counterparts at the same latitude, such as parts of Canada.

The addition of meltwater in the North Atlantic leads to localised cooling in the subpolar North Atlantic and warming in the South Atlantic. Credit: Nature Geoscience (2024).

“Our new research shows meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic glaciers in Canada is the missing piece in the climate puzzle,” the researchers explain. 

When they included this meltwater in their simulations, the slowing of the oceanic circulation made sense.

The study confirms that the Atlantic overturning circulation has been slowing down since the mid-20th century. It also gives us a sneak peek into what’s coming next.

Northern and Southern ocean circulation

“Our new research also shows the North and South Atlantic oceans are more connected than previously thought,” the team states. 

Changes in one part of the ocean can quickly affect distant regions. When the oceanic circulation is strong, it transfers a lot of heat to the North Atlantic.

But when it weakens, the surface of the ocean south of Greenland doesn’t warm up as much, leading to what’s called a “warming hole.” Meanwhile, the South Atlantic ends up storing more heat and salt.

Time is not on our side

“Our simulations show changes in the far North Atlantic are felt in the South Atlantic Ocean in less than two decades,” the researchers reveal. This means the effects of the slowdown are spreading faster than we thought.

Climate projections have suggested the Atlantic overturning circulation will weaken by about 30% by 2060. But hold on — that’s without considering all that extra meltwater.

“The Greenland ice sheet will continue melting over the coming century, possibly raising global sea level by about 4 inches,” the study notes. 

“If this additional meltwater is included in climate projections, the overturning circulation will weaken faster. It could be 30% weaker by 2040. That’s 20 years earlier than initially projected.”

What can we do?

Such a rapid decrease in the overturning circulation will shake things up. 

Europe might see colder winters, the northern tropics could get drier, and places like the southern United States might experience warmer, wetter summers.

“Our climate has changed dramatically over the past 20 years,” the researchers warn. “More rapid melting of the ice sheets will accelerate further disruption of the climate system.”

So, what does this all mean for us? It means we have even less time to get our act together. Reducing emissions isn’t just a good idea — it’s crucial.

Our planet’s systems are interconnected in ways we’re only beginning to understand. If we want to keep things from getting worse, we need to act now. Every little bit counts, and the clock is ticking.

The full study was published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.earth.com/news/collapse-of-main-atlantic-ocean-circulaton-current-amoc-is-already-happening/

By Michelle Werdann

This story was originally published in the 2024 edition of Discovery magazine, the College of Science’s publication. This edition of Discovery celebrated the 20th anniversary of the College of Science.

“Today’s center is doing exactly what it should be doing,” Sudeep Chandra said.

Chandra is talking about the Global Water Center (GWC), a multidisciplinary community of scientists on the University campus who are addressing challenging water conservation issues. The work extends far beyond water, to conservation of livelihood and culture.

The Global Water Center, led by Chandra, was established in 2016 with an approval from the Nevada System of Higher Education’s Board of Regents. Since its inception, the Global Water Center has done impactful research across the world.

History of the Global Water Center

In 2013, Chandra, Foundation Professor of biology at the University, served as a rotating National Science Foundation (NSF) program officer. The position allowed him to see how other universities structured interdisciplinary centers.

The idea for the Global Water Center had already been planted in Chandra’s mind for some time when faculty came together to scope out how the University might utilize its strengths and grow in a new direction. University leadership put out a call for projects to empower research on campus a few years prior to the faculty discussion, and Chandra worked with colleagues from the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR), the College of Science and the College of Engineering to draft a white paper about the need for a central hub where researchers study and solve water issues. After returning from his position at the NSF, Chandra moved to the Department of Biology in the College of Science. He remembers speaking with the College’s then-dean, Jeff Thompson, who now serves as the University’s executive vice president and provost.

“It was a really important moment in my life,” Chandra said.

Chandra shared the white paper that he and his colleagues had written.

“Dean Thompson said, ‘That’s a great idea. So, what do you need?'” Chandra recalls.

Reflecting on successful programs he had seen while working with the NSF, Chandra asked for a physical space with conference meeting areas, whiteboards, videoconferencing technology (which was uncommon for the University at that time), stipends for early career faculty working through the center and support for research assistants. Chandra felt these were crucial tools for fostering innovation and interdisciplinary collaborations.

The University owned a house where the new William M. Pennington Engineering Building stands today, and where the Biodiversity Research Center had previously been located. That house became the site of the Global Water Center, and when the construction process began on the engineering building, the Global Water Center moved into a house across the street, which the center now calls home. The location has whiteboards, conference rooms and technology, just as Chandra envisioned (and importantly, a coffee and tea station where people can share and work through their ideas, fostering creative conversations).

Impactful projects

The Global Water Center has projects all over the world, but one that Chandra is particularly excited about is based in the northwestern corner of Nevada where the center is partnering with the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe.

The Tribe lives on the Summit Lake Indian Reservation in Humboldt County and is dedicated to protecting their resources, including the last self-sustaining lake population of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Nevada’s state fish), a listed species by the federal government.

Working closely with Tribal scientists like James Simmons, a student in the University’s interdisciplinary Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology Graduate Program, Chandra and his colleagues are developing a complete understanding of Summit Lake’s watershed, as the region warms due to climate change. This entails looking at changes in vegetation; monitoring how the water running into the lake triggers the fish to spawn; examining past climatic history using tree cores and lake cores (work done by Adam Csank in the geography department and Paula Noble in the geological sciences and engineering department, respectively) to understand how fish populations changed during warmer periods; observing fish ecology in the lake; estimating current fish populations and using that information to effectively support the population with the Tribe’s fishery and more. The University’s resident big fish expert, Zeb Hogan, has also been involved in this project. Together, the researchers are partnering with CABNR faculty Erin Hanan and Adrian Harpold to understand the current and future climate in the region and watershed.

“The outcomes of the research and collaborations so far are quite strong,” Chandra said. “We have a stronger partnership with the Tribe that’s been developed over 10 years, we are able to educate our students on Indigenous needs and desires and practices, and also offer assistance within Tribe departments that need support, like the Tribal natural resources department. In the end, we’re hoping to have the persistence of many species for the long term.”

For Chandra, a key element in the Summit Lake project and every other project at the Global Water Center is transparency.

“In today’s world, more than ever, I see the Global Water Center as a place where we can develop trust with our communities,” Chandra said. 
“Transparency builds trust, and trust allows us to solve problems.”

Transparency also prevents duplicative efforts. It allows researchers, policy makers and the public to understand what does and doesn’t work when trying to sustain a watershed.

Continued growth

As evidenced by the Summit Lake project and others that continue to impact watersheds around the world, the collaborations facilitated by the Global Water Center have flourished, and so have the careers of faculty involved. Half of the faculty who work with the Global Water Center are early-career faculty. Being part of the center allows for greater access to networking and interdisciplinary research than single-discipline units.

The center’s faculty members also come from a broad range of departments. The Global Water Center has representation from across campus, including the departments of natural resources, geography, geological sciences and engineering, civil and environmental engineering, political science, economics, agriculture, veterinary and rangeland sciences and biology. This menagerie of departments hails from four colleges. The Global Water Center removes departmental and collegial barriers of communication between faculty and allows them to gather in a space specifically designated for water conservation research. As a result of this interdisciplinary collaboration, faculty write proposals that are much larger in scope, like the ongoing research at Summit Lake, rather than single principal investigator proposals. Additionally, graduate students are afforded the opportunity to become involved in research projects that encourage such multidisciplinary collaborations.

“It’s just natural when you have research programming that you’re going to have students,” Chandra said.

These students also get to participate in projects in their own backyard. There are two new instruments that will support ongoing research and teaching at Lake Tahoe – a 30-foot, 5-passenger and a 38-foot, 9- to 12-passenger watercraft, designed for deep-lake and near-shore research and teaching in the jewel of the Sierra Nevada. Through a generous donation from the Wiegand Foundation, the University has purchased one of the vehicles. Federal funds announced in March will support the purchase of the second vehicle along with high-tech tools that can be used to sense the changes in Lake Tahoe and teach students about limnology (the study of inland waters).

Beyond physical infrastructure, Chandra and his colleagues are working to develop relationships with community stakeholders, policymakers, scientific agencies and other organizations, an effort called “Team Tahoe,” to promote scientific research in, around and at Lake Tahoe. One of Chandra’s doctoral students, Julie Regan, is the director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Earlier this year, Regan organized and led a trip to Washington, D.C. with Chandra and other researchers to meet with government officials, testify with United States Senator from Nevada Jackie Rosen’s Commerce Committee on tourism in the Tahoe basin and share how critical it is to preserve Lake Tahoe.

Chandra encourages all faculty in the Global Water Center to engage with media to share the outcomes and understandings of scientific research. Engaging with the public through outreach is critical to the mission of the Global Water Center, and Chandra seeks to share this message: “Science can transcend anything, and we can help society with its challenges.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2024/global-water-center-discovery-update

The substance is a byproduct of the process of treating water with chloramine, a chemical used to kill viruses and bacteria. It’s not yet known whether it is dangerous.

By Evan Bush

About a third of U.S. residents have been receiving tap water containing a previously unidentified chemical byproduct, a new study has found. Some scientists are now concerned — and actively investigating — whether that chemical could be toxic. 

The newly identified substance, named “chloronitramide anion,” is produced when water is treated with chloramine, a chemical formed by mixing chlorine and ammonia. Chloramine is often used to kill viruses and bacteria in municipal water treatment systems. 

Researchers said the existence of the byproduct was discovered about 40 years ago, but it was only identified now because analysis techniques have improved, which finally enabled scientists to determine the chemical’s structure. 

It could take years to figure out whether chloronitramide anion is dangerous — it’s never been studied. The researchers reported their findings Thursday in the journal Science, in part to spur research to address safety concerns. 

The scientists said they have no hard evidence to suggest that the compound represents a danger, but that it bears similarities to other chemicals of concern. They think it deserves scrutiny because it’s been detected so widely. 

“It has similarity to other toxic molecules,” said David Wahman, one of the study’s authors and a research environmental engineer at the Environmental Protection Agency. “We looked for it in 40 samples in 10 U.S. chlorinated drinking water systems located in seven states. We did find it in all the samples.”

Chloronitramide anion is produced as chloramine decays over time. It’s likely to be found in all drinking water treated via this method, he said. 

The fact that a byproduct with unknown risks could be so ubiquitous and evade researchers for so long renews questions about potential health effects of the chemicals used to treat tap water. 

Some 113 million U.S. residents receive chloramine-treated water from their taps, according to the study. The chemical has been used for about a century to disinfect water. Today, it’s often used to protect a system’s “residual” — the water that remains in pipes for several days after it leaves a water treatment plant. 

Increasingly, chloramine has been favored over chlorine because the latter also produces byproducts, some of which are associated with bladder cancer and are regulated by the EPA. 

David Reckhow, a research professor in civil and environmental engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who was not involved with the study, said the finding was an important step. The ultimate goal, he said, is understanding whether the substance is a hazard; he concurred that it was likely toxic. 

“It’s a pretty small molecule and it can probably for that reason enter into biological systems and into cells. And it is still a reactive molecule,” he said. “Those are the kinds of things you worry about.” 

The authors of the new study arrived at their results after figuring out how to formulate high concentrations of the chemical for laboratory testing, said Julian Fairey, lead author and an associate professor at the University of Arkansas.  

“We don’t know the toxicity, but this study has enabled us to be able to do that work now,” said Fairey, who studies drinking water byproducts. “Now, we can go about the hard work of trying to figure out what its toxicological relevance is in our water systems.”

He added that some past studies have suggested a link between drinking disinfected water and increased rates of certain cancers.

“We don’t know what’s driving these. We have no idea if this compound is in any way related to those outcomes,” Fairey said. “But we have unexplained incidents of certain types of cancer from treated drinking water.”

However, any conclusions about whether the newly identified substance is toxic are likely many years away. Potential regulation based on those eventual findings would take even longer. 

“It’s a lot — probably a decade of research once a funding source is found,” said Alan Roberson, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. 

Reckhow said that in the meantime, water utilities should pay close attention to ongoing research and try to reduce people’s exposure. 

“You do what you can to minimize,” he said. “You make the best judgment you can on the toxicity and you run with incomplete information. That’s the world we live in, unfortunately.” 

The EPA only regulates a handful of disinfectant byproducts, including several associated with the use of chlorine. Scientists said those regulations have pushed some water providers to increase the use of chloramine.

“This study really calls into question whether or not this disinfection process is safer from a health perspective,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that pushes for more scrutiny of chemicals. 

He added that there are hundreds of disinfection byproducts found in water systems but that this one deserves scrutiny. 

“Many of those other contaminants are occurring at lower concentrations or less frequently,” Andrews said. 

Any treatment of drinking water involves some level of health risk, Roberson said. It’s a trade-off: Disinfection processes have largely vanquished waterborne diseases such as cholera and typhoid, but research suggests that some byproducts are associated with risks of cancer and miscarriage.

“The reason you’re adding the chloramine — you want to kill the bacteria and viruses, you have a real risk-risk trade-off,” he said. 

Many U.S. water utilities disclose on their websites whether they treat the water they supply with chlorine or chloramine. Wahman said some research suggests that active carbon filters, such as those used in home water purification devices or refrigerator filters, can remove disinfectant byproducts but that more research is needed.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/chemical-identified-drinking-water-chloramine-may-be-toxic-rcna181052

By Liz Saccoccia and Samantha Kuzma 

One out of every 11 people in the world grapples with hunger. A hidden and growing driver is lack of water.

New WRI analysis shows that one-quarter of the world’s crops are grown in areas where the water supply is highly stressed, highly unreliable or both. Mounting risks like climate change and increased competition for water are threatening water supplies and, in turn, food security. Rice, wheat and corn — which provide more than half the world’s food calories  — are particularly vulnerable: 33% of these three staple crops are produced using water supplies that are highly stressed or highly variable.

These growing water challenges come as food demands are increasing: Research shows the world will need to produce 56% more food calories in 2050 than it did in 2010 to feed a projected 10 billion people.

Here, we analyze what escalating water risks mean for food production, using new data from WRI’s Aqueduct Food platform.

Both Irrigated and Rainfed Crops Face Growing Threats

Farmers water their crops using rain that falls naturally or through irrigation, where water is diverted from rivers or reservoirs or pumped from underneath the ground to the land’s surface.

Both rainfed and irrigated crops are important for food security, but both face mounting threats.

Irrigated crops, which make up 34% of the world’s total production by weight, are vulnerable to increasing competition over shared water supplies, known as water stress. Water stress is considered “high” if at least 40% of the local water supply is used to meet demands from farms, industries, power plants and households.

About 60% of the world’s irrigated crops(by weight) are currently grown in areas facing high or extremely high levels of water stress.

Rainfed crops, which make up the other 66% of the world’s total production, are vulnerable to erratic weather patterns.

Globally, 8% of the rainfed crops the world produces are grown in areas facing high to extremely high variations in annual water supply, places where rainfall patterns may swing wildly between drought and deluge. 

The problem with growing crops in both highly stressed and highly variable areas is that there isn’t much of a supply buffer to weather shocks such as prolonged droughts. While farmers have adapted to a certain level of variability in the water they can use, increased water competition and climate change are stretching available supplies to the limit. Growing crops in these areas therefore puts food security in jeopardy.

Just a Handful of Countries Produce Most of the World’s Irrigated Crops — and They’re Rapidly Depleting Their Water 

Just 10 countries — China, India, United States, Pakistan, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand — produce 72% of the world’s irrigated crops, including sugarcane, rice, wheat, vegetables, cotton and maize. Two-thirds of these crops face high to extremely high levels of water stress. That’s a problem for food security as well as economies — irrigated crops are often “cash crops” exported to other nations.

Meanwhile, demand for irrigation is poised to grow. Agriculture is already the biggest driver of water stress, responsible for 70% of the world’s withdrawals. According to data on Aqueduct, the demand for water to irrigate crops is projected to rise by 16% by 2050, compared to 2019. Warming temperatures are partially driving this trend. The warmer it is, the thirstier crops become.

Some countries are already grappling with the tension between food production and water security. In India, nearly 270 million metric tons — or around 24% of the country’s total crop production — is grown in watersheds that use more water than what can be naturally replenished. The country has resorted to pumping non-renewable groundwater and rerouting its rivers, but these are not sustainable long-term solutions. Northern India already loses up to a foot of groundwater a year due, in part, to pumping for irrigation. Groundwater depletion may triple by 2080 as temperatures in India continue to warm.

Rainfed Agriculture Supplies Most of the World’s Crops, but Faces Increasingly Unstable Precipitation 

The majority of the world’s food — 66% of all crop production — still comes from rainfed agriculture. For example, 75% of the world’s corn comes from rainfed farms, predominantly in the United States, China and Brazil. 

Yet as climate change fuels longer, more frequent droughts and deforestation alters local precipitation patterns, farmers will find it increasingly difficult to grow rainfed crops. Already, 8% of rainfed agriculture (by weight) faces high to extremely high levels of variation in annual water supply. By 2050, 40% more rainfed crops will face unreliable water supplies than in 2020, with the greatest increases occurring in India, the U.S., Australia, Niger and China.

Niger, a country where almost 97% of the production relies on rainfed agriculture, suffers from one drought every three years on average. Almost half of children are chronically malnourished, and the situation is only posed to worsen: The ND-Gain Index named Niger as the most vulnerable country in the world for climate change-related impacts on food systems.

In addition to rainfall variability, political instability and conflict are prompting farmers in Niger to abandon their crops to avoid violence.  At the same time, lack of employment is the biggest motivation for new recruits to join armed groups, creating a vicious cycle. This is just one example where food production, climate-driven water challenges, and conflict are colliding to exacerbate hunger and other issues.

It’s Still Possible to Produce More Food in a Water-Constrained World

Stressed and variable water supplies don’t automatically spell crisis. With the right policies that address the nexus of food production, water management and conservation, businesses and governments can ensure that bread baskets remain full. 

Some of the same strategies for sustainably managing water also address the climate and biodiversity crises, and improve people’s lives:

• Assess water risks and set meaningful targets: Corporations and governments alike must first understand the water risks they face, using granular data and mapping tools like Aqueduct and Aqueduct Food. Corporations should assess the water impacts of their own products and operations, as well as those of their suppliers. They should set meaningful targets to align with sustainability goals, such as science-based freshwater use targets.
• Reduce food loss and waste: One quarter of all water used for agriculture grows food that ultimately goes uneaten. Food is lost and wasted across all parts of the supply chain, from farm to table. Governments, businesses, farmers and consumers alike all must play a role in reducing it.
• Shift high-meat diets towards less water-intensive foods: One pound of beef requires 50 times more water to produce than one pound of potatoes. Choosing less water-intensive foods can substantially decrease water stress and unsustainable water use.
• Avoid dedicating land to bioenergy: Diverting farmland to biofuel production increases competition for both land and water resources, and can adversely affect water quality.
• Increase water use efficiency: Farmers should use more efficient water measures, such as switching to water-efficient crops or using methods like sprinkler or drip irrigation versus flooding fields.
• Invest in nature-based solutions: Conservation and nature-based solutions can boost water security. For example, protecting and restoring forests helps regulate rainfall in nearby areas. Regenerative practices like agroforestry can help water infiltrate the soil, reducing reliance on irrigation and replenishing groundwater.
• Support inclusive water management: Water managers should ensure that water is distributed equitably throughout a basin — not prioritizing corporate farms over small family farms. Water infrastructure like dams and irrigation systems must be built and maintained in ways that do no harm. And water managers must plan for sustainable water use and access for future as well as current generations.

Producing more food in ways that protect nature and alleviate water challenges is a delicate balance. The world needs to prioritize sustainable water use today to ensure adequate water— and food — for tomorrow.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.wri.org/insights/growing-water-risks-food-crops

By Michelle Watson

Asheville, North Carolina, residents now have safe drinking water after a boil notice was lifted Monday, more than seven weeks after Tropical Storm Helene struck on September 27.

Helene hit western North Carolina as a tropical storm, causing devastating flood damage and harm to its water system. The storm dumped so much water over the southern Appalachians in three days that it became a catastrophic, once-in-1,000-year rainfall eventfor the region, the National Weather Service said.

“The City of Asheville has lifted the Boil Water Notice for all water customers as of 11 a.m. today, November 18,” the Asheville Fire Department said in a Facebook post Monday. “Water Resources lab staff finished sampling the distribution system early Sunday afternoon, and results have confirmed that the water supply is free from contaminants.”

Asheville Water Resources spokesperson Clay Chandler said Friday there was a sampling process that had to take place before the notice was lifted.

“Due to reduced turbidity levels in the North Fork Reservoir and our capacity to push treated water into the system, we’ve been able to feed a sufficient amount of filtered water into the distribution system without blending it with raw water,” Chandler said.

Turbidity is a measure of the level of particles in a body of water, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The turbidity level must be around 1.5-2 units to be safe for a standard treatment process at North Carolina’s North Fork Reservoir, the city previously said.

The North Fork Reservoir provides water to most people in Asheville, according to the Asheville Citizen-Times. Its turbidity levels dropped below 15 units on Wednesday, according to recent information released by the city. Turbidity levels had been as high as 90 units in the immediate aftermath of Helene, CNN affiliate WLOS reported.

“The use of treated water combined with customer usage has given us data that we feel is sufficient to reach the conclusion that the system has, for the most part, turned over. And the vast majority of raw water has been replaced with treated water,” Chandler said.

The sampling process, which was developed in conjunction with guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency and The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality began Saturday, Chandler said Friday.

Turbidity could still increase due to unforeseen events like line breaks, or “heaven forbid,” another natural disaster, Chandler said.

The Asheville Fire Department asked residents to “temporarily avoid large-volume activities like filling bathtubs, watering landscaping, filling swimming pools and taking abnormally long showers,” but said normal water usage for drinking, cooking and bathing could resume.

In Buncombe County, where Asheville is located, at least 42 people died due to Helene. The Asheville City Schools district reopened last month, CNN previously reported.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/16/us/asheville-north-carolina-water-helene/index.html