The millions of tons of plastic swirling around the world’s oceans have garnered a lot of media attention recently. But plastic pollution arguably poses a bigger threat to the plants and animals – including humans – who are based on land.
Very little of the plastic we discard every day is recycled or incinerated in waste-to-energy facilities. Much of it ends up in landfills, where it may take up to 1,000 years to decompose, leaching potentially toxic substances into the soil and water.
Researchers in Germany are warning that the impact of microplastics in soils, sediments and freshwater could have a long-term negative effect on such ecosystems. They say terrestrial microplastic pollution is much higher than marine microplastic pollution – estimated at four to 23 times higher, depending on the environment.
The researchers concludethat, although little research has been carried out in this area, the results to date are concerning: fragments of plastic are present practically all over the world and can trigger many kinds of adverse effects.
The study estimates that one third of all plastic waste ends up in soils or freshwater. Most of this plastic disintegrates into particles smaller than five millimetres, known as microplastics, and these break down further into nanoparticles (less than 0.1 micrometre in size). The problem is that these particles are entering the food chain.
Sewage is an important factor in the distribution of microplastics. In fact, between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the plastic particles contained in sewage, such as from garment fibres, persist in the sludge, says the study. Sewage sludge is often applied to fields as fertilizer, meaning that several thousand tons of microplastics end up in our soils each year. Microplastics can even be found in tap water.
Moreover, the surfaces of tiny fragments of plastic may carry disease-causing organisms and act as a vector for diseases in the environment. Microplastics can also interact with soil fauna, affecting their health and soil functions. “Earthworms, for example, make their burrows differently when microplastics are present in the soil, affecting the earthworm’s fitness and the soil condition,” says an article in Science Daily about the research.
In 2020, the first-ever field study to explore how the presence of microplastics can affect soil fauna was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. The paper notes that terrestrial microplastic pollution has led to the decrease of species that live below the surface, such as mites, larvae and other tiny creatures that maintain the fertility of the land.
Chlorinated plastic can release harmful chemicals into the surrounding soil, which can then seep into groundwater or other surrounding water sources, and also the ecosystem. This can cause a range of potentially harmful effects on the species that drink the water.
Generally speaking, when plastic particles break down, they gain new physical and chemical properties, increasing the risk that they will have a toxic effect on organisms. And the larger the number of potentially affected species and ecological functions, the more likely it is that toxic effects will occur.
Chemical effects are especially problematic at the decomposition stage. Additives such as phthalates and Bisphenol A (widely known as BPA) leach out of plastic particles. These additives are known for their hormonal effects and can disrupt the hormone system of vertebrates and invertebrates alike. In addition, nano-sized particles may cause inflammation, traverse cellular barriers, and even cross highly selective membranes such as the blood-brain barrier or the placenta. Within the cell, they can trigger changes in gene expression and biochemical reactions, among other things.
The long-term effects of these changes have not yet been sufficiently explored. “However, it has already been shown that when passing the blood-brain barrier nanoplastics have a behaviour-changing effect in fish,” according to the Leibnitz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries.
How do microplastics get into our water?
One of the main sources is our clothing. Minuscule fibres of acrylic, nylon, spandex, and polyester are shed each time we wash our clothes and are carried off to wastewater treatment plants or discharged to the open environment.
According to a recent study cited by Water World in 2016, more than 700,000 microscopic plastic fibres could be released into the environment during each cycle of a washing machine. This has not yet been studied in the case of handwashing, which is more common in developing counties, but the effects could be significant there as well.
Another study commissioned in the same year by clothing company Patagonia and conducted by researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, found that washing a single synthetic jacket just once released an average of 1.7 grams of microfibres.
In 2019, it was estimated that 1.5 million trillion microfibers were present in the oceans around the world.
Microbeads are solid plastic particles that typically range from 10 micrometers (0.00039 inches) up to 1 millimeter (0.039 inches).
Numerous countries around the world have introduced legislation to ban the manufacture of cosmetics and personal care products containing microbeads. Such laws have already been passed in Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
In May 2018, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and its Global Soil Partnership, the World Health Organization, the Secretariats of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) organized the Global Symposium on Soil Pollution (GSOP18) to bring together science and policy to understand the status, causes, impacts and solutions to soil pollution. The outcome document of the symposium, ‘Be the solution to soil pollution’ paved the way to the implementation of a coordinated set of actions to #StopSoilPollution.
In 2021, FAO and UNEP teamed up again to launch the Global Assessment of Soil Pollution, which details the risks and impacts of soil pollution on human health, the environment and food security.
After COP26: Russia’s Path to the Global Green Future
Greenpeace Demands immediate return of German plastic waste
Plastics in soil threaten food security, health, and environment
Reframing tourism to address plastic pollution
UNIDO and the Alliance to End Plastic Waste partner to scale circular solutions to plastic waste
Plastic pollution on course to double by 2030
Global Plastic Action Partnership Making an Impact in Fighting Plastic Pollution
Russia is certainly now taking climate-related issues seriously, but even though a latecomer in embracing the climate change agenda, it will not simply accept the West’s or the EU’s lead. Rather, it will act in accordance with its national interests.
At the COP26 UN climate change summit that ended last week, Russia was noted mainly for President Vladimir Putin’s decision not to attend in person. Much less reported was the fact that Russia sent a large delegation—312 people—to Glasgow: more than the host country itself, and twice as many as the United States. The quality of the Russian delegation was no less impressive. It included representatives of not only the presidential administration; the ministries of energy, forestry, and economic development; the London embassy; and the Moscow city government, but also of leading banks like Sberbank and VEB, and major corporations like Rosatom, Gazprom, Severstal (metallurgy), Inter RAO (electricity), and Sibur (coal). All of those people came not only to listen and learn, but also to engage and build contacts.
The intensity of the Russian engagement reflects the sea change that has occurred in the Kremlin’s attitude to climate change over the past year or so. Flat-out denial of climate change; the interpretation of global warming as a blessing for a northern country; and the dismissal of its human origins are all history. Putin now repeatedly points out that temperatures are rising two and a half times faster in his country than the global average.
What caught Putin’s attention must have been the nexus between climate change and global energy policies. Both of Russia’s main trading partners, the European Union and China, have made carbon neutrality pledges. The wake-up call came with the EU’s decision to impose a carbon tax on goods imported into Europe from as early as 2023. There are well-founded estimates suggesting that by the early 2030s, Russia may begin running chronic budget deficits as demand for its oil, pipeline gas, and coal exports slumps. Russia’s other exports, from agricultural produce to metals, arms, and machinery, will not be sufficient to compensate for that shortfall.
As a result, Russia’s climate policy has quickly shifted up through the gears. Weeks before Glasgow, Putin set a deadline of 2060 (the same as China) for Russia to achieve carbon neutrality, and just days before COP26 began, the Russian government came up with a strategy paper on the subject. At the conference itself, Russian delegates laid out the key elements of the emerging Russian climate and energy policy. Those elements can be summarized as follows.
First, Russia will insist that nuclear and hydroelectric power, which account for some 40 percent of the country’s energy mix, should be internationally accepted as green. This is of central practical importance for Moscow, which has been able to restructure the country’s nuclear industry and turn it into one of the world’s most effective. In addition, Moscow claims, another 40 percent of energy in Russia is derived from natural gas, a low-carbon fuel. Natural gas, of course, has long been a centerpiece of Russia’s energy exports and a major foreign policy asset.
Second, two-thirds of the territory of Russia—the world’s largest country by far—is covered by forests. That accounts for about of 20 percent of the Earth’s forests: well ahead of Brazil and Canada. Moscow argues that the carbon absorption capacity of its forests should be factored into the equation and offset against Russia’s CO2 emissions.
Third, Russia is determined to weigh in on the rules of international carbon trading. In a word, Russia doesn’t want to merely follow the rules on climate; it wants to set the rules. On top of all this, Moscow has ambitions to become a major hydrogen energy producer. It also has a protective attitude toward the melting Arctic, where it has the largest shoreline and exclusive economic zone of all littoral countries.
In sum, Russia is certainly now taking climate-related issues seriously, but even though a latecomer in embracing the climate change agenda, it will not simply accept the West’s or the EU’s lead. Rather, it will act in accordance with its national interests, carefully balancing climate-related measures against economic growth, and traditional energy sources against renewables, while building situational alliances with other countries. These alliances may result in some strange bedfellows, since the EU carbon tax will adversely affect exports from countries as diverse as Australia, India, Russia, and Ukraine.
Getting other countries (particularly those in the EU) to accept Russia’s arguments is going to be very challenging. However, expecting Russia, not to mention China, India, and Brazil—none of whose leaders were in attendance at Glasgow—to simply accept Western principles and norms is delusional. Russia joined the pledge on deforestation at COP26, but refused to sign up to another one on methane gas emissions supported by the United States and the West, and also refrained from promising action on coal, alongside the United States, China, and India. With each nation engaged in climate talks, whatever its government’s rhetoric, seeking to protect its interests, conflicts, and hard bargaining are inevitable. The global nature of the climate issue ensures that no agreement can be effective without the participation of the major players, and that includes Russia, the fourth biggest emitter.
For some in Moscow, engaging on climate change is an opportunity to improve relations with the West while sidelining other conflicts and differences. In principle, this is another delusion that falls into the same category as the earlier forlorn hopes for a grand World War II–style anti-terrorist alliance at the beginning of the 2000s, or for a united anti-COVID front last year. The Kremlin has to appreciate two things. Firstly, the reasons for the confrontation with the United States and alienation from Europe will not disappear in the environment of cooperation on climate. It’s possible to imagine that, should some specific Western sanctions on Russia be determined to be obstacles to climate-friendly steps by Moscow, they might be eased or waived, but no more.
Secondly, for the West, Moscow’s promises will not be enough. What will be taken seriously by outsiders is actions leading to concrete results. Thus, the crux of the matter lies in domestic politics rather than international diplomacy. While it is true that in Russia it is sometimes enough to convince just one person to make a seminal decision, implementing any decision taken will depend on interaction among a large number of players. Climate change–inspired policies are leading to an energy transition that will have a major impact on Russia’s political economy and politics. It should not be forgotten that in Russia, the energy transition coincides with a political and generational one, which within a decade or a little more will usher in a new constellation of power brokers.
It appears that, for now, President Putin has vested authority for strategizing and coordinating the energy transition in First Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Belousov. In his public statements and interviews, Belousov has already explained his vision of Russia’s energy transition. In his view, the transition is part of a strategy of achieving steady annual economic growth of at least 3 percent. Technological modernization, including energy saving; legislation adjustment and implementation; appropriate regulation and taxation instruments; and the expansion of hydrogen energy production to the level of 20 percent of the world market are the key elements of the government’s policy. To deal with the EU’s impending carbon tax, Belousov suggests motivating companies to invest in climate-friendly initiatives in Russia, so that much of the money stays at home rather than being paid in overseas taxes.
For all its recent embrace of the climate agenda, the Kremlin is likely to tread cautiously and avoid making rash decisions. In parallel to Glasgow, another conference was held in Verona. It brought together the world’s oil and gas leaders, including Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin. He warned that it would be a big mistake to reduce investment in long-term fossil fuel projects. Indeed, the next few years are likely to see increased demand for traditional energy. If anything, the recent gas crisis in Europe has been a vivid illustration of the current situation. The future of Russia’s economy and its global standing, however, will depend on its leaders’ ability to correctly identify long-term trends and maintain the right balance in the course of an inevitable but difficult transition.
The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP-26) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was held in Glasgow from October 31 to November 13, 2021 with delegations from almost 200 countries participating. The strategic goal of the Summit was to sum up the results achieved during six years since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015. Combating deforestation, phasing down of coal and increasing financial support for developing countries are among the successes of COP-26 however it revealed certain disagreements.
At the opening ceremony of COP-26, Chairman Alok Sharma stated that the decisions made in Glasgow should be more vigorous than those of Paris. In Scotland’s largest city, the parties to the UNFCCC, after several unsuccessful attempts made in previous years, were again trying to hammer out the rules for implementing the Paris Agreement. In addition, the participants were discussing plans for adaptation to the consequences of climate change that can no longer be prevented. The agenda was really demanding.
Ambitious agenda but unfavorable background
There were four issues on the COP-26 agenda. Countries should: 1) submit programs on carbon emissions reduction to net zero by the middle of this century; 2) propose programs to restore affected ecosystems; 3) mobilize finance to achieve all the climate goals; 4) agree on a procedure for reporting on the implementation of the Paris Agreement.
However, a breakthrough was unlikely even before the Summit began. The G-20 meeting that had taken place the day before cast serious doubt on a multilateral climate agreement between the world ’s largest economies. The meeting in Rome resulted in the 20 states failing to reach an agreement on reducing the deadline for achieving zero emissions and abandoning coal-fired power. Although the G-20 states upheld the goal of limiting the temperature rise, some countries avoided making firm commitments on how to keep its growth beyond the threshold of to 1.5°C.
Forest conservation: a step forward
Over 100 world leaders agreed on a declaration on stopping deforestation. The key point of the document was the joint work on stopping and reversing “the loss of forests and land degradation by 2030”. The states plan to increase investments in agriculture, in the conservation and restoration of forests, as well as in support of indigenous communities who are struggling due to deforestation.
This is one of the most significant achievements of COP-26 as among the signatories to the agreement was Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, whom environmentalists recently accused in the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity over the deforestation of the Amazon region.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin in a video address to the forum on the protection of forests expressed confidence that the Glasgow Declaration “will undoubtedly serve the goals of the Paris Agreement on reducing carbon dioxide emissions”. He added that Russia, in an effort to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, relies, among other tools, on the unique resource of its trees, since about 20% of all forests of the world are located in Russia.
Another meaningful issue on the COP-26 agenda was the abandonment of coal, and certain results were achieved as well. Firstly, major international banks pledged to stop financing coal-fired power plants by the end of 2021. Secondly, 40 countries made a commitment to gradually abandon coal-fired energy – developed countries by 2030, developing by 2040.
At the same time, the Financial Times characterizes the wording of the declaration as vague as it does not set the exact deadline. The document states that the countries should abandon coal by a certain date or as soon as possible after its expiration. In addition, the main users of coal energy – China, India, the US, Australia, Russia have not signed the declaration.
Alexey Kokorin, head of the WWF Russia Climate and Energy Program called the declaration a “conditional agreement”. The countries-signatories allocate certain financial resources to developing states so that they can abandon coal. If Russia had signed the agreement, it would have become a voluntary donor, not a recipient of climate finance.
At the same time, Jamie Peters from the environmental organization Friends of the Earth maintained that the key meaning of this “unimpressive agreement” was that everyone was allowed to continue using coal for many years to come.
Reducing emissions: methane on the agenda for the first time
Back in April 2021 during the virtual Climate Summit Russian President Vladimir Putin designated the reduction of methane as one of the main directions in combating global warming. During COP-26 the leaders held an event dedicated to the methane emissions reductions for the first time in many years. The US and the EU put forward a joint initiative on reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030 which was supported by 105 countries.
China, Russia and India, three out of top five states in methane emissions, did not join the agreement. However, the initiative was supported by Brazil, the country which Climate Watch Data includes in the list of leading methane emitters.
The rationale for Russia not to join the initiative of the Western powers may be economy. In the countries that willingly sign up to the agreement, the share of the oil-and-gas sector is significantly lower than in Russia. According to Igor Makarov, head of the HSE Climate Change Economics Research and Training Laboratory, in Russia methane emissions are linked to both natural gas production and transportation. So, it is challenging for the country to take on such commitments right now.
According to Alexey Kokorin, there is no point in joining this initiative either ideologically (there is no China and India in it) or technically (it is necessary to deal with mine methane, leaks in gas and oil fields, which is more expensive than energy efficiency, energy conservation and forest fire control).
Russia’s position was also shared by some countries from the Anglo-Saxon world. For instance, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison spoke out against a concrete deadline for phasing out coal and pointed out that accelerating the reduction of methane emissions by 2030 will result in high costs for farmers engaged in dairy farming and animal husbandry.
Carbon neutrality: commitments without breakthroughs
Among the main topics at COP-26 was carbon neutrality. Even though many leaders spoke of it the goals set vary both in deadlines and in feasibility. Chinese leader Xi Jinping announced that the PRC would strive to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. The Prime Minister of India promised to reduce emissions to zero by 2070, setting a zero target for the country for the first time. Environmentalists called the Indian president’s goals “ambitious”, but the Nature magazine noted that it was probably only about CO2, with other greenhouse gases being out of the plan.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, addressing the summit virtually, maintained that carbon neutrality in Russia should be achieved by 2060. The international representative of Greenpeace characterized the goal as not ambitious enough.
Meaning of the final Glasgow Agreement
The stumbling block during the negotiations on the COP-26 final statement was Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. It envisages specific mechanisms for international the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. This is why the states had to prolong the summit till November 13. Additionally, this very article prevented consensus on the text of COP-25 held in December 2019 in Madrid, which resulted in a failure. COPs are far from punctuality. Out of 26 summits, only seven ended on time (on Friday) 14 ended on Saturday and five were held till Sunday.
The final agreement, published late in the evening on November 13, disappointed many parties. The wording of certain points was softened. For instance, instead of “phasing out” coal and other fossil fuels, the participants made an eleventh-hour decision to use “phasing down”. India, the third largest emitter, insisted on this change. Meanwhile, Special Representative of the President of Russia on climate Ruslan Edelgeriev stated that Russia welcomed the result. Nevertheless, the COP-26 final document has certain breakthroughs:
The participants of COP-26 touched upon the issue of the global green transition based on four principles: energy efficiency, decarbonization, decentralization and digitalization. Many important statements have been made during COP-26. The countries have promised to achieve carbon neutrality by the middle of the century, significantly reduce the extraction and use of fossil fuels, completely stop the processes of deforestation, allocate considerable funds for the green transition. However, COP-26 also has its disappointments: ambitions of many countries remained weak, mistrust between developed and developing countries increased, and the real reduction of emissions was partially replaced by compensations.
Although the declaration was signed by almost 200 delegations, every point of it sparks disagreement. The Glasgow Agreement will not replace the Paris Agreement. It acts as a rulebook on the implementation of the 2015 Paris commitments. It defines more concrete actions in financing measures to combat climate change, mitigating its consequences and adapting to the ongoing climate changes.
What awaits us in the future?
Climate Action Tracker has published a report that shows that the risks of rising temperatures in the world are even higher. Even with the current goals of emissions reduction, by 2100 the temperature in the world could rise by 2.4 degrees. It means that the strategies announced at COP-26 would not meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Today, the world can only effect the green transition by a gradual replacement of technologies. It is obvious that electricity has been and will remain the main energy source for humanity. But the question is: how to accumulate it more efficiently and more environmentally friendly in the new realities? Hydrogen is recognized as a viable option. At the same time, the issues of green transition and carbon emissions reduction are over politicized and often do not take into account regional peculiarities of the countries. For now, the easiest step to make is to continue focusing on energy conservation and energy efficiency.
Afterwards, it is necessary to reconsider the attitude to the types of energy generation and modernize them according to the environmental agenda. It is important to use technologies that meet economic needs and cause minimal harm to the environment. It means that Russia should rely on three main areas during the energy transition: nuclear power, hydrogen, and natural gas generation.
With the COP26 concluded a little over a week ago (November 13), here is something to ponder. Must we travel as much as we do on airplanes?
A flight from London to San Francisco releases approximately 5.5 tonnes of CO2 per person. By contrast, an entire year of driving a typical passenger car emits 4.6 metric tonnes. More than a whole year’s car emissions released in one 11-hour flight.
Aviation is estimated to account for approximately 2.5% of global CO2 emissions. While this number may not sound significant, if aviation were a country, it would be sixth in the world. Forecasts estimate that by 2050, approximately 43 metric gigatons of carbon dioxide will be generated by aviation worldwide. And when the damage from aircraft includes the discharge of other gases and vapor trails in addition to the CO2, the total jumps to 5% of global emissions.
Contrails, the white streaks we see in the sky, are produced when hot exhaust gases come into contact with low-pressure, cold air. They contain black carbon particles. Moisture condenses on these to form ice. Though some contrails only last a few minutes, some join with cirrus clouds and other contrails, and this larger mixture can remain for up to eighteen hours. This contrail cloud mixture causes an effect known as ‘radiative forcing’. The balance between heat emitted from the earth and that coming from the sun is altered. And this causes a change in climate. Thus, there is a double negative to aircraft – the CO2 emissions, and the radiative forcing effect from the contrails.
It turns out the damage from contrails can be mitigated by changing flight paths. Researchers at Imperial College London have found that flight altitude changes of just 2,000 feet could curb the effect. A study of Japan’s airspace found that changing just 1.7 percent of flights could cut contrail climate forcing by 59%.
Small changes in flight paths can significantly curb the impact of each flight, and at low cost. If these changes are implemented throughout the world, the effects could be significant.
Some airlines are leading the way towards environmental sustainability. Last winter, Air France KLM Martinair launched the world’s first sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) program to reduce CO2 emissions.
Then there are innovators devising environmentally friendly small aircraft to one day meet some passengers’ needs. As a start, the company Pipistrel received EU certification for its electric two-seater plane a little over a year ago. And Swiss flying school AlpinAirPlanes installed solar panels to recharge them (Engineering and Technology Magazine, Volume 16, Issue 7, August 2021).
For larger aircraft Rolls-Royce is in the process of developing hydrogen-fuelled engines that are likely to be available by 2035. They have three concept designs: a turboprop for 100 passengers, a turbofan for 200 passengers, and a futuristic blended-wing body design. Unfortunately there are many obstacles with hydrogen that lead some experts to believe that hydrogen aircraft are unlikely to be available until 2050 (Engineering and Technology Magazine, Volume 16, Issue 7, August 2021). Still, they do give us some hope for the future.
In the short term, Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), has been introduced by Air France. It is a kerosene-like fuel but not derived from fossil sources. Such biofuels have difficulties of their own. It takes an enormous amount of crops to produce enough energy for aircraft, and the decision of the best use for those crops – food versus airlines — is certainly not a clear cut one. SAF is a very good idea but will be slow in transition, and during the next four decades when mitigating emissions is crucial, we must find alternatives.
Hydrogen or biofuels are the two likely choices for the future, and hydrogen as we know is a long process in development. In the meantime, while scientists work on improving flying options, what is the best way for us to reduce our carbon footprint, and still travel when we need to?
For domestic travel, high-speed rail proves a good alternative. The Brussels-London Eurostar launch caused aviation along that route to decrease by 55%. In other instances high-speed rail has been shown to reduce air transport by as much as 80%. The International Energy Agency has summarized the direct impact of launching high-speed lines on the corresponding flight paths in a telling chart. It notes that the Paris-Strasbourg train decreased air travel by over 80%. The Paris-London and the Seville-Madrid train routes decreased corresponding aviation travel by over 50%, and in China the Taipei-Kaohsiung train decreased flights by 80%.
Domestic flight travel emissions have increased 17% since 1990 and they continue to grow. But where high speed rail is present, this is being mitigated. Building more high-speed trains between common flight destinations could be part of the solution.
Thus connecting major cities like New York, San Francisco and Chicago through high-speed rail could significantly reduce carbon emissions. That, and allowing online meetings to be the modus operandi for the corporate world could together have a real impact. The pandemic has given us a window of opportunity – a chance to try virtual meetings and to see how they perform. And they work well.
There is no simple answer to the problem of carbon emissions; there are many changes that can have a cumulative positive effect. Here are a few ways to help reduce the climate impact of aircraft — this is by no means an exhaustive list, only a beginning:
1. Use the Cloud, Not the Conference Room
Simply reducing flights when meetings can be conducted online has a huge impact. The International Civil Aviation Organization has verified that global passenger traffic decreased a huge 60 percent over 2020. While the pandemic mindset exists, let’s keep the conference room online and make it a permanent fixture. The cloud is better for the planet, better for families to spend more time together, and better for our pets — no need to be left alone or boarded for that business trip.
Imperial College London has shown that at a low cost and with only minor flight altitude adjustments, we can reduce damaging radiative forcing that contributes to global warming.
3. Fund Environmentally Friendly SAF Programs
With airlines struggling as they are today, government funding for SAF research and airplane innovation could help, especially in the long-term.
Our government should build high-speed trains, particularly between commonly used flight paths. And when we have the option of a high-speed train instead of a jet, we should use it. Fortunately, the research shows we do. So it is just a matter of putting some tracks down, starting to build, and fighting the airline lobby.
All of it will take time; some we can do now.
The latest Putin-Modi Summit was a global geostrategic game-changer unlocking the potential for the two great powers to jointly assemble...
Economic well-being and social prosperity of the citizens are among the significant factors that determine electoral behavior. Everyone wants to...
While the weight of accumulated problems and troubling instabilities in strategic sphere is significant, relations among nuclear powers are very...
Russian-Indian relations are traditionally good. The chemistry between the leaders is excellent, and members of the public are well disposed...
Authors: Harsh Mahaseth and Aadira Menon* Indonesia, a 30,000-island archipelago with 300 ethnic groups, is a mainly Muslim country with...
All indicators within the American society indicate that (the Organization of American Islamic Relations “CARE”) is considered a complex and...
Religious tourism plays an important role in reviving the country’s economic activity through promoting religious-based tourism. Realizing the economic and...
The American deal with the popular decline in support of political Islam after Arab Spring revolutions
Sudan protests: Security forces in spotlight over sexual violence allegations
Are Arab militias losing their usefulness for Iran?
The repercussions of the American presence in the Middle East on China and Russia
The influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates inside and outside the United States
The benefits of China and Russia from the United States’ disengagement from the Middle East
Santa Claus rueful at imminent Christmas in India
The positions of the Council on American-Islamic Relations within the American society