Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

California voted to ban new diesel trucks at ports. Why did L.A. and Long Beach just add 1,000 more?

News Feed
Thursday, June 13, 2024

More than 1,000 diesel-powered cargo trucks — which should’ve been banned from serving California ports — were granted access to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach due to inaction from the Biden administration, according to harbor records.In April 2023, the California Air Resources Board voted to ban fossil fuel-powered big rigs from obtaining new registrations to serve the state’s 12 major seaports, a landmark rule that was slated to go into effect on Jan. 1. But one year later, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not granted a waiver for California’s so-called Advanced Clean Fleets rule. As a result, state air regulators have been unable to enforce the regulation, which has allowed trucking companies and independent operators to continue adding diesel-snorting big rigs that can pollute port communities for up to a decade. Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science. Since the start of the year, more than 1,200 trucks have obtained new registrations to move cargo at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, according to data obtained by the Los Angeles Times. About 92% of the newly registered trucks had diesel-powered engines, which are known to emit cancer-causing particles and planet-warming carbon emissions. The Advanced Clean Fleets rule is one of eight clean-air policies that California regulators are still waiting for the Biden administration to sign off on. Collectively, these rules were expected to prevent 11,000 premature deaths and provide $116 billion in health benefits over the next three decades, according to the American Lung Assn. But that assumed the rules would be implemented on time. Seven of the eight pending policies should’ve already gone into effect. The federal inaction has resulted in delays in adopting zero-emission technologies or reducing emissions for trucks, boats, trains, construction machinery and lawn equipment. And the deferred policy implementation could have national implications, as several other states have expressed interest in adopting California’s more stringent rules rather than the EPA’s.Heading into an unpredictable election year when the presidency and both chambers of Congress are up for grabs, environmental advocates want to see these rules prioritized.“Any further delay in the waiver process really does risk that we’re going to see more diesel trucks on the roads or working at the ports,” said Will Barrett, national senior director of clean air policy with the American Lung Assn. “We’re also going to see more gasoline-powered equipment like leaf blowers and lawnmowers when those sales should have been stopped. The transition to zero-emission technology in these sectors is delayed, and because of that, we’re concerned that we’re just going to see this equipment live on, putting out more pollution for longer than it should have.”The EPA declined to comment on the addition of more diesel trucks at Southern California ports and the pending Advanced Clean Fleets waiver. The Small Off-Road Engines rule, adopted in 2021, would ban the sale of gas-powered yard equipment including leaf blowers, lawnmowers and other equipment. It was scheduled to go into effect this year. It is expected to prevent 887 premature deaths and provide $9 billion in public health benefits. The Commercial Harbor Craft rule, adopted in 2022, would require new ferry boats and excursion vessels to be zero-emission where feasible. It also calls for more watercraft, including commercial sportfishing boats, to replace their older engines with newer, cleaner models to reduce pollution. It was scheduled to go into effect this year. It is expected to prevent 531 premature deaths and provide $5 billion in health benefits. The In-Use Locomotive rule, adopted in 2023, would establish age limits for trains operating in California and gradually phase out diesel engines. The rule would guarantee all train fleets would be zero-emission no later than 2058. It was slated to go into effect this year. It is expected to prevent 3,233 premature deaths and provide $32 billion in public health benefits. The Advanced Clean Cars II rule, adopted in 2022, would require an increasing percentage of new cars sold to California auto dealerships to be zero-emission or plug-in hybrids. The regulation would eventually culminate in a ban on selling new, gasoline-powered cars by 2035. It is slated to go into effect in 2026. It is expected to prevent 1,287 premature deaths and provide $13 billion in public health benefits. The Advanced Clean Fleets rule, adopted in 2023, would ban fossil fuel-powered cargo trucks registering to serve California ports and railyards. It would ultimately require all cargo trucks serving the ports to be zero-emission in 2035. It also established zero-emission requirements for governmental and large commercial fleets. It was scheduled to go into effect this year. It is expected to prevent 2,526 premature deaths and provide $26 billion in public health benefits. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleet rule, adopted in 2022, would phase out some of the dirtiest engines from agricultural and construction equipment. It was scheduled to go into effect this year. It is expected to prevent 571 premature deaths and provide $6 billion in public health benefits. The Transport Refrigeration Units rule, adopted in 2022, would phase out diesel-powered refrigeration units for cargo trucks. It was slated to go into effect last year. It is expected to prevent 177 premature deaths and provide $2 billion in public health benefits. The Heavy-Duty Omnibus rule, adopted in 2020, would establish cleaner engine standards and require warranties for new heavy-duty vehicles. It was scheduled to go into effect this year. It is expected to prevent 2,480 premature deaths and provide $23 billion in public health benefits. Environmental experts say the Biden administration has been tied up with its own jam-packed federal environmental agenda, which may have slowed the review process for California’s rules. In the past year, the EPA has approved new rules for cars, heavy-duty trucks, new coal- and gas-fired power plants and methane-leaking oil wells. Those federal rules are expected to have little bearing in California, where state regulations are already more strict. Due to its notoriously poor air quality, California holds the distinction as the only state that can regulate vehicle emissions, so long as it obtains permission from the EPA. The state has used these powers to adopt groundbreaking rules, such as requiring cars to be outfitted with catalytic converters and check engine lights. “That’s the dance that’s been going on since the mid-1960s,” said Ann Carlson, a UCLA environmental law professor and former transportation czar with the Biden administration. “California leads, in part, because EPA grants its waiver. Then California pushes the rest of the country.”Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state rulemakers touted news that the sale of new zero-emission trucks had doubled in 2023 compared with the prior year, putting the state two years ahead of its goals. This mostly resulted from the sales of thousands of medium-duty pickup trucks, such as Ford’s F-150 Lightning and Rivian’s R1 lineup. Zero-emission big rigs remain a small fraction of sales and existing fleets serving state ports. All those cargo containers that come into the Port of L.A., seen here in March, have to go somewhere. For now, most will be aboard diesel-powered big rigs. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times) Asked about the outstanding Advanced Clean Fleets rule, state officials were optimistic the Biden administration would take action.“We’re of course eagerly awaiting the U.S. EPA to grant our waiver, and we expect them to take action very soon,” said Steven Cliff, executive director of the California Air Resources Board. “We’re seeing 1 in 6 new trucks sold is zero emissions,” Cliff added, “and going forward, that’s going to benefit Californians, especially those who live near ports who have been most impacted by pollution.”Nearly 23,000 cargo trucks are registered with the Port of Los Angeles, the busiest container port in the Western Hemisphere. About 94% of those are diesel trucks, and another 5% burn natural gas. One percent are zero-emission: 271 cargo trucks are battery-electric, and nine are hydrogen fuel-cell.The Port of Los Angeles announced last year that it had reduced diesel particulate matter by 88% since 2005, due, in part, to better controls for ships and cleaner truck engines.The Advanced Clean Fleets rule was expected to rapidly accelerate zero-emission adoption, starting with the 2024 ban on fossil-fuel truck registrations. In the year leading up to that deadline, trucking companies went on a buying spree, according to public records.More than 9,000 trucks obtained new registrations at both ports in 2023 — almost triple the amount registered in 2018. The vast majority of these trucks had diesel-powered engines.The registration of diesel trucks continued into the first half of 2024. More than 1,100 diesel trucks were registered at the ports so far this year. Seventy-six electric trucks and 19 hydrogen trucks received approval to move cargo in the same time. Many truck drivers serving the ports are independent owner-operators, running their own small businesses with their big rigs instead of working for a large company with a fleet. They have expressed concerns about the high upfront costs of purchasing electric trucks, which are significantly more expensive than diesel-powered models.Mercer Transportation Co., an owner-operator transportation company, registered the most trucks so far in 2024, enrolling 131 diesel trucks at both ports, including several with engines over a decade old. Performance Team Freight Systems Inc., a Santa Fe Springs-based company, introduced the most zero-emission vehicles, with 23 electric trucks.Under the fleets rule, the existing fleet of diesel and gas trucks would be allowed to visit the ports until they reached 18 years old or a maximum of 800,000 miles traveled. Trucks that exceed 800,000 miles driven can operate for only 13 years.Agmark Transportation registered a diesel truck with an engine from the year 2000, which would not have been allowed if the EPA had granted California’s waiver.The delayed rule would also prevent any fossil-fuel truck from moving cargo at the ports in 2035. But environmental advocates would still like to know how the state plans to offset any unintended pollution and carbon emissions resulting from late implementation.“What we fully expect and strongly endorse is, when these waivers are signed and official, anything that has been done to increase pollution beyond what was designed in these programs really needs to be addressed quickly,” said Barrett, of the American Lung Assn. “If that’s the addition of hundreds of diesel trucks into the port drayage fleet, we would call on our state agencies to look at those and see what they can do to get those out of the fleet as quickly as possible.”

While California waits for the EPA to act, more than 1,200 trucks have obtained new registrations to move cargo at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach this year; 90% run on diesel.

More than 1,000 diesel-powered cargo trucks — which should’ve been banned from serving California ports — were granted access to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach due to inaction from the Biden administration, according to harbor records.

In April 2023, the California Air Resources Board voted to ban fossil fuel-powered big rigs from obtaining new registrations to serve the state’s 12 major seaports, a landmark rule that was slated to go into effect on Jan. 1.

But one year later, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not granted a waiver for California’s so-called Advanced Clean Fleets rule. As a result, state air regulators have been unable to enforce the regulation, which has allowed trucking companies and independent operators to continue adding diesel-snorting big rigs that can pollute port communities for up to a decade.

Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

Since the start of the year, more than 1,200 trucks have obtained new registrations to move cargo at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, according to data obtained by the Los Angeles Times. About 92% of the newly registered trucks had diesel-powered engines, which are known to emit cancer-causing particles and planet-warming carbon emissions.

The Advanced Clean Fleets rule is one of eight clean-air policies that California regulators are still waiting for the Biden administration to sign off on. Collectively, these rules were expected to prevent 11,000 premature deaths and provide $116 billion in health benefits over the next three decades, according to the American Lung Assn.

But that assumed the rules would be implemented on time.

Seven of the eight pending policies should’ve already gone into effect. The federal inaction has resulted in delays in adopting zero-emission technologies or reducing emissions for trucks, boats, trains, construction machinery and lawn equipment. And the deferred policy implementation could have national implications, as several other states have expressed interest in adopting California’s more stringent rules rather than the EPA’s.

Heading into an unpredictable election year when the presidency and both chambers of Congress are up for grabs, environmental advocates want to see these rules prioritized.

“Any further delay in the waiver process really does risk that we’re going to see more diesel trucks on the roads or working at the ports,” said Will Barrett, national senior director of clean air policy with the American Lung Assn. “We’re also going to see more gasoline-powered equipment like leaf blowers and lawnmowers when those sales should have been stopped. The transition to zero-emission technology in these sectors is delayed, and because of that, we’re concerned that we’re just going to see this equipment live on, putting out more pollution for longer than it should have.”

The EPA declined to comment on the addition of more diesel trucks at Southern California ports and the pending Advanced Clean Fleets waiver.

Environmental experts say the Biden administration has been tied up with its own jam-packed federal environmental agenda, which may have slowed the review process for California’s rules. In the past year, the EPA has approved new rules for cars, heavy-duty trucks, new coal- and gas-fired power plants and methane-leaking oil wells.

Those federal rules are expected to have little bearing in California, where state regulations are already more strict.

Due to its notoriously poor air quality, California holds the distinction as the only state that can regulate vehicle emissions, so long as it obtains permission from the EPA. The state has used these powers to adopt groundbreaking rules, such as requiring cars to be outfitted with catalytic converters and check engine lights.

“That’s the dance that’s been going on since the mid-1960s,” said Ann Carlson, a UCLA environmental law professor and former transportation czar with the Biden administration. “California leads, in part, because EPA grants its waiver. Then California pushes the rest of the country.”

Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state rulemakers touted news that the sale of new zero-emission trucks had doubled in 2023 compared with the prior year, putting the state two years ahead of its goals. This mostly resulted from the sales of thousands of medium-duty pickup trucks, such as Ford’s F-150 Lightning and Rivian’s R1 lineup.

Zero-emission big rigs remain a small fraction of sales and existing fleets serving state ports.

A tug boat makes its way through the Los Angeles Harbor against a backdrop of a ship laden with cargo containers.

All those cargo containers that come into the Port of L.A., seen here in March, have to go somewhere. For now, most will be aboard diesel-powered big rigs.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Asked about the outstanding Advanced Clean Fleets rule, state officials were optimistic the Biden administration would take action.

“We’re of course eagerly awaiting the U.S. EPA to grant our waiver, and we expect them to take action very soon,” said Steven Cliff, executive director of the California Air Resources Board.

“We’re seeing 1 in 6 new trucks sold is zero emissions,” Cliff added, “and going forward, that’s going to benefit Californians, especially those who live near ports who have been most impacted by pollution.”

Nearly 23,000 cargo trucks are registered with the Port of Los Angeles, the busiest container port in the Western Hemisphere. About 94% of those are diesel trucks, and another 5% burn natural gas. One percent are zero-emission: 271 cargo trucks are battery-electric, and nine are hydrogen fuel-cell.

The Port of Los Angeles announced last year that it had reduced diesel particulate matter by 88% since 2005, due, in part, to better controls for ships and cleaner truck engines.

The Advanced Clean Fleets rule was expected to rapidly accelerate zero-emission adoption, starting with the 2024 ban on fossil-fuel truck registrations. In the year leading up to that deadline, trucking companies went on a buying spree, according to public records.

More than 9,000 trucks obtained new registrations at both ports in 2023 — almost triple the amount registered in 2018. The vast majority of these trucks had diesel-powered engines.

The registration of diesel trucks continued into the first half of 2024. More than 1,100 diesel trucks were registered at the ports so far this year. Seventy-six electric trucks and 19 hydrogen trucks received approval to move cargo in the same time.

Many truck drivers serving the ports are independent owner-operators, running their own small businesses with their big rigs instead of working for a large company with a fleet. They have expressed concerns about the high upfront costs of purchasing electric trucks, which are significantly more expensive than diesel-powered models.

Mercer Transportation Co., an owner-operator transportation company, registered the most trucks so far in 2024, enrolling 131 diesel trucks at both ports, including several with engines over a decade old. Performance Team Freight Systems Inc., a Santa Fe Springs-based company, introduced the most zero-emission vehicles, with 23 electric trucks.

Under the fleets rule, the existing fleet of diesel and gas trucks would be allowed to visit the ports until they reached 18 years old or a maximum of 800,000 miles traveled. Trucks that exceed 800,000 miles driven can operate for only 13 years.

Agmark Transportation registered a diesel truck with an engine from the year 2000, which would not have been allowed if the EPA had granted California’s waiver.

The delayed rule would also prevent any fossil-fuel truck from moving cargo at the ports in 2035. But environmental advocates would still like to know how the state plans to offset any unintended pollution and carbon emissions resulting from late implementation.

“What we fully expect and strongly endorse is, when these waivers are signed and official, anything that has been done to increase pollution beyond what was designed in these programs really needs to be addressed quickly,” said Barrett, of the American Lung Assn. “If that’s the addition of hundreds of diesel trucks into the port drayage fleet, we would call on our state agencies to look at those and see what they can do to get those out of the fleet as quickly as possible.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Mind, hand, and harvest

A volunteer-driven pilot program brings low-cost organic produce to the MIT community.

On a sunny, warm Sunday MIT students, staff, and faculty spread out across the fields of Hannan Healthy Foods in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Some of these volunteers pluck tomatoes from their vines in a patch a few hundred feet from the cars whizzing by on Route 117. Others squat in the shade cast by the greenhouse to snip chives. Still others slice heads of Napa cabbage from their roots in a bed nearer the woods. Everything being harvested today will wind up in Harvest Boxes, which will be sold at a pop-up farm stand the next day in the lobby of the Stata Center back on the MIT campus.This initiative — a pilot collaboration between MIT’s Office of Sustainability (MITOS), the MIT Anthropology Section, Hannan Healthy Foods, and the nascent MIT Farm student organization — sold six-pound boxes of fresh, organic produce to the MIT community for $10 per box — half off the typical wholesale price. The weekly farm stands ran from Sept. 15 through Oct. 27.“There is a documented need for accessible, affordable, fresh food on college campuses,” says Heather Paxson, William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Anthropology and one of the organizers of the program. “The problems for a small farmer in finding a sufficient market … are connected to the challenges of food insecurity in even wealthy areas. And so, it really is about connecting those dots.”Through the six weeks of the project, farm stand shoppers purchased more than 2,000 pounds of fresh produce that they wouldn’t otherwise have had access to. Hannan, Paxson, and the team hope that this year’s pilot was successful enough to continue into future growing seasons, either in this farm stand form or as something else that can equally serve the campus community.“This year we decided to pour our heart, soul, and resources into this vision and prove what’s possible,” says Susy Jones, senior sustainability project manager at MITOS. “How can we do it in a way that is robust and goes through the official MIT channels, and yet pushes the boundaries of what’s possible at MIT?”A growing ideaMohammed Hannan, founder of Hannan Healthy Foods, first met Paxson and Jones in 2022. Jones was looking for someone local who grew vegetables common in Asian cuisine in response to a student request. Paxson wanted a small farm to host a field trip for her subject 21A.155 (Food, Culture and Politics). In July, Paxson and Jones learned about an article in the Boston Globe featuring Hannan as an example of a small farmer hit hard by federal budget cuts.They knew right away they wanted to help. They pulled in Zachary Rapaport and Aleks Banas, architecture master’s students and the co-founders of MIT Farm, an organization dedicated to getting the MIT community off campus and onto local farms. This MIT contingent connected with Hannan to come up with a plan.“These projects — when they flow, they flow,” says Jones. “There was so much common ground and excitement that we were all willing to jump on calls at 7 p.m. many nights to figure it out.”After a series of rapid-fire brainstorming sessions, the group decided to host weekly volunteer sessions at Hannan’s farm during the autumn growing season and sell the harvest at a farm stand on campus.“It fits in seamlessly with the MIT motto, ‘mind and hand,’ ‘mens et manus,’ learning by doing, as well as the heart, which has been added unofficially — mind, hand, heart,” says Paxson.Jones tapped into the MITOS network for financial, operational, student, and city partners. Rapaport and Banas put out calls for volunteers. Paxson incorporated a volunteer trip into her syllabus and allocated discretionary project funding to subsidize the cost of the produce, allowing the food to be sold at 50 percent of the wholesale price that Hannan was paid for it.“The fact that MIT students, faculty, and staff could come out to the farm, and that our harvest would circulate back to campus and into the broader community — there’s an energy around it that’s very different from academics. It feels essential to be part of something so tangible,” says Rapaport.The volunteer sessions proved to be popular. Throughout the pilot, about 75 students and half a dozen faculty and staff trekked out to Lincoln from MIT’s Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus at least once to clear fields and harvest vegetables. Hannan hopes the experience will change the way they think about their food.“Harvesting the produce, knowing the operation, knowing how hard it is, it’ll stick in their brain,” he says.On that September Sunday, second-year electrical engineering and computer science major Abrianna Zhang had come out with a friend after seeing a notification on the dormspam email lists. Zhang grew up in a California suburb big on supporting local farmers, but volunteering showed her a different side of the job.“There’s a lot of work that goes into raising all these crops and then getting all this manual labor,” says Zhang. “It makes me think about the economy of things. How is this even possible … for us to gain access to organic fruits or produce at a reasonable price?”Setting up shopSince mid-September, Monday has been Farm Stand day at MIT. Tables covered in green gingham tablecloths strike through the Stata Center lobby, holding stacks of cardboard boxes filled with produce. Customers wait in line to claim their piece of the fresh harvest — carrots, potatoes, onions, tomatoes, herbs, and various greens.Many of these students typically head to off-campus grocery stores to get their fresh produce. Katie Stabb, a sophomore civil and environmental engineering major and self-proclaimed “crazy plant lady,” grows her own food in the summer, but travels far from campus to shop for her vegetables during the school year. Having this stand right at MIT gives her time back, and she’s been spreading the news to her East Campus dorm mates — even picking boxes up for them when they can’t make it themselves and helping them figure out what to do with their excess ingredients.“I have encountered having way too many chives before, but that’s new for some folks,” she says. “Last week we pooled all of our chives and I made chive pancakes, kind of like scallion pancakes.”Stabb is not alone. In a multi-question customer survey conducted at the close of the Farm Stand season, 62 percent of respondents said the Harvest Box gave them the chance to try new foods and 49 percent experimented with new recipes. Seventy percent said this project helped them increase their vegetable intake.Nearly 60 percent of the survey respondents were graduate students living off campus. Banas, one of the MIT Farm co-leads, is one of those grad students enjoying the benefits.“I was cooking and making food that I bought from the farm stand and thought, ‘Oh, this is very literally influencing my life in a positive way.’ And I’m hoping that this has a similar impact for other people,” she says.The impact goes beyond the ability of students to nourish themselves with fresh vegetables. New communities have grown from this collaboration. Jones, for example, expanded her network at MITOS by tapping into expertise and resources from MIT Dining, the Vice President for Finance Merchant Services, and the MIT Federal Credit Union.“There were just these pockets of people in every corner of MIT who know how to do these very specific things that might seem not very glamorous, but make something like this possible,” says Jones. “It’s such a positive, affirming moment when you’re starting from scratch and someone’s like, ‘This is such a cool idea, how can I help?’”Strengthening communityInviting people from MIT to connect across campus and explore beyond Cambridge has helped students and employees alike feel like they’re part of something bigger.“The community that’s grown around this work is what keeps me so engaged,” says Rapaport. “MIT can have a bit of a siloing effect. It’s easy to become so focused on your classes and academics that your world revolves around them. Farm club grew out of wanting to build connections across the student body and to see ourselves and MIT as part of a larger network of people, communities, and relationships.”This particular connection will continue to grow, as Rapaport and Banas will use their architectural expertise to lead a design-build team in developing a climate-adaptive and bio-based root cellar at Hannan Healthy Foods, to improve the farm’s winter vegetable storage conditions. Community engagement is an ethos Hannan has embraced since the start of his farming journey in 2018, motivated by a desire to provision first his family and then others with healthy food.“One thing I have done over the years, I was not trying to do farming by myself,” he says. “I always reached out to as many people as I could. The idea is, if community is not involved, they just see it as an individual business.”It’s why he gifts his volunteers huge bags of tomatoes at the end of a shift, or donates some of his harvest to food banks, or engages an advisory committee of local residents to ensure he’s filling the right needs.“There’s a reciprocal dimension to gifting that needs to continue,” says Paxson. “That is what builds and maintains community — it’s classic anthropology."And much of what’s exchanged in this type of reciprocity can’t be charted or graded or marked on a spreadsheet. It’s cooking pancakes with dorm mates. It’s meeting and appreciating new colleagues. It’s grabbing a friend to harvest cabbage on a beautiful autumn Sunday.“Seeing a student who volunteered over the weekend harvesting chives come to the market on Monday and then want to take a selfie with those chives,” says Jones. “To me, that’s a cool moment.”

Have we found a greener way to do deep-sea mining?

There are widespread concerns that deep-sea mining for metals will damage fragile ecosystems. But if mining ever goes ahead, hydrogen plasma could shrink the carbon footprint of smelting the metal ores

Seafloor covered with manganese nodulesScience History Images/Alamy A process to extract metals from their ore with hydrogen could make deep-sea mining for valuable materials more sustainable than mining on land, a new study claims. Swathes of the ocean floor are littered with nodules the size of tennis balls. These polymetallic nodules are comprised largely of manganese, with smaller amounts of nickel, copper and cobalt, as well as other elements. As the construction of solar power and electric vehicles booms, demand for these metals is increasing because they are vital components of batteries and wiring. But plans to mine for the polymetallic nodules are highly controversial because operations to collect them would potentially harm the deep-sea floor – one of the last pristine ecosystems on Earth. Even so, some researchers suspect that deep-sea extraction will eventually take place. “I think there is a good chance that someday people… will mine the nodules,” says Ubaid Manzoor at the Max Planck Institute for Sustainable Materials in Germany. “So better to have a good process [for extracting metals] after mining than to have one more dirty process.” The Metals Company, a Canadian deep-sea mining company that has applied for a deep-sea mining permit from the Trump administration, plans to extract metals using a fossil fuel-based approach involving coke and methane. Its process involves placing the nodules first in a kiln and then an electric arc furnace – a greener alternative to a traditional blast furnace. Even so, the company says its approach will produce 4.9 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions for every 1 kilogram of valuable metals. Manzoor and his colleagues have found a way to lower these extraction-related emissions. Their system doesn’t involve a kiln. Instead, the nodules would be ground into smaller pellets and placed straight into an arc furnace that also contains hydrogen and argon gas. High-energy electrons flowing from an electrode in the furnace to the pellets would knock electrons off the molecules of hydrogen gas, forming a plasma that can be heated up to temperatures exceeding 1700°C. The hydrogen ions in the plasma then react with the oxygen in the pellets, stripping the oxides away from the alloy and leaving pure metal behind. Besides water, the only by-products are manganese oxide and manganese ligates, which can be used for making batteries and steel. If the hydrogen gas used in the furnace is “green” – meaning it is produced by splitting water with electricity from renewable sources – and the electricity to run the furnace is generated from renewable sources, the process should emit no CO2, according to the researchers. Today, the vast majority of hydrogen is produced using fossil fuels. Metals like manganese are found on land as well as on the seafloor, but at concentrations about 10 times lower. Mining them on land involves moving large amounts of earth, and extracting the metal from the ore often relies on sulphuric acid. The process can result in razed rainforests and polluted rivers. However, land-based mining could be better regulated to prevent environmental destruction, and the smelting of the metals could be done with green hydrogen and renewable electricity rather than fossil fuels, argues Mario Schmidt at Pforzheim University in Germany. At that point, vacuuming up nodules from the seabed wouldn’t necessarily be more sustainable. “We do not see any fundamental advantage for deep-sea mining in terms of carbon footprint,” he says. “The sustainability of deep-sea mining fails because of the threat it poses to the biodiversity of deep-sea flora and fauna.” But the process that Manzoor and his colleagues have developed could help deep-sea mining become more economically viable, according to David Dye at Imperial College London. “In addressing how you would do the extraction metallurgy downstream of actually picking it up off the seabed, you may be able to then open up the business case and the environmental case to make that attractive,” he says. Manzoor stresses that the research isn’t meant to advocate for deep-sea mining, and the environmental impacts should be fully investigated.

Can an International Treaty Save the American Eel?

Overfishing and other threats have depleted populations of this iconic species. A new proposal to restrict international trade under CITES could offer them a lifeline. The post Can an International Treaty Save the American Eel? appeared first on The Revelator.

The sign in front of the van parked just off Route 1 in Lincoln County, Maine, displayed a simple message in big, hand-written letters: “Eels. $2,000/lb.” The man in the van wasn’t selling. He was buying. I pulled my car over, hoping to interview anyone involved in Maine’s lucrative trade in “glass eels” or “elvers” — two of the earliest life stages of the American eel (Anguilla rostrata). The man got out of the van and pulled back his jacket to reveal a holstered gun on his hip. I left without the interview. The gun didn’t surprise me. It was 2012, and Maine media that year carried frequent reports of the danger wrapped up around the eel trade. While catching and selling baby eels remains legal in the state, illegal activity that year ran rampant as eel prices soared. Some people poached the eels rather than follow state harvest regulations. Others tried to burglarize fishermen’s properties to take their catches or rob cash-heavy dealers. Reports of violence were frequent. All for a transparent baby eel, just a couple of inches long.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by FishGuyPhotos (@fishguyphotos) But little eels are big business. In 2012 in Maine, an estimated 21,611 pounds of glass eels were harvested, valued at over $43 million. (Individual glass eels weigh less than a third of a gram.) The real money isn’t in Maine, though. Once collected, the baby eels are shipped to Asia —  primarily China — where they’re raised in grow ponds until they reach adulthood and full size. After that they’re shipped to Japan, where they’re a culturally important delicacy. Japan’s own eel species, A. japonica, was declared endangered in 2014, a few years after the European eel, A. anguilla, was declared critically endangered. That’s one of the reasons why the market has turned to Maine — one of the few places in the United States where one-common American eels can still be found — as well as Canada and the Caribbean. No one knows how many American eels remain. The IUCN Red List classifies the species as endangered, although attempts to protect them under the U.S. Endangered Species Act have, to date, failed. One thing is certain, though: There aren’t as many as there once were. In 2023 the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission concluded the species was “depleted” from a fisheries perspective, “meaning it is at or near historically low levels due to a combination of historical overfishing, habitat loss, food web alterations, predation, turbine mortality, environmental changes, toxins and contaminants, and disease.” The problems start in the eels’ spawning grounds in the Sargasso Sea and persist throughout their complex life cycles and migrations. That assessment plays a key role this month in attempts to put some controls on the eel trade through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, better known as CITES. A proposal submitted by the European Union would, if passed, place American and Japanese eels (along with all other “lookalike” species)  on CITES Appendix II, which would require any international imports or exports of the species to carry permits showing it was legal, sustainable, and traceable. Japan has historically lobbied against controls on the trade, arguing that it’s important to the country’s culture. But Dr. Susan Lieberman, vice president of international policy for Wildlife Conservation Society, offers a counterargument: Trade restrictions will protect both the eels and their cultural values (for Japan as well as many Native American Tribes and First Nations). “If you don’t protect the eel, you will one day turn around and Japanese people will talk about when they used to eat eel,” she says. A CITES listing won’t “magically solve all the problems for eels,” Lieberman adds. But as with efforts to protect sharks and other species from overconsumption, it could give them more of a chance to recover from their collective pressures. And that’s worked for hundreds of species currently regulated by CITES. “If we didn’t have the treaty, a lot of species would be gone,” Lieberman says. The CITES vote will take place in the next few days. If it passes, trade restrictions would go into effect in June 2027. Either way there’s still a lot we need to do for and learn about the American eel — and the other species in its family — if we hope to protect them. “We need the science to know what level [of trade] is sustainable,” says Lieberman. “We need the science to be supported to assess their populations in the wild. And we need enforcement to make sure that Illegal stuff isn’t leaving the U.S. and Canada and isn’t arriving in Japan and China.” That’s a big set of tasks to help a group of species most people have never seen — let alone studied — in the wild. But embracing eel conservation might pay off. Some researcher suggest American eels’ cultural values, unique natural history, vulnerability to pollutants, and other characteristics could make them good “flagship” species for freshwater conservation. That, in turn, could help motivate people to protect habitat, reduce pollution, restore connectivity (especially by removing dams), and help all manner of aquatic species and the terrestrial species that depend on freshwater systems — including humans. Will this CITES vote be the first step toward that goal? One thing is certain: If we don’t act, we could soon find an eel-shaped hole in cultures around the world and in the American ecosystem. Author’s note: Expect several more articles about the trade in American eels — and efforts to protect or study them — in the months ahead. Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator: This Unsung Aquatic Hero Could Get a Big Boost From Dam Removals The post Can an International Treaty Save the American Eel? appeared first on The Revelator.

When Susan Wojcicki Discovered She Had Lung Cancer, She Decided to Find Out Why

After her shocking lung cancer diagnosis, the late Susan Wojcicki dedicated herself to fighting the disease and looking for answers

In 2022 Susan Wojcicki was on top of the world—CEO of YouTube, parent to five kids and running a few miles a day—when she received a shocking diagnosis: metastatic lung cancer. She soon resigned from YouTube and dedicated herself to fighting the disease and looking for answers. Why does the leading cause of cancer deaths receive less funding than some less lethal cancers? How could her lung cancer have progressed so far undetected? And how did she get lung cancer even though she had never smoked? This episode is dedicated to Wojcick, who passed away last year.LISTEN TO THE PODCASTOn supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.TRANSCRIPTElah Feder: One day in late 2022, Susan Wojcicki had plans to meet up with her childhood friend, Joanna Strober. Here's Joanna.Joanna Strober: We were supposed to go for a walk on a Sunday, and she called me and she canceled because she had some hip pain. And you know, I just thought, okay, you probably exercised too much. Susan was a runner. Maybe she pulled something, but she went to her doctor and then she- I guess she got an MRI. And it was cancer, and that was her first indication—hip pain.Elah Feder: Lung cancer, and it had spread, which was shocking. Susan, she was 54 years old and in top shape, running a few miles a day at that point. And on top of everything, Susan had never smoked.Joanna Strober: Susan led the most healthy life. She didn't eat sugar. She was very careful about exercising every day. She was very careful about not eating pesticides. I mean, she was on the extreme of leading a healthy lifestyle. So yes, it's not just the not smoking, but she was doing everything she possibly could to stay healthy.Elah Feder: Susan's experience is not as unusual as you'd think. Lung cancer is the most common kind of cancer in the world. Third most common in the US. Smoking is still the leading cause, but a growing number of people who get lung cancer don't smoke, were never smokers. That's especially true of women who get lung cancer.To be clear, this is a terrible diagnosis to get for anyone, whether they smoked or not, but for those who haven't, there can be an extra layer on top of all the other feelings: confusion. So when Susan got this diagnosis, of course she wanted treatments, but she also wanted answers. Why did this happen to her?Elah Feder: This is Lost Women of Science, and I'm Elah FederKatie Hafner: And I'm Katie Hafner and today the story of Susan Wojcicki, who died last year of lung cancer.Elah, before we get to Susan's lung cancer, I want to acknowledge—some people out there might already be familiar with her name because Susan Wojcicki was one of the most successful and influential people in the world.Elah Feder: Yeah. Susan was the longtime CEO of YouTube, and she got involved in Google very early on, so that by 2022, her estimated net worth was about $800 million.Um, there's a story that gets quoted a lot about her early business acumen. When she was a kid, she and her friend, Joanna Strober—who you heard earlier—they sold what they called spice ropes. Here's Joanna again.Joanna Strober: It's really not that big of a deal. All we did was we made these yellow and orange yarn things and we put cinnamon in them and we called them spice ropes, and we sold them to the neighbors who of course had to buy them because they were neighbors.Elah Feder: The way the story gets told, it's like, look at this Susan kid born entrepreneur, but Joanna says, “no, no, no.” The point is they were just regular kids being kids.Katie Hafner: Right. It was their version of a lemonade stand. Right?Elah Feder: Exactly.Joanna Strober: We were not special. We were normal 10 year olds in a really beautiful environment that was supportive of our endeavors.The environment was the Stanford community. We grew up surrounded by smart people who were doing really interesting research and who, quite honestly, were changing the world in lots of ways. Lots of scientists, physicists, entrepreneurs. It was a wonderful way to grow up because everything felt very possible growing up on the Stanford campus in the seventies.Elah Feder: Susan grew up on the Stanford campus because her dad was a physics professor there, Stanley Wojcicki. Um, her mom—also very impressive—Esther Wojcicki, she's a journalist, educator, writer. She- she wrote a book called How to Raise Successful People, and I mean Esther Wojcicki has the cred to back this up. Uh, a couple of years ago, Mattel decided to honor women in STEM by making Barbies of some of the more notable figures. All three of her kids made the cut.Katie Hafner: Of course they did. Esther: mother of champions.Elah Feder: What you're hearing is a video of Susan, Janet and Anne Wojcicki all unboxing their Barbie likenesses.Janet Wojcicki: Let's do physics, mathematics. Let's show them what the childhood was really like!Elah Feder: You just heard Janet, she's the middle sister. Uh, she's a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at UCSF.Then there's the youngest kid. Anne.Katie Hafner: Yes, Anne Wojcicki: the co-founder of 23andMe. Listeners might recognize her name from all the times we thank the Anne Wojcicki Foundation in the credits—and her foundation funded this episode as well, right?Elah Feder: And then there was Susan, the eldest. I talked to Anne and Janet a few weeks ago. All all three sisters were very close in age, all born in a span of, of just five years. But talking to them, it sounds like Susan had classic first child syndrome. You're gonna hear Anne first.Anne Wojcicki: She was always the responsible one. Janet was not. And- and but-Janet Wojckick: And you were halfway in between.Anne Wojcicki: I was halfway in between, yeah. My friends always liked hanging out with Susan, but they didn't like hanging out with Janet. And then part is that Susan was so kind. Susan was kind. She was responsible, like she would take us out to ice cream. She would pick me up from ice skating. She was like, always on time.Elah Feder: If Susan Wojcicki promised you ice cream, you were gonna get ice cream. This is a quality that surely you'd want in a leader. But Anne says Susan wasn't born to be a mogul or anything.Anne Wojcicki: I'd say Susan was very much almost like the accidental CEO. I never would've looked at her when we were younger and said like, “oh, my sister is going to be a CEO.” You know, like there's definitely other people I look at in high school who have focused on finance and thinking about their careers and stuff.Elah Feder: Susan, on the other hand, was a history and literature major, but in 1998 she got involved in the creation of a new tech company when she rented out her garage to two Guys: Larry Page and Sergey Brin. They were starting a new company, and I think you know the name. Um…Katie Hafner: Google, if I'm not mistaken!Elah Feder: Google!Newscaster: a little engine that could, we're talking about this morning, has nothing to do with the children's story about a brave little locomotive. That's because this engine is a search engine. Google by name, an internet website, partnered with our own CBS news.com.Elah Feder: Susan soon became the company's first marketing manager, and a few years after that she led them in buying another tech company: a company called YouTube. And in 2014 she was appointed YouTube CEO.Newscaster 2: Well, her name is Susan Wojcicki and she's one of the most powerful women in tech. She's also mother of four and more than eight months pregnant with her fifth child. So how did she do it all?Elah Feder: So, in 2022, Susan has been CEO of YouTube for eight years. Somehow she still had time to raise five children and run a few miles a day, which is completely alien to me.You know that Beyonce meme, like Beyonce has as many hours in the day as you do, and it's, like, meant to shame you for being inadequate. Um, that is how I feel hearing about Susan Wojcicki. Point is she's doing really well when she gets this news. And it's a complete shock. Here's Anne again.Anne Wojcicki: I think when you suddenly- like Susan was kind of on top of the world, like she loved her job, YouTube is taking off and she had her five kids and they're all amazing and um, and then suddenly it was like, your life is gonna be over soon. Right away the first priority was treatment.Elah Feder: Very quickly, Susan resigned from YouTube and really gave herself over to fighting this.Joanna Strober: What she really did was started working with scientists…Elah Feder: Joanna, again.Joanna Strober: …doing the in-depth work to understand the science and what treatments were available and what she could do, but it was very scientifically focused.Elah Feder: Susan would go on to learn a lot about lung cancer, and one of the things that she learned that really disturbed her is that doctors were not great at detecting her kind of cancer: lung cancer in non-smokers. Often there are no early signs, or in Susan's case, very few signs even when the cancer has progressed. Here's her sister, Janet.Janet Wojcicki: We went to see her, you know, thoracic oncologist, right? Her lung oncologist. She's sitting on the table and the oncologist is actually examining her and she's listening to her lungs and Susan's basically saying like, you don't hear anything, right? You, you hear nothing like it sounds totally normal, right? And the oncologist is like, yeah. So just from a clinical exam, she was perfect. There was nothing. So she was like, how is it that I have stage four lung cancer? You're an oncologist, you're listening to me, you're looking at me, and like, nothing's awry. So it's- it was that kind of disconnect that was also kind of a call to action.Elah Feder: How could Susan's lung cancer have gone undetected so long that it had spread? And why is it that when lung cancer is detected, survival rates aren't higher? Well, part of the reason might be that we need more funding despite some very effective anti-smoking campaigns, lung cancer is still the leading cause of cancer deaths in the U.S., but it only gets about half the federal research funds that breast cancer does- or it did. The NIH has been slashing research funding, including cancer research. We'll see how this all shakes out in the coming months and years. In any case, lung cancer might not be the only cancer that's in trouble going forward. But historically, part of the reason that lung cancer got proportionately less funding might have to do with attitudes toward lung cancer. It just isn't viewed the same way that breast or prostate or pancreatic cancers are. It's often seen as something you bring on yourself. Here's Anne again.Anne Wojcicki: I think that the stigma has really hurt research- is that people look at it and they say like, oh, well you smoked. And um, and I think that's one of the things that Susan really wanted to change.Elah Feder: It took a long time to get this broad consensus that smoking causes lung cancer. If we go back to the forties and fifties, that's when you first see a bunch of studies coming out that demonstrate this link. And even so, if you asked a doctor in 1960, if the link had been proven, a fifth said they didn't think so. About half of them still smoked, but eventually the other side prevailed. We now have a consensus that smoking does cause lung cancer, but the downside is stigma.Katie Hafner: You know? And the stigma is really, really deeply embedded in our society. The minute you hear that somebody has been diagnosed with lung cancer, the very first thing you ask is, do they smoke? Have they smoked? Have you smoked? Has she smoked? And, so you immediately assign that stigma to the lung cancer even when it quickly gets established that there was no smoking. And that could also have an indirect effect on this lack of funding.Elah Feder: Yeah, that's the suspicion, and of course the stigma and the victim blaming is terrible for people who did smoke too. So, that really bothered Susan and she gave a lot of money for research, but she was also at the same time just investigating her own cancer. You know how, how did she get it?Anne Wojcicki: I think one of the first things we did was we got the houses tested for radon exposure.Elah Feder: Katie, do you know about radon? Are you familiar with radon?Katie Hafner: I mean, I'm familiar, but I have no idea what that has to do with it. Tell me.Elah Feder: I only recently learned about this, so, so radon is a radioactive gas. It- it sounds like one of these scary things you read on the internet, but this is real. It's a radioactive gas that naturally occurs in the ground, but it leaks into basements where it can accumulate to dangerous levels. It has no smell, no- no color. So you really would not know if it's in your home unless you test for it. Um, but it's the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.Katie Hafner: You mean before secondhand smoke?Elah Feder: Apparently. In the U.S. radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers according to the EPA.Other causes, of course, do include air pollution, asbestos exposure, and secondhand smoke.Katie Hafner: Wow. So, I've always thought secondhand smoke was it? But it sounds like it was, it sounds like it's radon.Elah Feder: Me too. Maybe it used to be when people were smoking more.Katie Hafner: Yeah.Elah Feder: But yeah, radon is unfortunately in the lead. Um, Susan's basement: clear of radon.Katie Hafner: And what about genetics? Last week, you know, we talked about a researcher named Maud Slye who worked to show that heredity explained all cancer.Elah Feder: Wrongly, but yes.Katie Hafner: Turns out not to be true, but that's okay. You go Maud. Um, are there genes linked to lung cancer? I guess that's my question.Elah Feder: There are, um, but lung cancer is still, for the most part, a disease caused by- by either your environment or your lifestyle. Some genes have been linked to increased cancer risk. For example, a certain mutation in the EGFR gene. More genes might be found. It's also possible that it's not just about finding a single gene, but about how mutations in a bunch of genes interact. But yeah, for the most part, lung cancer tends to be about environment and lifestyle more than genetics.Here's a part where there's sometimes confusion. Cancer usually happens when there's a genetic mutation in a cell, actually a series of mutations. And these cause that cell to start acting weird and replicating out of control. So in a sense, genetics is always involved in cancer, but in this case, we're not talking about inherited genetics, we're talking about mutations that you get in some of your cells later in life. They can pop up when you're 10 or 30 or 80 or hopefully never. But then, some people do have preexisting germline mutations. Some mutations that you have had since you were a little zygote that exist in every cell of your body. And, these don't usually directly cause cancer on their own. Um, I think an analogy might be helpful here. So, imagine a mutation as a switch. You usually need a few switches to turn on before a cell becomes cancerous. But some people are born with one of their switches already in the on position. And that makes them more vulnerable. Does that make sense?Katie Hafner: It makes sense. It, I mean, it makes me think about the BRCA gene.Elah Feder: Mm-hmm. Exactly.Katie Hafner: So you might be born with this mutation that puts you at high risk of getting breast cancer, but you might still not get it, but it still seems like a good idea to find out if you're at risk so that you can take some precautions and plan ahead.Elah Feder: Right. Although with lung cancer, genetic screening is tricky. Like I mentioned, heredity is not the driving factor usually for this kind of cancer. Um, but say- say you do find you have a heritable mutation that puts you at risk. You're limited in what you can do. It's not like BRCA where you might consider a double mastectomy. You're- you're gonna keep your lungs. You could take extra care to avoid environmental exposures—something we really should all do. You might even get regular low-dose CT scans—that’s actually something that is recommended for people who have smoked after a certain age to detect any lung cancer early, but those come with risks too: you’re getting a little bit of radiation each time. I’m not saying it's not worth it, it might be if you are very high risk, but it's a consideration. Anyway, that's for people who do not have lung cancer already, but are concerned about a genetic predisposition. For someone who does have lung cancer, yeah, you probably want to know what's going on in your tumor genetically.Katie Hafner: So what about Susan's case? Did she find a genetic cause for her lung cancer that could be really useful for her family to know?Elah Feder: No. Um, Susan did not actually test positive for any hereditary mutation linked to cancer, but there are still genes that may not have been identified. Even before her diagnosis, she and her husband were donating money for cancer research through their foundation. After her diagnosis, they ramped this up. Donating to research about immunotherapies, early detection. But, also funding a new project at her sister's Company 23andMe. It's called the Lung Cancer Genetic Study. So, they are trying to build a massive database of genetic information from people with lung cancer.One of the project's goals is to find heritable genetic risk factors, but they explain it's actually bigger than that. They want to know how heritable mutations, tumor mutations, and lifestyle all interact so that they might figure out, for example, why one person who smokes develops cancer, but another doesn't. It might also help them to develop new therapies. So-Katie Hafner: I just wanna interject with something that strikes me just as we're having this conversation, which is that, um, people who are listening to this probably know that 23andMe had a lot of problems, ended up filing for bankruptcy protection and Anne resigned earlier this year. Um, I'm sure that it's been very challenging for Anne, but it sounds like she is in her very best, um, Wojcicki family-like way: making lemonade out of lemons in this regard. That's my initial reaction to everything you're saying.Elah Feder: Yeah. And as you know, 23andMe—while it filed for bankruptcy—it lives on and created a nonprofit called the TTAM Research Institute. It bought 23andMe in July this year. And so, 23andMe is still going and so is this project. So far about 1200 patients have signed up and the goal is to reach 10,000.Anne Wojcicki: If you think about any one medical center, if it's UCSF or at Stanford or Harvard, getting a thousand patients coming in is- is a lot. And so, that's kind of the beauty of being able to go and find people around the entire country, is to be able to pull all that data together and then make that accessible to the research community.Elah Feder: 23andMe's Lung Cancer Genetics Study was officially announced in July last year. Susan Wojcicki died a few weeks later on August 9th, 2024. She was 56.Katie Hafner: So, Susan never did get an answer. She never found out why she had lung cancer.Elah Feder: No, she did not. And we're still trying to understand a lot about lung cancer in general. Here's Anne.Anne Wojcicki: There's still just like a lot you don't know. Understanding environmental science I think is really important. We live in a very complicated world with a lot of, you know, there's fires and there's pollution and there's what you eat and we just don't know. You don't know what the impact of all of that is, and so, you can't- I mean you can't live your life trying to measure everything and worry about everything. Like in some ways you have to come to terms with that, that you can't- you can't worry about it all the time.Elah Feder: This is a big part of life. It's understanding that so much of it is beyond our control, and we often don't even get answers. We don't find out why bad things happen to us. At the same time, when it comes to lung cancer, there is more that we can do. Here's Janet.Janet Wojcicki: I mean, if there are modifiable risk factors that we can identify—I mean the key word being modifiable, right? Then, ideally we could act on them.Elah Feder: We can fight air pollution, we can stop kids from getting their hands on cigarettes. We can look for more heritable risk factors and invest more money in treatments. As for Susan Wojcicki, despite all of her resources and all of her drive, ultimately she couldn't stop the cancer in her own body, but she left her mark in business in cancer research. She left a bigger mark than most of us ever will, but her sisters and her friend, Joanna- the thing that they really remember is how she never let any of that success go to her head.Anne Wojcicki: It didn't matter if we were like some fancy party or if Oprah wanted to talk to her. She was kind of the same. She was always very unaffected. And, it was, like, really fun going to the Oscars with her because she'd be like, “ah, I'm just gonna buy this dress on clearance at Macy's, and like no one cares what I wear.” And that was kind of the thing that was fun. She'd be like, “it would just be fun with you and like only going so that we can hang out.”Anne Wojcicki I always ride in my flats and my skirts. You're going to- are gonna YouTube? I’m actually really curious. Are you gonna meet YouTube- are you gonna meet Mr. Beast?Elah Feder: This episode of Lost Women of Science was produced by me, Elah Feder, and hosted by our co-executive producer Katie Hafner.Our senior managing producer is Deborah Unger. We had fact-checking help from Danya AbdelHameid. Lily Whear made the episode art. Thanks as always. To our co-executive producer, Amy Scharf, Eowyn Burtner, our program manager, and Jeff DelViscio at our publishing partner, Scientific American. This episode was made with funding from the Anne Wojcicki Foundation.You can find a transcript and a link to the Lung Cancer Genetics Study at www.lostwomenofscience.org.HostKatie HafnerHost and Senior ProducerElah FederGuestsAnne Wojcicki Anne is Susan Wojcicki’s youngest sister and the co-founder of 23andMe.Janet WojcickiJanet is the middle Wojcicki sister. She’s a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).Joanna StroberJoanna is the co-founder of Midi Health and a long-time friend of Susan Wojcicki.Further Reading“From Susan” — Susan Wojcicki’s final post, written a few weeks before she died and published on YouTube’s blog on Nov. 25, 2024.How to Raise Successful People. Esther Wojcicki, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2019The Lung Cancer Genetics Study“Does Lung Cancer Attract Greater Stigma Than Other Cancer Types?” by Laura A. V. Marlow et al., in Lung Cancer, Vol. 88, No. 1; April 2015

The conservative parties can change their leaders – but it won’t stop the NSW Coalition’s death spiral | Anne Davies

The Nationals have a new leader in Gurmesh Singh and Kellie Sloane could soon replace Liberal leader Mark Speakman. But the Coalition is fractured on net zeroThe NSW Nationals have a new leader, Gurmesh Singh, and the Liberals will almost certainly follow suit by early next week.It’s desperation politics. Changing leaders will likely do nothing to stop the apparent death spiral the conservative side of politics has inflicted upon itself – in Canberra and now the states. Continue reading...

The NSW Nationals have a new leader, Gurmesh Singh, and the Liberals will almost certainly follow suit by early next week.It’s desperation politics. Changing leaders will likely do nothing to stop the apparent death spiral the conservative side of politics has inflicted upon itself – in Canberra and now the states.If they needed evidence of what the electorate was thinking, it was shouting at them from internal YouGov research presented to the NSW Liberal party room on Tuesday. The party’s MPs and MLCs were considering whether to dump net zero as their federal counterparts did on the weekend.YouGov found only one-third of Australians would now seriously consider voting for the Coalition, the party room was told.It found 26% of Australians who are former Coalition voters won’t seriously consider the Coalition in the future. That’s approximately 5 million voters the Coalition needs to persuade to consider them again, the pollsters said.“Only one in five (21%) of former Coalition voters see the Coalition as being in touch with modern Australia. Only one in four (25%) see them as aligned with their values,” the YouGov report stated.One in two (52%) of former Coalition voters said they would only consider a party ready to govern if it had credible policies to address climate change and its impacts.Without a coherent position on the most pressing problem of our generation – how to slow climate change – voters, in particular younger cohorts, have fled in droves. They are unable to take seriously a political party that ignores the overwhelming scientific consensus and the economics of renewables.The federal Liberals have chosen to dump any semblance of a coherent plan.The NSW Liberals, however, voted on Tuesday to retain a net zero emissions by 2050 target. They are sticking with the bipartisan energy transition roadmap devised by the state Coalition when in government.But how does that work when their federal counterparts are talking up new coal-fired power stations and their junior state partner has abandoned the net zero target?Singh, the NSW National’s newly minted leader, hopes a compromise might be reached – though it takes a vivid imagination to see it working.As the first Indian-Australian to leader a major party, he’s a break from the white male graziers that the NSW National party usually chooses.Singh has a degree in industrial design, has worked in advertising and was previously a big wheel in the blueberry and macadamia industries. He formerly chaired Oz Group Co-op – the major marketing co-operative in the Coffs region.His family is still a major player in the Coffs Harbour blueberry industry, an industry that has divided the local community over rapid rapid expansion, use of pesticides, environmental standards and use of contract labour.Singh is acutely aware that on the north coast, his own and other seats face an existential political threat from the progressive side of politics, in the form of the Greens and teals, who have made action on climate change central to their platforms.The Greens already hold the state seat of Ballina, just north of Singh’s seat. In the 2025 federal election, teal candidate Caz Heize slashed the National’s margin in the seat of Cowper (which includes Coffs Harbour) to 0.14% on a two-party preferred basis.Singh is no Barnaby Joyce or Matt Canavan, dinosaurs of the National party whose mission includes returning Australia to a coal-fired past. But he is of the same party.Asked at his first press conference how he would reconcile the Nationals’ position with that of the Liberals in NSW, Singh highlighted the cost of power, the plight of pensioners in the regions who can’t afford hot showers, and suggested a better-managed rollout was required. He didn’t diss renewables per se.Meanwhile, the Liberals’ leadership drama is still to unfold, probably on Thursday, or possibly early next week.Moderate Kellie Sloane, a former journalist who has been an MP for less than three years, appears to be the frontrunner to replace Mark Speakman.However, Alister Heskens, from the right faction and the manager of opposition business, is also canvassing the numbers.The difficulty for Sloane will be her lack of history in the party and her inexperience in government. Heskens’ challenge is his low profile and convincing colleagues he offers an improvement on Speakman. He is likely to relish attacking Labor more than Speakman does.The NSW Liberals have, at least, heeded the YouGov polling on attitudes to climate change and have not been infected by the nonsense pedalled by Advance and other climate-denying figures on the right.The party issued a statement on Tuesday that it remained “committed to a target of net zero by 2050”.“It’s been our target since 2016. It’s a target to be achieved alongside a focus on energy reliability, affordability, and industrial competitiveness.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.