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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Disaster after disaster: do we have enough raw materials to ‘build back better’?

News Feed
Sunday, December 21, 2025

This Christmas Day marks 21 years since the terrifying Indian Ocean tsunami. As we remember the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in this tragic event, it is also a moment to reflect on what followed. How do communities rebuild after major events such as the tsunami, and other disasters like it? What were the financial and hidden costs of reconstruction? Beyond the immediate human toll, disasters destroy hundreds of thousands of buildings each year. In 2013, Typhoon Haiyan damaged a record 1.2 million structures in Philippines. Last year, earthquakes and cyclones damaged more than half a million buildings worldwide. For communities to rebuild their lives, these structures must be rebuilt. While governments, non-government agencies and individuals struggle to finance post-disaster reconstruction, rebuilding also demands staggering volumes of building materials. In turn, these require vast amounts of natural resource extraction. For instance, an estimated one billion burnt clay bricks were needed to reconstruct the half-million homes destroyed in the Nepal earthquake. This is enough bricks to circle the Earth six times if laid end to end. How can we responsibly source such vast quantities of materials to meet demand? Demand causes problems Sudden spikes in demand have led to severe shortages of common building materials after nearly every major disaster over the past two decades, including the 2015 Nepal earthquake and the 2019 California wildfires. These shortages often trigger price hikes of 30–40%, which delays reconstruction and prolongs the suffering of affected communities. Disasters not only increase demand for building materials but also generate enormous volumes of debris. For example, the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake produced more than 100 million cubic meters of debris – 40 times the volume of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Disaster debris can pose serious environmental and health risks, including toxic dust and waterway pollution. But some debris can be safely transformed into useful assets such as recycled building materials. Rubble can be crushed and repurposed as base for low-traffic roads or turned into cement blocks . The consequences of poor post-disaster building materials management have reached alarming global proportions. After the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, for example, the surge in sand demand led to excessive and illegal sand mining in rivers along Sri Lanka’s west coast. This caused irreversible ecological damage to two major watersheds, devastating the livelihoods of thousands of farmers and fisherpeople. Similar impacts from the overextraction of materials such as sand, gravel, clay and timber have been reported following other major disasters, including the 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China and Cyclone Idai in Mozambique in 2019. If left unaddressed, the social, environmental and economic impacts of resource extraction will escalate to catastrophic levels, especially as climate change intensifies disaster frequency. Urgent need for action This crisis has yet to receive adequate international attention. Earlier this year, several global organisations came together to publish a Global Call to Action on sustainable building materials management after disasters. Based on an analysis of 15 major disasters between 2005 and 2020, it identified three key challenges: building material shortages and price escalation, unsustainable extraction and use of building materials, and poor management of disaster debris. Although well-established solutions exist to address these challenges, rebuilding efforts suffer from policy and governance gaps. The Call to Action urges international bodies such as the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction to take immediate policy and practical action. Building back better and safer After a disaster hits, it leaves an opportunity to build back better. Rebuilding can boost resilience to future hazards, encourage economic development and reduce environmental impact. The United Nations’ framework for disaster management emphasises the importance of rebuilding better and safer rather than simply restoring communities to pre-disaster conditions. Disaster affected communities should be rebuilt with capacity to cope with future external shocks and environmental risks. Lessons can be learned from both negative and positive experiences of past disasters. For example, poor planning of some reconstruction projects after the Indian ocean Tsunami (2004) in Sri Lanka made the communities vulnerable again to coastal hazards within a few years. On the other hand, the community-led reconstruction approach followed after the Bhuj earthquake, India (2001), has resulted in safer and more socio-economically robust settlements, standing the test of 24 years. As an integral part of the “build back better” approach, authorities must include strategies for environmentally and socially responsible management of building materials. These should encourage engineers, architects and project managers to select safe sustainable materials for reconstruction projects. At the national level, regulatory barriers to repurposing disaster debris should be removed, whilst still ensuring safe management of hazardous materials such as asbestos. For example, concrete from fallen buildings was successfully used as road-base and as recycled aggregate for infrastructure projects following the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia and 2011 Tohoku Earthquake in Japan. This critical issue demands urgent public and political attention. Resilient buildings made with safe sustainable material will save lives in future disasters. Missaka Nandalochana Hettiarachchi receives funding from WWF, an environmental NGO, through his role in disaster management

Disasters like earthquakes and flood destroy homes and generate vast amounts of waste. Is there a better, greener way to rebuild affected communities?

This Christmas Day marks 21 years since the terrifying Indian Ocean tsunami. As we remember the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in this tragic event, it is also a moment to reflect on what followed. How do communities rebuild after major events such as the tsunami, and other disasters like it? What were the financial and hidden costs of reconstruction?

Beyond the immediate human toll, disasters destroy hundreds of thousands of buildings each year. In 2013, Typhoon Haiyan damaged a record 1.2 million structures in Philippines. Last year, earthquakes and cyclones damaged more than half a million buildings worldwide. For communities to rebuild their lives, these structures must be rebuilt.

While governments, non-government agencies and individuals struggle to finance post-disaster reconstruction, rebuilding also demands staggering volumes of building materials. In turn, these require vast amounts of natural resource extraction.

For instance, an estimated one billion burnt clay bricks were needed to reconstruct the half-million homes destroyed in the Nepal earthquake. This is enough bricks to circle the Earth six times if laid end to end. How can we responsibly source such vast quantities of materials to meet demand?

Demand causes problems

Sudden spikes in demand have led to severe shortages of common building materials after nearly every major disaster over the past two decades, including the 2015 Nepal earthquake and the 2019 California wildfires. These shortages often trigger price hikes of 30–40%, which delays reconstruction and prolongs the suffering of affected communities. Disasters not only increase demand for building materials but also generate enormous volumes of debris.

For example, the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake produced more than 100 million cubic meters of debris – 40 times the volume of the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Disaster debris can pose serious environmental and health risks, including toxic dust and waterway pollution. But some debris can be safely transformed into useful assets such as recycled building materials. Rubble can be crushed and repurposed as base for low-traffic roads or turned into cement blocks .

The consequences of poor post-disaster building materials management have reached alarming global proportions. After the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, for example, the surge in sand demand led to excessive and illegal sand mining in rivers along Sri Lanka’s west coast. This caused irreversible ecological damage to two major watersheds, devastating the livelihoods of thousands of farmers and fisherpeople.

Similar impacts from the overextraction of materials such as sand, gravel, clay and timber have been reported following other major disasters, including the 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China and Cyclone Idai in Mozambique in 2019. If left unaddressed, the social, environmental and economic impacts of resource extraction will escalate to catastrophic levels, especially as climate change intensifies disaster frequency.

Urgent need for action

This crisis has yet to receive adequate international attention. Earlier this year, several global organisations came together to publish a Global Call to Action on sustainable building materials management after disasters.

Based on an analysis of 15 major disasters between 2005 and 2020, it identified three key challenges: building material shortages and price escalation, unsustainable extraction and use of building materials, and poor management of disaster debris.

Although well-established solutions exist to address these challenges, rebuilding efforts suffer from policy and governance gaps. The Call to Action urges international bodies such as the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction to take immediate policy and practical action.

Building back better and safer

After a disaster hits, it leaves an opportunity to build back better. Rebuilding can boost resilience to future hazards, encourage economic development and reduce environmental impact. The United Nations’ framework for disaster management emphasises the importance of rebuilding better and safer rather than simply restoring communities to pre-disaster conditions.

Disaster affected communities should be rebuilt with capacity to cope with future external shocks and environmental risks. Lessons can be learned from both negative and positive experiences of past disasters. For example, poor planning of some reconstruction projects after the Indian ocean Tsunami (2004) in Sri Lanka made the communities vulnerable again to coastal hazards within a few years. On the other hand, the community-led reconstruction approach followed after the Bhuj earthquake, India (2001), has resulted in safer and more socio-economically robust settlements, standing the test of 24 years.

As an integral part of the “build back better” approach, authorities must include strategies for environmentally and socially responsible management of building materials. These should encourage engineers, architects and project managers to select safe sustainable materials for reconstruction projects.

At the national level, regulatory barriers to repurposing disaster debris should be removed, whilst still ensuring safe management of hazardous materials such as asbestos. For example, concrete from fallen buildings was successfully used as road-base and as recycled aggregate for infrastructure projects following the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia and 2011 Tohoku Earthquake in Japan.

This critical issue demands urgent public and political attention. Resilient buildings made with safe sustainable material will save lives in future disasters.

The Conversation

Missaka Nandalochana Hettiarachchi receives funding from WWF, an environmental NGO, through his role in disaster management

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

This Climate Concern Is Way Out There

This story was originally published by Yale e360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. On a mid-November evening, at precisely 7:12 p.m., a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on the Florida coast. It appeared to be a perfect launch. At an altitude of about 40 […]

This story was originally published by Yale e360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. On a mid-November evening, at precisely 7:12 p.m., a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on the Florida coast. It appeared to be a perfect launch. At an altitude of about 40 miles, the rocket’s first stage separated and fell back to Earth, eventually alighting in a gentle, controlled landing on a SpaceX ship idling in the Atlantic Ocean. The mission’s focus then returned to the rocket’s payload: 29 Starlink communication satellites that were to be deployed in low-Earth orbit, about 340 miles above the planet’s surface. With this new fleet of machines, Starlink was expanding its existing mega-constellation so that it numbered over 9,000 satellites, all circling Earth at about 17,000 miles per hour.  Launches like this have become commonplace. As of late November, SpaceX had sent up 152 Falcon 9 missions in 2025—an annual record for the company. And while SpaceX is the undisputed leader in rocket launches, the space economy now ranges beyond American endeavors to involve orbital missions—military, scientific, and corporate—originating from Europe, China, Russia, India, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. This year the global total of orbital launches will near 300 for the first time, and there seems little doubt it will continue to climb.     “We are now in this regime where we are doing something new to the atmosphere that hasn’t been done before.” Starlink has sought permission from the Federal Communications Commission to expand its swarm, which at this point comprises the vast majority of Earth’s active satellites, so that it might within a few years have as many as 42,000 units in orbit. Blue Origin, the rocket company led by Jeff Bezos, is in the early stages of helping to deploy a satellite network for Amazon, a constellation of about 3,000 units known as Amazon Leo. European companies, such as France’s Eutelsat, plan to expand space-based networks, too. “We’re now at 12,000 active satellites, and it was 1,200 a decade ago, so it’s just incredible,” Jonathan MacDowell, a scientist at Harvard and the Smithsonian who has been tracking space launches for several decades, told me recently. MacDowell notes that based on applications to communications agencies, as well as on corporate projections, the satellite business will continue to grow at an extraordinary rate. By 2040, it’s conceivable that more than 100,000 active satellites would be circling Earth. But counting the number of launches and satellites has so far proven easier than measuring their impacts. For the past decade, astronomers have been calling attention to whether so much activity high above might compromise their opportunities to study distant objects in the night sky. At the same time, other scientists have concentrated on the physical dangers. Several studies project a growing likelihood of collisions and space debris—debris that could rain down on Earth or, in rare cases, on cruising airplanes. More recently, however, scientists have become alarmed by two other potential problems: the emissions from rocket fuels, and the emissions from satellites and rocket stages that mostly ablate (that is, burn up) on reentry. “Both of these processes are producing pollutants that are being injected into just about every layer of the atmosphere,” explains Eloise Marais, an atmospheric scientist at University College London, who compiles emissions data on launches and reentries.  As Marais told me, it’s crucial to understand that Starlink’s satellites, as well as those of other commercial ventures, don’t stay up indefinitely. With a lifetime usefulness of about five years, they are regularly deorbited and replaced by others. The new satellite business thus has a cyclical quality: launch, deploy, deorbit, destroy. And then repeat.  The cycle suggests we are using Earth’s mesosphere and stratosphere—the layers above the surface-hugging troposphere—as an incinerator dump for space machinery. Or as Jonathan MacDowell puts it: “We are now in this regime where we are doing something new to the atmosphere that hasn’t been done before.” MacDowell and some of his colleagues seem to agree that we don’t yet understand how—or how much—the reentries and launches will alter the air. As a result, we’re unsure what the impacts may be to Earth’s weather, climate, and (ultimately) its inhabitants.  To consider low-Earth orbit within an emerging environmental framework, it helps to see it as an interrelated system of cause and effect. As with any system, trying to address one problematic issue might lead to another. A long-held idea, for instance, has been to “design for demise,” in the argot of aerospace engineers, which means constructing a satellite with the intention it should not survive the heat of reentry. “But there’s an unforeseen consequence of your solution unless you have a grasp of how things are connected,” according to Hugh Lewis, a professor of astronautics at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom. In reducing “the population of debris” with incineration, Lewis told me—and thus, with rare exceptions, saving us from encounters with falling chunks of satellites or rocket stages—we seem to have chosen “probably the most harmful solution you could get from a perspective of the atmosphere.”  We don’t understand the material composition of everything that’s burning up. Yet scientists have traced a variety of elements that are vaporizing in the mesosphere during the deorbits of satellites and derelict rocket stages; and they’ve concluded these vaporized materials—as a recent study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences put it—“condense into aerosol particles that descend into the stratosphere.” The PNAS study, done by high altitude air sampling and not by modeling, showed that these tiny particles contained aluminum, silicon, copper, lead, lithium, and more exotic elements like niobium. “Emission plumes from the first few minutes of a mission, which disperse into the stratosphere, may…have a significant effect on the ozone layer.” The large presence of aluminum, signaling the formulation of aluminum oxide nanoparticles, may be especially worrisome, since it can harm Earth’s protective ozone layers and may undo our progress in halting damage done by chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. A recent academic study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters concluded that the ablation of a single 550-pound satellite (a new Starlink unit is larger, at about 1,800 pounds) can generate around 70 pounds of aluminum oxide nanoparticles. This floating metallic pollution may stay aloft for decades.  The PNAS study and others, moreover, suggest the human footprint on the upper atmosphere will expand, especially as the total mass of machinery being incinerated ratchets up. Several scientists I spoke with noted that they have revised their previous belief that the effects of ablating satellites would not exceed those of meteorites that naturally burn up in the atmosphere and leave metallic traces in the stratosphere. “You might have more mass from the meteoroids,” Aaron Boley, an astronomer at the University of British Columbia, said, but “these satellites can still have a huge effect because they’re so vastly different [in composition].”  Last year, a group of researchers affiliated with NASA formulated a course of research that could be followed to fill large “knowledge gaps” relating to these atmospheric effects. The team proposed a program of modeling that would be complemented by data gleaned from in situ measurements. While some of this information could be gathered through high-altitude airplane flights, sampling the highest-ranging air might require “sounding” rockets doing tests with suborbital flights. Such work is viewed as challenging and not inexpensive—but also necessary. “Unless you have the data from the field, you cannot trust your simulations too much,” Columbia University’s Kostas Tsigaridis, one of the scientists on the NASA team, told me.  Tsigaridis explains that lingering uncertainty about NASA’s future expenditures on science has slowed US momentum for such research. One bright spot, however, has been overseas, where ESA, the European Space Agency, held an international workshop in September to address some of the knowledge gaps, particularly those relating to satellite ablations. The ESA meeting resulted in a commitment to begin field measurement campaigns over the next 24 months, Adam Mitchell, an engineer with the agency, said. The effort suggests a sense of urgency, in Europe, at least, that the space industry’s growth is outpacing our ability to grasp its implications. A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket takes off. SpaceX now has more than 9,000 Starlink satellites orbiting the Earth.SpaceX The atmospheric pollution problem is not only about what’s raining down from above, however; it also relates to what happens as rockets go up. According to the calculations of Marais’ UCL team, the quantity of heat-trapping gases like CO2 produced during liftoffs are still tiny in comparison to, say, those of commercial airliners. On the other hand, it seems increasingly clear that rocket emission plumes from the first few minutes of a mission, which disperse into the stratosphere, may, like reentries, have a significant effect on the ozone layer.  The most common rocket fuel right now is a highly refined kerosene known as RP-1, which is used by vehicles such as SpaceX’s Falcon 9. When RP-1 is burned in conjunction with liquid oxygen, the process releases black carbon particulates into the stratosphere. A recent study led by Christopher Maloney of the University of Colorado used computer models to assess how the black carbon absorbs solar radiation and whether it can warm the upper atmosphere significantly. Based on space industry growth projections a few decades into the future, these researchers concluded that the warming effect of black carbon would raise temperatures in the stratosphere by as much as 1.5 degrees C, leading to significant ozone reductions in the Northern Hemisphere. When satellite companies talk about sustainability, “what they mean is, we want to sustain this rate of growth.”  It may be the case that a different propellant could alleviate potential problems. But a fix isn’t as straightforward as it seems. Solid fuels, for instance, which are often used in rocket boosters to provide additional thrust, emit chlorine—another ozone-destroying element. Meanwhile, the propellant of the future looks to be formulations of liquefied natural gas (LNG), often referred to as liquid methane. Liquid methane will be used to power SpaceX’s massive Starship, a new vehicle that’s intended to be used for satellite deployments, moon missions, and, possibly someday, treks to Mars.  The amount of black carbon emissions from burning LNG may be 75 percent less than from RP-1. “But the issue is that the Starship rocket is so much bigger,” UCL’s Marais says. “There’s so much more mass that’s being launched.” Thus, while liquid methane might burn cleaner, using immense quantities of it—and using it for more frequent launches—could undermine its advantages. Recently, executives at SpaceX’s Texas factory have said they would like to build a new Starship every day, readying the company for a near-constant cycle of launches. One worry amongst scientists is that if new research suggests that space pollution is leading to serious impacts, it may eventually resemble an airborne variation of plastics in the ocean. A more optimistic view is that these are the early days of the space business, and there is still time for solutions. Some of the recent work at ESA, for instance, focuses on changing the “design for demise” paradigm for satellites to what some scientists are calling “design to survive.” Already, several firms are testing satellites that can get through an reentry without burning up; a company called Atmos, for instance, is working on an inflatable “atmospheric decelerator” that serves as a heat shield and parachute to bring cargo to Earth. Satellites might be built from safer materials, such as one tested in 2024 by Japan’s space agency, JAXA, made mostly from wood.  More ambitious plans are being discussed: Former NASA engineer Moriba Jah has outlined a design for an orbital “circular economy” that calls for “the development and operation of reusable and recyclable satellites, spacecraft, and space infrastructure.” In Jah’s vision, machines used in the space economy should be built in a modular way, so that parts can be disassembled, conserved, and reused. Anything of negligible worth would be disposed of responsibly. Most scientists I spoke with believe that a deeper recognition of environmental responsibilities could rattle the developing structure of the space business. “Regulations often translate into additional costs,” says UCL’s Marais, “and that’s an issue, especially when you’re privatizing space.” A shift to building satellites that can survive reentry, for instance, could change the economics of an industry that, as astronomer Aaron Boley notes, has been created to resemble the disposable nature of the consumer electronics business. Boley also warns that technical solutions are likely only one aspect of avoiding dangers and will not address all the complexities of overseeing low-Earth orbit as a shared and delicate system. It seems possible to Boley that in addition to new fuels, satellite designs, and reentry schemes, we may need to look toward quotas that require international management agreements. He acknowledges that this may seem “pie in the sky”; while there are treaties for outer space, as well as United Nations guidelines, they don’t address such governance issues. Moreover, the emphasis in most countries is on accelerating the space economy, not limiting it. And yet, Boley argues that without collective-action policy responses we may end up with orbital shells so crowded that they exceed a safe carrying capacity.  That wouldn’t be good for the environment or society—but it wouldn’t be good for the space business, either. Such concerns may be why those in the industry increasingly discuss a set of principles, supported by NASA, that are often grouped around the idea of “space sustainability.” University of Edinburgh astronomer Andrew Lawrence told me that the phrase can be used in a way that makes it unclear what we’re sustaining: “If you look at the mission statements that companies make, what they mean is, we want to sustain this rate of growth.”  But he doesn’t think we can. As one of the more eloquent academics arguing for space environmentalism, Lawrence perceives an element of unreality in the belief that in accelerating space activity we can “magically not screw everything up.” He thinks a goal in space for zero emissions, or zero impact, would be more sensible. And with recent private-sector startups suggesting that we should use space to build big data centers or increase sunlight on surface areas of Earth, he worries we are not entering an era of sustainability but a period of crisis. Lawrence considers debates around orbital satellites a high-altitude variation on climate change and threats to biodiversity—an instance, again, of trying to seek a balance between capitalism and conservation, between growth and restraint. “Of course, it affects me and other professional astronomers and amateur astronomers particularly badly,” he concedes. “But it’s really that it just wakes you up and you think, ‘Oh, God, it’s another thing. I thought, you know—I thought we were safe.’” After a pause, he adds, “But no, we’re not.”

Climate
Business
Cosmos

In Antarctica, Photos Show a Remote Area Teeming With Life Amid Growing Risks From Climate Change

Antarctica, one of the most remote places on Earth, teems with life

ANTARCTICA (AP) — The Southern Ocean is one of the most remote places on Earth, but that doesn't mean it is tranquil. Tumultuous waves that can swallow vessels ensure that the Antarctic Peninsula has a constant drone of ocean. While it can be loud, the view is serene — at first glance, it is only deep blue water and blinding white ice.Several hundred meters (yards) off the coast emerges a small boat with a couple dozen tourists in bright red jackets. They are holding binoculars, hoping for a glimpse of the orcas, seals and penguins that call this tundra home.They are in the Lemaire Channel, nicknamed the “Kodak Gap,” referring to the film and camera company, because of its picture-perfect cliffs and ice formations. This narrow strip of navigable water gives anybody who gets this far south a chance to see what is at stake as climate change, caused mainly by the burning of oil, gas and coal, leads to a steady rise in global average temperatures. The Antarctic Peninsula stands out as one of the fastest warming places in the world. The ocean that surrounds it is also a major repository for carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming. It captures and stores roughly 40% of the CO2 emitted by humans, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. On a recent day, Gentoo penguins, who sport slender, orange beaks and white spots above their eyes, appeared to be putting on a show. They took breaks from their dives into the icy water to nest on exposed rock. As the planet warms, they are migrating farther south. They prefer to colonize rock and fish in open water, allowing them to grow in population.The Adelie penguins, however, don't have the same prognosis. The plump figures with short flippers and wide bright eyes are not able to adapt in the same way. By 2100, 60% of Adelie penguin colonies around Antarctica could threatened by warming, according to one study. They rely on ice to rest and escape predators. If the water gets too warm, it will kill off their food sources. From 2002 to 2020, roughly 149 billion metric tons of Antarctic ice melted per year, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. For tourists, Antarctica is still a giant, glacial expanse that is home to only select species that can tolerate such harsh conditions. For example, in the Drake Passage, a dangerous strip of tumultuous ocean, tourists stand in wonder while watching orca whales swim in the narrow strip of water and Pintado petrels soar above. The majestic views in Antarctica, however, will likely be starkly different in the decades ahead. The growing Gentoo penguin colonies, the shrinking pieces of floating ice and the increasing instances of exposed rock in the Antarctic Peninsula all underscore a changing landscape. Associated Press writer Caleigh Wells contributed to this report from Cleveland. The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Climate
CO2
Water

How Sewage Can Be Used to Heat and Cool Buildings

Wastewater flushed down the drain can be used to heat and cool homes and buildings in a sustainable way and climate experts say it's an untapped source of energy due to its stable temperature of approximately 70°F

DENVER (AP) — When a massive event center was being developed in Denver, planners had to contend with two existing 6-foot (1.8 meters) wide sewer pipes that emptied into the river, creating an unsightly dilemma. Developers wanted to bury them. The utility said the wastewater needed to vent heat before entering the river.There, a problem became a solution.Thermal energy from the sewage now powers a system that heats and cools classrooms, an equestrian center and veterinary hospital at the National Western Center complex.It's a recent example of how wastewater flushed down the drain can heat and cool buildings in a sustainable way. Climate experts say sewage is a largely untapped source of energy due to its stable temperature of approximately 70 F (21 C). Wastewater heat recovery systems have already been installed in California, Washington, Colorado, New York and Canada. Pipes that transport sewage are already built, making it a low-cost and widely available resource that reduces the need for polluting energy sources.There's no odor since the thermal energy transfer systems keep the wastewater separate from other components.“Wastewater is the last frontier of sustainable energy,” said Aaron Miller, the eastern regional manager for SHARC Energy, adding: “Even in this current environment where environmental stuff doesn’t really sell, there’s a financial benefit that we can sell to business owners.”While the technology works in a variety of locations, the Denver complex was uniquely positioned because it’s close to major sewer lines in a low-lying industrial zone. The vast majority of the center's heating and cooling comes from wastewater heat recovery. During extremely hot or cold weather, cooling towers and boilers are used to fill in the gaps.“Every city on the planet has a place just like this,” said Brad Buchanan, the center's CEO. “This is actually a value, a benefit that the bottoms have that the rest of the city doesn’t have.” How heat from sewage can warm buildings Extracting the thermal energy starts with the water from toilets, showers and sinks traveling down usual sewage lines before flowing into a tank that is part of the heat recovery system. Heavy solids are separated and the remaining fluid flows through a heat exchanger, a sealed device with stacks of metal plates that can take heat from one source and put it into another.Thermal energy from the wastewater is transferred to a clean water loop without the liquids coming into contact. The clean water carrying the thermal energy is then sent into a heat pump that can heat or cool rooms, depending on the weather. It can also heat potable water. Once the thermal energy has been extracted, the wastewater flows back into the sewer system and eventually to a water treatment plant.The heat from the sewage replaces the need for energy from other sources to heat and cool buildings, such as electricity from the grid. Electricity is only needed to run the heat exchanger and pumps that move the water, far more energy efficient than boilers and chillers used in traditional HVAC systems. Where wastewater heating is being used Miller said the systems work best in buildings with centralized hot water production, such as apartments, commercial laundromats, car washes and factories. In residential settings, Miller said the technology is best suited for buildings with 50 or more apartment units. The technology works in various climates around the country. Some buildings supplement with traditional HVAC components.The technology utilizes existing city pipes, which reduces the need for construction compared to some types of renewable energy, said Ania Camargo Cortes, a thermal energy networks expert and board member of the nonprofit HEET (Home Energy Efficiency Team).“If you can use wastewater, it’s going to be an enormous savings ... its billions of kilowatts available to us to use,” said Camargo Cortes.According to 2005 data from the U.S. Department of Energy, the equivalent of 350 billion kilowatt-hours' worth of hot water is flushed down drains each year.In Vancouver, Canada, a wastewater heat recovery system helps supply heat and hot water to 47 buildings served by the False Creek Neighbourhood Energy Utility. In 2025, 60% of the energy the utility generated came from sewage heat recovery, said Mark Schwark, director of water and utilities management at the City of Vancouver. The future of wastewater heat recovery Aaron Brown, associate professor of systems engineering at Colorado State University, said he believes use of the wastewater heat recovery systems will grow because it is an efficient, low-carbon system that is relatively easy to install.Unlike solar or wind power that can vary by weather or time of day, thermal energy from sewage can be available whenever it's needed, Brown said.“I think that to decarbonize, we have to think of some innovative solutions. And this is one that is not that complicated as far as the engineering technology, but it’s very effective,” said Brown.Epic Cleantec, which makes water reuse systems for office and apartment buildings, is expanding into heat recovery after previously focusing on treating water for toilets and irrigation. The company recently installed a wastewater heat recovery system in a high-rise building in San Francisco.Aaron Tartakovsky, co-founder and CEO of Epic Cleantec, said people have been conditioned to think that wastewater is dirty and should always be discarded, but his company recently launched two beers in collaboration with a brewer made from recycled shower and laundry water to illustrate novel ways to reuse it.“I think wastewater recovery is going to be a continuously growing thing because it’s something that we’re not taking advantage of,” said Tartakovsky.Peterson reported from Denver and O’Malley from Philadelphia.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Climate
Energy
Sustainable

Warm Weather and Low Snowpack Bedevil Western Ski Resorts

Lack of snow is causing problems for ski resorts and other businesses in the Western U.S. that rely on wintry conditions

EDWARDS, Colo. (AP) — Ski resorts are struggling to open runs, walk-through ice palaces can’t be built, and the owner of a horse stable hopes that her customers will be satisfied with riding wagons instead of sleighs under majestic Rocky Mountain peaks. It’s just been too warm in the West with not enough snow.Meanwhile, the Midwest and Northeast have been blanketed by record snow this December, a payday for skiers who usually covet conditions out West.In the Western mountains where snow is crucial for ski tourism — not to mention water for millions of acres (hectares) of crops and the daily needs of tens of millions of people — much less snow than usual has piled up.“Mother Nature has been dealing a really hard deck,” said Kevin Cooper, president of the Kirkwood Ski Education Foundation, a ski racing organization at Lake Tahoe on the California-Nevada line.Only a small percentage of lifts were open and snow depths were well below average at Lake Tahoe resorts, just one example of warm weather causing well-below-average snowpack in almost all of the West.In Utah, warmth has indefinitely postponed this winter’s Midway Ice Castles, an attraction 45 minutes east of Salt Lake City that requires cold temperatures to freeze water into building-size, palatial features. Temperatures in the area that will host part of the 2034 Winter Olympics have averaged 7-10 degrees (3-5 degrees Celsius) above normal in recent weeks, according to the National Weather Service.Near Vail, Colorado, Bearcat Stables owner Nicole Godley hopes wagons will be a good-enough substitute for sleighs for rides through mountain scenery.“It’s the same experience, the same ride, the same horses,” Godley said. “It’s more about, you know, just these giant horses and the Western rustic feel.”In the Northwest, torrential rain has washed out roads and bridges and flooded homes. Heavy mountain snow finally arrived late this week in Washington state but flood-damaged roads that might not be fixed for months now block access to some ski resorts.In Oregon, the Upper Deschutes Basin has had the slowest start to snow accumulation in records dating to 1981. Oregon, Idaho and western Colorado had their warmest Novembers on record, with temperatures ranging from 6-8.5 degrees (2-4 degrees Celsius) warmer than average, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Continued warmth could bring yet another year of drought and wildfires to the West. Most of the region except large parts of Colorado and Oregon has seen decent precipitation but as rain instead of snow, pointed out NOAA drought information coordinator Jason Gerlich.That not only doesn’t help skiers but farmers, ranchers and people from Denver to Los Angeles who rely on snowpack water for their daily existence. Rain runs off all at once at times when it's not necessarily needed.“That snowpack is one of our largest reservoirs for water supply across the West,” Gerlich said.Climate scientists agree that limiting global warming is critical to staving off the snow-to-rain trend.In the northeastern U.S., meanwhile, below-normal temperatures have meant snow instead of rain. Parts of Vermont have almost triple and Ohio double the snowfall they had this time last year.Vermont’s Killington Resort and Pico Mountain, had about 100 trails open for “by far the best conditions I have ever seen for this time of year,” said Josh Reed, resort spokesman who has lived in Killington for a decade.New Hampshire ski areas opening early include Cannon Mountain, with over 50 inches (127 centimeters) to date. In northern Vermont, Elena Veatch, 31, already has cross-country skied more this fall than she has over the past two years.“I don’t take a good New England winter for granted with our warming climate,” Veatch said.Out West, it's still far too early to rule out hope for snow. A single big storm can “turn things around rather quickly,” pointed out Gerlich, the NOAA coordinator.Lake Tahoe's snow forecast over Thanksgiving week didn't pan out but Cooper with the ski racing group is eyeing possibly several feet (1-2 meters) in the long-term forecast.“That would be so cool!” Cooper said.Janie Har in San Francisco and Gene Johnson in Seattle contributed. Gruver reported from Fort Collins, Colorado. ___The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Climate
Education
Mountains

New York realizes it cannot afford its green promises

Up for reelection, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) distance herself from climate catastrophists.

New York’s crusade against gas stoves is being placed on the back burner: Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) recently delayed the implementation of a 2023 ban on running gas in new buildings before it took effect in January.That hasn’t been Hochul’s only climate backtrack. In November, she agreed to a Trump-backed gas pipeline, marking the Empire State’s first pipeline in at least a decade — and the first since they passed their hallmark climate law in 2019 requiring the state to cut carbon emissions 40 percent by 2030. Hochul also signed an agreement granting permits to a gas-powered crypto mining facility, on the condition the plant nearly halves its pollution by 2030.When asked in October about the mandate for no gas in new buildings, the governor said she’s “going to look at this with a very realistic approach and do what I can, because my number one focus is affordability.” Hochul’s U-turn is an admission that the anti-energy agenda pushed by far-left environmental groups was always unaffordable.Climate activists accuse Hochul of being a traitor, but maybe the governor has finally realized that there’s rarely any upside to pursuing unrealistic decarbonization plans. At the very least, it looks like she’s paying attention to voters during a reelection cycle. Polling shows 61 percent of New Yorkers — including 54 percent of Democrats — “somewhat” or “strongly” agree that keeping energy affordable in the state is more important right now than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.The state’s residential electricity prices have risen 36 percent since New York passed its decarbonization legislation in 2019, according to a Progressive Policy Institute study. That’s almost three times faster than the rest of the country. Still, nearly half of New York’s electricity is supplied by fossil fuels. That study concludes that New York’s energy strategy is driving up costs, constraining reliable supply and jeopardizing the political viability of the state’s climate agenda. Other blue states face similar pain.It’s no coincidence that most of the states with the highest prices also have the most ambitious decarbonization mandates. Even though the federal government can dish out all kinds of subsidies for renewable energy, the states largely get to regulate how they generate and sell their electricity.Florida has chosen to base its energy generation on reliability and affordability, instead of ideology. Despite intense energy demands driven by a subtropical climate, Florida’s electricity prices are two percent lower than the national average. The state gets about 75 percent of its energy from natural gas.Symbolic climate gestures please activists, but they become a political liability when the bills come due.

Climate
Activism
Government

Suggested Viewing

In Pursuit of Passive

Follows the construction of the first net-zero, passive house built in the Greater Tetons-Yellowstone region near Jackson, WY, while explaining the Passive House building approach for designing and constructing more sustainable buildings and exploring the many associated climate and energy performance benefits. Features the home’s designers – Lindsey Love and Lindsay Schack, co-founders of a sustainable architecture and design firm based out of Bozeman, MT and Driggs, ID – along with building and climate experts.

Energy
Solutions
Climate

TripleF***

The spirit of a movement that sometimes reminds us of our young revolutionary self, who still believed that he:she could change the world. This green filmed documentary mirrors the global situation and the diversity of climate change related activism.6 continents, 3 dozen filmmakers, countless activists and seasoned scientists. It is not about just one person but about many who stand up. TripleF*** is a documentary on the global climate movement, containing material from six continents (North - and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Antarctica), filmed green by cooperating film teams on site. The topic of climate activism itself as a protagonist takes us on a global journey to activists' lives and forms a dialogue within. Why did so many young people became activists? What is life as an activist like, how do they deal with political stagnation, harsh criticism and even threats and why do they still continue? Very personal but not private - to protect the activists' privacy, sensitive topics are woven in as a fictional part. This is the first of 5 Episodes. In this episode, which also stands for itself as a midlength film, the history of climate change related activism is highlighted. In its core spirit of a holistic approach, the project is been realized similarly to its topic of the climate activists' movement: independent, global, green.

Climate
Activism
Documentary

Evangelicals for Climate Action

This film introduces Evangelical Christians working for action on climate change and the environment. They explain how they became passionate about the environment, their fears about the future of our planet, and how their passion is based on their deep faith and love for creation. They call on all other Evangelicals to join them.

Climate
Culture

Inside The Grand Canyon

This guerrilla style documentary film captures a Colorado River rafting expedition through the Grand Canyon. Exhilarating and sometimes dangerous expeditions like this are not often considered when discussing global climate change but could be helpful to enlighten more folks about the changes to our planet. This rafting trip will soon be a thing of the past with record draughts continuing due to ongoing global climate change caused largely by humans. This is just a tiny slice of natures many warning signs of things to come. We find ourselves in a world of ongoing disbelief and hesitation in lieu of planning for the clear and present dangers from climate change. The Colorado River has already reached devastating levels for communities that depend on the water and electrical power resource. Government study in 2022 showed that Lake Powell could reach ""dead pool"" by 2023. There is no plan to mitigate the catastrophe that will leave over a million and a half people with no electricity.

Water
Climate
Sustainable

A Whale's Worth

The Canary Islands are a whale Paradise. Their waters hold more than a third of the world’s species, making it the most important enclave in the European Union, and one of the most relevant globally.Today, this paradise is being threatened by different human pressures, such as boat collisions, plastic consumption and climate change. This struggle aggravates their mortality each year and makes us face ourselves as the ones responsible for their survival, forcing us to rethink how much we value these animals currently.How much is a whale worth? Can you put a price on the life of such a majestic animal? How can we estimate that value? How has the value that human beings give to whales changed throughout history? What are whales used and needed for?To answer all these questions, Natacha Aguilar, an eminent Canarian scientist and whale expert, backed up by a group of scientists and non-profit organizations, will guide us in a spectacular journey through time and space to discover the never-told stories of the lives of these animals.

Animals
Culture
Climate

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.