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.

Global carbon emissions inch upwards in 2024 despite progress on EVs, renewables and deforestation

News Feed
Wednesday, November 13, 2024

Susan Santa Maria, ShutterstockCarbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase, year on year. This sobering reality will be presented to world leaders today at the international climate conference COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Our latest annual stocktake shows the world is on track to reach a new record: 37.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ emitted from fossil fuels in 2024. This is an increase of 0.8% from the previous year. Adopting renewable energy and electric vehicles is helping reduce emissions in 22 countries. But it’s not enough to compensate for ongoing global growth in fossil fuels. There were also signs in 2023 suggesting natural systems may struggle to capture and store as much CO₂ in the future as they have in the past. While humanity is tackling deforestation and the growth in fossil CO₂ emissions is slowing, the need to reach an immediate peak and decline in global emissions has never been so acute. The Global Carbon Project The Global Carbon Budget is an annual planetary account of carbon sources and sinks, which soak up carbon dioxide and remove it from the atmosphere. We include anthropogenic sources from human activities such as burning fossil fuels or making cement as well as natural sources such as bushfires. When it comes to CO₂ sinks, we consider all the ways carbon may be taken out of the atmosphere. This includes plants using CO₂ to grow and CO₂ being absorbed by the ocean. Some of this happens naturally and some is being actively encouraged by human activity. Putting all the available data on sources and sinks together each year is a huge international effort involving 86 research organisations, including Australia’s CSIRO. We also use computer models and statistical approaches to fill out the remaining months to the end of the year. Fossil fuel emissions up This year’s growth in carbon emissions from fossil fuels is mainly from fossil gas and oil, rather than coal. Fossil gas carbon emissions grew by 2.4%, signalling a return to the strong long-term growth rates observed before the COVID pandemic. Gas emissions grew in most large countries, but declined across the European Union. Oil carbon emissions grew by 0.9% overall, pushed up by a rise in emissions from international aviation and from India. The rebound in international air travel pushed aviation carbon emissions up 13.5% in 2024, although it’s still 3.5% below the pre-COVID 2019 level. Meanwhile, oil emissions from the United States and China are declining. It’s possible oil emissions have peaked in China, driven by growth in electric vehicles. Coal carbon emissions went up by 0.2%, with strong growth in India, small growth in China, a moderate decline in the US, and a large decline in the European Union. Coal use in the US is now at its lowest level in 120 years. The United Kingdom closed its last coal power plant in 2024, 142 years after the first one was opened. With strong growth in wind energy replacing coal, the UK CO₂ emissions have almost been cut in half since 1990. Changing land use Carbon emissions also come from land clearing and degradation. But some of that CO₂ can be taken up again by planting trees. So we need to examine both sources and sinks on land. Global net CO₂ emissions from land use change averaged 4.1 billion tonnes a year over the past decade (2014–23). This year is likely to be slightly higher than average with 4.2 billion tonnes, due to drought and fires in the Amazon. That amount represents about 10% of all emissions from human activities, the rest owing to fossil fuels. Importantly, total carbon emissions – the sum of fossil fuel emissions and land-use change emissions – have largely plateaued over the past decade, but are still projected to reach a record of just over 41 billion tonnes in 2024. The plateau in 2014–23 follows a decade of significant growth in total emissions of 2% per year on average between 2004 and 2013. This shows humanity is tackling deforestation and the growth of fossil CO₂ emissions is slowing. However, this is not enough to put global emissions on a downward trajectory. Annual CO₂ emissions continue to increase, reaching a record high in 2024. The shaded area around each line shows the uncertainty in the estimates. Global Carbon Project, CC BY More countries are cutting emissions – but many more to go Fossil CO₂ emissions decreased in 22 countries as their economies grew. These countries are mainly from the European Union, along with the United States. Together they represent 23% of global fossil CO₂ emissions over the past decade (2014–23). This number is up from 18 countries during the previous decade (2004–13). New countries in this list include Norway, New Zealand and South Korea. In Norway, emissions from road transport declined as the share of electric vehicles in the passenger car fleet grew – the highest in the world at over 25% – and biofuels replaced fossil petrol and diesel. Even greater reductions in emissions have come from Norway’s oil and gas sector, where gas turbines on offshore platforms are being upgraded to electric. In New Zealand, emissions from the power sector are declining. Traditionally the country has had a high share of hydropower, supplemented with coal and natural gas. But now wind and particularly geothermal energy is driving fossil generation down. We are projecting further emissions growth of 0.2% in China, albeit small and with some uncertainty (including the possibility of no growth or even slight decline). China added more solar panels in 2023 than the US did in its entire history. Individual country emissions vary widely, but there are some signs of progress towards decarbonisation. Global Carbon Budget 2024/Global Carbon Project, CC BY-ND Nature shows troubling signs In the 1960s, our activities emitted an average of 16 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year globally. About half of these emissions (8 billion tonnes) were naturally removed from the atmosphere by forests and oceans. Over the past decade, emissions from human activities reached about 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year. Again, about half of these emissions (20 billion tonnes) were removed. In the absence of these natural sinks, current warming would already be well above 2°C. But there’s a limit to how much nature can help. In 2023, the carbon uptake on land dropped 28% from the decadal average. Global record temperatures, drought in the Amazon and unprecedented wildfires in the forests of Canada were to blame, along with an El Niño event. As climate change continues, with rising ocean temperatures and more climate extremes on land, we expect the CO₂ sinks to become less efficient. But for now, we expect last year’s land sink decline will recover to a large degree as the El Niño event has subsided. About half of the CO₂ emissions were removed from the atmosphere by forests and oceans. When we tally up all of the sources compared to the sinks, the budget should balance. We find a slight imbalance of 1.6Gt/year due to limitations of the data. Global Carbon Budget 2024/Global Carbon Project, CC BY Looking ahead Our latest carbon budget shows global fossil fuel emissions continue to increase, further delaying the peak in emissions. Global CO₂ emissions continue to track in the middle of the range of scenarios developed by the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We have yet to bend the emissions curve into the 1.5–2°C warming territory of the Paris Agreement. This comes at a time when it’s clear we need to be reducing emissions, to avoid worsening climate change. We also identified some positive signs, such as the rapid adoption of renewable energy and electric cars as they become cheaper and more accessible, supporting the march toward a net-zero emissions pathway. But turning these trends into global decarbonisation requires a far greater level of ambition and action. Pep Canadell receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program - Climate Systems Hub. Corinne Le Quéré receives funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the UK Royal Society. She was granted a research donation by Schmidt Futures (project CALIPSO – Carbon Loss In Plants, Soils and Oceans). Corinne Le Quéré is a member of the UK Climate Change Committee. Her position here is her own and does not necessarily reflect that of the Committee. Glen Peters receives funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme.Judith Hauck receives funding from the European Research Council (OceanPeak) and the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation program (OceanICU – Improving Carbon Understanding). The work reflects only the authors' view; the European Commission and their executive agency are not responsible for any use that may be made.Julia Pongratz receives funding from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.Pierre Friedlingstein receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Robbie Andrew receives funding from the Norwegian Environment Agency and the European Union's Horizon Europe.

As world leaders gather at COP29 to consider reducing emissions, the latest global carbon budget shows CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels are still going up, not down, despite some promising signs.

Susan Santa Maria, Shutterstock

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase, year on year. This sobering reality will be presented to world leaders today at the international climate conference COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Our latest annual stocktake shows the world is on track to reach a new record: 37.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ emitted from fossil fuels in 2024. This is an increase of 0.8% from the previous year.

Adopting renewable energy and electric vehicles is helping reduce emissions in 22 countries. But it’s not enough to compensate for ongoing global growth in fossil fuels.

There were also signs in 2023 suggesting natural systems may struggle to capture and store as much CO₂ in the future as they have in the past. While humanity is tackling deforestation and the growth in fossil CO₂ emissions is slowing, the need to reach an immediate peak and decline in global emissions has never been so acute.

The Global Carbon Project

The Global Carbon Budget is an annual planetary account of carbon sources and sinks, which soak up carbon dioxide and remove it from the atmosphere.

We include anthropogenic sources from human activities such as burning fossil fuels or making cement as well as natural sources such as bushfires.

When it comes to CO₂ sinks, we consider all the ways carbon may be taken out of the atmosphere. This includes plants using CO₂ to grow and CO₂ being absorbed by the ocean. Some of this happens naturally and some is being actively encouraged by human activity.

Putting all the available data on sources and sinks together each year is a huge international effort involving 86 research organisations, including Australia’s CSIRO. We also use computer models and statistical approaches to fill out the remaining months to the end of the year.

Fossil fuel emissions up

This year’s growth in carbon emissions from fossil fuels is mainly from fossil gas and oil, rather than coal.

Fossil gas carbon emissions grew by 2.4%, signalling a return to the strong long-term growth rates observed before the COVID pandemic. Gas emissions grew in most large countries, but declined across the European Union.

Oil carbon emissions grew by 0.9% overall, pushed up by a rise in emissions from international aviation and from India.

The rebound in international air travel pushed aviation carbon emissions up 13.5% in 2024, although it’s still 3.5% below the pre-COVID 2019 level.

Meanwhile, oil emissions from the United States and China are declining. It’s possible oil emissions have peaked in China, driven by growth in electric vehicles.

Coal carbon emissions went up by 0.2%, with strong growth in India, small growth in China, a moderate decline in the US, and a large decline in the European Union. Coal use in the US is now at its lowest level in 120 years.

The United Kingdom closed its last coal power plant in 2024, 142 years after the first one was opened. With strong growth in wind energy replacing coal, the UK CO₂ emissions have almost been cut in half since 1990.

Changing land use

Carbon emissions also come from land clearing and degradation. But some of that CO₂ can be taken up again by planting trees. So we need to examine both sources and sinks on land.

Global net CO₂ emissions from land use change averaged 4.1 billion tonnes a year over the past decade (2014–23). This year is likely to be slightly higher than average with 4.2 billion tonnes, due to drought and fires in the Amazon. That amount represents about 10% of all emissions from human activities, the rest owing to fossil fuels.

Importantly, total carbon emissions – the sum of fossil fuel emissions and land-use change emissions – have largely plateaued over the past decade, but are still projected to reach a record of just over 41 billion tonnes in 2024.

The plateau in 2014–23 follows a decade of significant growth in total emissions of 2% per year on average between 2004 and 2013. This shows humanity is tackling deforestation and the growth of fossil CO₂ emissions is slowing. However, this is not enough to put global emissions on a downward trajectory.

Chart showing annual carbon dioxide emissions over time, comparing emissions overall (increasing) to fossil carbon (increasing) and land use change (decreasing)
Annual CO₂ emissions continue to increase, reaching a record high in 2024. The shaded area around each line shows the uncertainty in the estimates. Global Carbon Project, CC BY

More countries are cutting emissions – but many more to go

Fossil CO₂ emissions decreased in 22 countries as their economies grew. These countries are mainly from the European Union, along with the United States. Together they represent 23% of global fossil CO₂ emissions over the past decade (2014–23).

This number is up from 18 countries during the previous decade (2004–13). New countries in this list include Norway, New Zealand and South Korea.

In Norway, emissions from road transport declined as the share of electric vehicles in the passenger car fleet grew – the highest in the world at over 25% – and biofuels replaced fossil petrol and diesel. Even greater reductions in emissions have come from Norway’s oil and gas sector, where gas turbines on offshore platforms are being upgraded to electric.

In New Zealand, emissions from the power sector are declining. Traditionally the country has had a high share of hydropower, supplemented with coal and natural gas. But now wind and particularly geothermal energy is driving fossil generation down.

We are projecting further emissions growth of 0.2% in China, albeit small and with some uncertainty (including the possibility of no growth or even slight decline). China added more solar panels in 2023 than the US did in its entire history.

CO₂ emissions by individual and groups of countries from 1960 to 2024
Individual country emissions vary widely, but there are some signs of progress towards decarbonisation. Global Carbon Budget 2024/Global Carbon Project, CC BY-ND

Nature shows troubling signs

In the 1960s, our activities emitted an average of 16 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year globally. About half of these emissions (8 billion tonnes) were naturally removed from the atmosphere by forests and oceans.

Over the past decade, emissions from human activities reached about 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year. Again, about half of these emissions (20 billion tonnes) were removed.

In the absence of these natural sinks, current warming would already be well above 2°C. But there’s a limit to how much nature can help.

In 2023, the carbon uptake on land dropped 28% from the decadal average. Global record temperatures, drought in the Amazon and unprecedented wildfires in the forests of Canada were to blame, along with an El Niño event.

As climate change continues, with rising ocean temperatures and more climate extremes on land, we expect the CO₂ sinks to become less efficient. But for now, we expect last year’s land sink decline will recover to a large degree as the El Niño event has subsided.

Illustrated ledger showing carbon sources against sinks in the global carbon budget
About half of the CO₂ emissions were removed from the atmosphere by forests and oceans. When we tally up all of the sources compared to the sinks, the budget should balance. We find a slight imbalance of 1.6Gt/year due to limitations of the data. Global Carbon Budget 2024/Global Carbon Project, CC BY

Looking ahead

Our latest carbon budget shows global fossil fuel emissions continue to increase, further delaying the peak in emissions. Global CO₂ emissions continue to track in the middle of the range of scenarios developed by the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We have yet to bend the emissions curve into the 1.5–2°C warming territory of the Paris Agreement.

This comes at a time when it’s clear we need to be reducing emissions, to avoid worsening climate change.

We also identified some positive signs, such as the rapid adoption of renewable energy and electric cars as they become cheaper and more accessible, supporting the march toward a net-zero emissions pathway. But turning these trends into global decarbonisation requires a far greater level of ambition and action.

The Conversation

Pep Canadell receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program - Climate Systems Hub.

Corinne Le Quéré receives funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the UK Royal Society. She was granted a research donation by Schmidt Futures (project CALIPSO – Carbon Loss In Plants, Soils and Oceans). Corinne Le Quéré is a member of the UK Climate Change Committee. Her position here is her own and does not necessarily reflect that of the Committee.

Glen Peters receives funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme.

Judith Hauck receives funding from the European Research Council (OceanPeak) and the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation program (OceanICU – Improving Carbon Understanding). The work reflects only the authors' view; the European Commission and their executive agency are not responsible for any use that may be made.

Julia Pongratz receives funding from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Pierre Friedlingstein receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme

Robbie Andrew receives funding from the Norwegian Environment Agency and the European Union's Horizon Europe.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The Major NJ Wildfire Shows Unexpected Urban Areas Are at Risk

A forest fire that erupted in New Jersey and spread overnight highlights the major wildfire risk faced by the state and other urban areas

Why New Jersey Is Actually a Place with Major Wildfire RiskA forest fire that erupted in New Jersey and spread overnight highlights the major wildfire risk faced by the state and other urban areasBy Stephanie Pappas edited by Jeanna BrynerFirefighters try to extinguish a fast-moving brush fire along on November 19, 2024 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesA forest fire that erupted in New Jersey yesterday morning was spurred by winds and dry weather, fulfilling a prediction by state officials that the state would see an active fire season this spring.The Jones Road Fire has burned 12,000 acres, more than the average area burned by wildfires in the state in an entire year. A drought warning has been in effect in New Jersey since November 2024, which means that many drought status indicators, such as current drinking water supplies, are below normal. And after a busy fall fire season, spring kicked off with an above-average number of fires as well. The Jones Road Fire, which forced evacuations in Ocean County, New Jersey, threatened hundreds of homes and businesses in a populated area.How Did the New Jersey Fire Spread?On 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.State fire officials have not yet determined the cause of the fire, but it grew in dry, windy conditions. The blaze started at the edge of the Pinelands, a region of pine forests known for its wildfire risk. In fact, the Pinelands’ landscape has been shaped by fire—if it didn’t regularly burn, the ecosystem would transition into an oak forest, says David Robinson, New Jersey’s state climatologist and a professor at Rutgers University.“Traditionally, spring is fire season down in the Pinelands, so as far as seasonal timing to this fire, there’s nothing unusual,” Robinson says. “The fact that [the fire] spread so quickly may be a testament to the fact that it hasn’t rained in over 10 days.”Because of New Jersey’s population density, the state experiences a lot of what research ecologist Michael Gallagher of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Research Station calls “interface fires,” which are fires that start where human habitation bumps up against wildland. “Fires as small as an acre frequently threaten homes,” Gallagher says.But the Jones Road fire moved quickly into an exurb-type environment with numerous buildings in its path. Wind-borne embers sped the fire along, starting spot fires that ignited new blazes, Gallagher says. His research has shown that in the spring, the sun tends to heat the south side of pine trees in the forests of the Pinelands, causing the bark to dry and curl. These curls ignite easily in a fire. Winds blowing from the north are then well poised to catch these tiny flaming brands, blowing them ahead of the main fire.How Did New Jersey’s Drought Worsen Fire Conditions?October 2024 was the driest month in the state in 130 years, Robinson says. Though fires generally peak in spring in New Jersey, it saw a busy fire season in the fall, as did much of the Northeast.Winter brought some relief. This year, however, New Jersey’s fire season, which typically starts in March, began in earnest in January, state officials said in a March 3 news conference. Between January 1 and March 3, the state saw 214 fires burn through 514 acres, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection reported. In comparison, 69 fires burned 21 acres during the same period in 2024.“We’re continuing just where we left off last year,” said state fire chief Bill Donnelly in the briefing.Precipitation improved somewhat in March and April, Robinson says, but it hasn’t recovered to the point that the state is out of the drought. “The news is all kind of good, but we still have to remember we are in a drought warning,” he says. And while the overall trend has been toward more moisture, the Pinelands area had been going through a mini dry spell before the fire began, with almost two weeks without rain, he says. The sandy soil and pine needles in the regions don’t hold on to water for long.“This area dries out very quickly,” Robinson says.That means the weather was ripe for fire, and wind gusts of up to 25 miles per hour quickly whipped the fire toward inhabited areas.“Last night [the fire] was on the eastern end of the Pinelands, near the [Garden State] Parkway, and it hopped the Parkway and headed toward the coast in a populated area. So [this was] a real worrisome situation,” Robinson says.How Will Climate Change Affect New Jersey’s Fire Risk?Wildfires are aggressively managed in New Jersey, with prescribed burns to reduce fuel and quick suppression when fires do ignite, Robinson says. These evolving actions should tamp down any climate-change-related increase in risk and make it difficult to compare the state’s fire outlook with a preindustrial “normal.” New Jersey has a history of large fires, including a multiple-fire outbreak in 1963 known as Black Saturday, which burned 183,000 acres and killed seven people.Long-term projections suggest the state will get a little wetter in a warming world, though rain is not expected to become more frequent, but rather will likely be heavier when it does fall. Warming temperatures could nudge the state’s fire risk a little bit higher as fuels dry out faster, however.“Things become volatile pretty quickly,” Robinson says.

A Sequoia Forest in Detroit? Plantings to Improve Air Quality and Mark Earth Day

Arborists are hoping to transform vacant land on Detroit’s eastside by planting giant sequoias, the world’s largest trees

DETROIT (AP) — Arborists are turning vacant land on Detroit's eastside into a small urban forest, not of elms, oaks and red maples indigenous to the city but giant sequoias, the world's largest trees that can live for thousands of years.The project on four lots will not only replace long-standing blight with majestic trees, but could also improve air quality and help preserve the trees that are native to California’s Sierra Nevada, where they are threatened by ever-hotter wildfires.Detroit is the pilot city for the Giant Sequoia Filter Forest. The nonprofit Archangel Ancient Tree Archive is donating dozens of sequoia saplings that will be planted by staff and volunteers from Arboretum Detroit, another nonprofit, to mark Earth Day on April 22.Co-founder David Milarch says Archangel also plans to plant sequoias in Los Angeles, Oakland, California, and London. The massive conifers can grow to more than 300 feet (90 meters) tall with a more than 30-foot (9-meter) circumference at the base. They can live for more than 3,000 years.“Here’s a tree that is bigger than your house when it’s mature, taller than your buildings, and lives longer than you can comprehend,” said Andrew “Birch” Kemp, Arboretum Detroit's executive director.The sequoias will eventually provide a full canopy that protects everything beneath, he said.“It may be sad to call these .5- and 1-acre treescapes forests,” Kemp said. “We are expanding on this and shading our neighborhood in the only way possible, planting lots of trees.”Giant sequoias are resilient against disease and insects, and are usually well-adapted to fire. Thick bark protects their trunks and their canopies tend to be too high for flames to reach. But climate change is making the big trees more vulnerable to wildfires out West, Kemp said.“The fires are getting so hot that its even threatening them,” he said. Descendants of Stagg and Waterfall Archangel, based in Copemish, Michigan, preserves the genetics of old-growth trees for research and reforestation. The sequoia saplings destined for Detroit are clones of two giants known as Stagg — the world's fifth-largest tree — and Waterfall, of the Alder Creek grove, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) north of Los Angeles.In 2010, Archangel began gathering cones and climbers scaled high into the trees to gather new-growth clippings from which they were able to develop and grow saplings.Sequoias need space, and metropolitan Detroit has plenty of it.In the 1950s, 1.8 million people called Detroit home, but the city's population has since shrunk to about one-third of that number. Tens of thousands of homes were left empty and neglected.“There’s not another urban area I know of that has the kind of potential that we do to reforest," he said. “We could all live in shady, fresh air beauty. It's like no reason we can’t be the greenest city in the world.”Within the last decade, 11 sequoias were planted on vacant lots owned by Arboretum Detroit and nine others were planted on private properties around the neighborhood. Each now reaches 12 to 15 feet (3.6 to 4.5 meters) tall. Arboretum Detroit has another 200 in its nursery. Kemp believes the trees will thrive in Detroit.“They’re safer here ... we don’t have wildfires like (California). The soil stays pretty moist, even in the summer,” he said. “They like to have that winter irrigation, so when the snow melts they can get a good drink.” How will the sequoias impact Detroit? Caring for the sequoias will fall to future generations, so Milarch has instigated what he calls “tree school” to teach Detroit’s youth how and why to look after the new trees.“We empower our kids to teach them how to do this and give them the materials and the way to do this themselves,” Milarch said. “They take ownership. They grow them in the classrooms and plant them around the schools. They know we’re in environmental trouble.”Some of them may never have even walked in a forest, Kemp said.“How can we expect children who have never seen a forest to care about deforestation on the other side of the world?" Kemp said. "It is our responsibility to offer them their birthright.”City residents are exposed to extreme air pollution and have high rates of asthma. The Detroit sequoias will grow near a heavily industrial area, a former incinerator and two interstates, he said.Kemp’s nonprofit has already planted about 650 trees — comprising around 80 species — in some 40 lots in the area. But he believes the sequoias will have the greatest impact.“Because these trees grow so fast, so large and they’re evergreen they’ll do amazing work filtering the air here,” Kemp said. “We live in pretty much a pollution hot spot. We’re trying to combat that. We’re trying to breathe clean air. We’re trying to create shade. We’re trying to soak up the stormwater, and I think sequoias — among all the trees we plant — may be the strongest, best candidates for that.”Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Banned DDT discovered in Canadian trout 70 years after use, research finds

Potential danger to humans and wildlife from harmful pesticide discovered in fish at 10 times safety limitResidues of the insecticide DDT have been found to persist at “alarming rates” in trout even after 70 years, potentially posing a significant danger to humans and wildlife that eat the fish, research has found.Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, known as DDT, was used on forested land in New Brunswick, Canada, from 1952 to 1968. The researchers found traces of it remained in brook trout in some lakes, often at levels 10 times higher than the recommended safety threshold for wildlife. Continue reading...

Residues of the insecticide DDT have been found to persist at “alarming rates” in trout even after 70 years, potentially posing a significant danger to humans and wildlife that eat the fish, research has found.Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, known as DDT, was used on forested land in New Brunswick, Canada, from 1952 to 1968. The researchers found traces of it remained in brook trout in some lakes, often at levels 10 times higher than the recommended safety threshold for wildlife.“DDT is a probable carcinogen that we haven’t used in 70 years here [Canada], yet it’s abundant in fish and lake mud throughout much of the province at shockingly high levels,” said Josh Kurek, an associate professor in environmental change and aquatic biomonitoring at Mount Allison University in Canada and lead author of the research.The research, published in the journal Plos One, discovered that DDT pollution covers about 50% of New Brunswick province. Brook trout is the most common wild fish caught in the region, and the research found DDT was present in its muscle tissue, in some cases 10 times above the recommended Canadian wildlife guidelines.Researchers said DDT, which is classified by health authorities as a“probable carcinogen”, can persist in lake mud for decades after treatment and that many lakes in New Brunswick retain such high levels of legacy DDT that the sediments are a key source of pollution in the food web.“The public, especially vulnerable populations to contaminants such as women of reproductive age and children, need to be aware of exposure risk to legacy DDT through consumption of wild fish,” said Kurek.Throughout the 1950s and 60s, half the province’s conifer forests were sprayed with DDT, a synthetic insecticide used to control insects carrying diseases such as malaria and typhus. Canada banned the use of the substance in the 1980s.The 2001 Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants banned DDT worldwide for mass agricultural use, although it is still permitted in small quantities for malaria control.“This mess can’t be cleaned up,” said Kurek. “DDTs can persist in lake mud for decades to centuries and then cycle in the food web. The best approach is to manage the public’s exposure of legacy DDTs by encouraging everyone to follow fish consumption guidelines and consider reducing exposure.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Our findings are a clear wake-up call to abandon our overreliance on synthetic chemicals. Lessons need to be learned so we don’t repeat past mistakes. Our study hopefully informs on other contaminants that we apply broadly today, such as road salt and herbicides like glyphosate. We absolutely need to do things differently or our ecosystems will continue to face a lifetime of pollution.”

Portland City Council moves to reject controversial PGE Forest Park transmission project

The Portland City Council moved Thursday to reject a PGE transmission upgrade project in Forest Park that would require the utility to clearcut more than 370 trees on about 5 acres in the park.

The Portland City Council moved Thursday to reject a Portland General Electric transmission upgrade project in Forest Park that would require the utility to clearcut more than 370 trees on about 5 acres in the park. The decision Thursday night – described as “tentative” until a final vote on May 7 – came after councilors considered appeals by the Forest Park Conservancy and Forest Park Neighborhood Association to overturn a city of Portland hearings officer approval in March of PGE’s proposal. The vote followed five hours of presentations and public testimony and directs city attorneys to write an ordinance to grant the appeals and overturn the hearings officer’s decision. PGE can appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. PGE wants to rewire a 1970s transmission line and add a second line in the utility’s existing right-of-way and said the upgrade will address an increase in the region’s energy demand and prevent rolling blackouts in North and Northwest Portland. A report from Portland’s Permitting and Development Office in January recommended that the hearings officer turn down PGE’s project due to non-compliance with environmental standards and the city’s Forest Park management plan. But hearings officer Marisha Childs last month went against those recommendations, agreeing with PGE about the need for the project and finding that routing through Forest Park “is the least environmentally detrimental option” of all the alternatives PGE analyzed. The two groups that filed the appeals said PGE failed to meet city approval criteria and that project would set a precedent for further development in the park. PGE’s proposal had touched off a months-long clash between the utility and opponents who seek to protect the trees in the 5,200-acre park because they provide valuable habitat for countless wildlife species and climate benefits to all city residents. More than 3,000 people filed testimony about the project, including over 1,000 who sent in comments ahead of the appeals hearing, with the vast majority against the upgrade. Several hundred protesters gathered at City Hall before the hearing. They held cardboard cutouts of trees, animals and insects and signs that read “Save Forest Park,” “No more ecocide” and “You have to be nuts to destroy Forest Park.” A protester at Portland City Hall holds a sign opposing PGE's transmission upgrade project in Forest Park ahead of a City Council appeals hearing. Beth Nakamura“It’s important to have more energy transmission infrastructure, power lines and responsive grids, yet this is one of the situations where it is very clear there is no ambiguity. PGE can build this project elsewhere in order to keep the lights on,” Damon Motz-Storey, the Sierra Club Oregon chapter’s director, told the crowd. “These trees have been standing since before we even had electricity in homes.”Motz-Storey then led the rally in a chant: “Listen to the people and the trees, not PGE.” Protesters and park advocates filled the council chambers and two overflow rooms, testifying one after another that the PGE project runs counter to the city’s plan to sustain an old-growth forest in Forest Park and asking for the council to save the trees and protect the park. Protesters at Portland City Hall listen as the City Council considers the appeals on PGE's controversial Forest Park transmission project. Beth Nakamura“This project is unacceptable to us and the community and the critters and plants that depend on us to say no to cutting trees, building roads, bulldozing, filling in wetlands and streams and saying this is good for climate resilience,” said Scott Fogarty, executive director with Forest Park Conservancy, the group that filed one of the appeals. The conservancy formed to maintain trails and restore native habitat in the park. Fogarty said PGE’s proposed plan to offset losses from the upgrade does not address cutting down 100-year-old trees and the benefits they bring. The mitigation proposal includes planting Oregon white oak seedlings near the project area, seeding the transmission corridor and access road edges with a pollinator-friendly native seed mix and paying a fee to the city to remove invasive species in the park. He also said the upgrade would pave the way for city approval of future phases of the project in Forest Park and lead to more tree removal. PGE has said those future phases could affect another 15 acres of the park. “Is 5 acres acceptable? Is 20 acres acceptable? Where do we draw the line?” Fogarty asked the council members. “One could argue losing just one 100-year-old tree is unacceptable, let alone 5 acres. In the age of climate resilience, this project flies in the face of retaining carbon suckers in a region that is seeing increased impacts from climate change, including potential fire danger.” PGE argued before the council that the project area is neither old nor ancient forest and that the maintenance of existing transmission lines is key to preserving blackout-free electricity. A proposal by Portland General Electric to cut more than 370 trees in Forest Park to upgrade transmission lines has spurred opposition. The utility and renewable energy proponents say the upgrades are needed to address transmission bottlenecks and fulfill state clean energy mandates.courtesy of Portland General Electric“Alleviating this choke point is important because our experts predict that as early as 2028 there is the risk of outages during times of peak demand,” said Randy Franks, a senior project manager for PGE. “Think about the hottest part of the day, during an ongoing heat wave, with no fans and no air conditioning.”Franks said the more than 20 alternatives PGE examined were not practical, would require the utility to take property through eminent domain, would take too much time or cost too much – and could lead to similar or even greater negative impacts to trees and wildlife outside the park. He said the city’s Forest Park management plan acknowledges the existence of utility corridors and the need to maintain and upgrade them over time and that doing so will help reduce global warming.“If we are serious about combating climate change, we simply have to improve the grid, keep it reliable and increase transmission capacity,” Franks said. Only a handful of people testified in favor of PGE’s plans. “Utilities around the country, including ours, are facing the most rapid load increases in a generation and concomitant reliability challenges. At the same time, our state is laboring to remove from the grid the coal and gas plants that are fueling climate change locally,” said Angus Duncan, the former chair of the Northwest Conservation and Power Planning Council, a group tasked with developing and maintaining a regional power plan. “We need to rebuild the power system to exclude fossil generation.” Council members Angelita Morillo and Steve Novick questioned the assertion that PGE’s proposal would help combat climate change. Novick also asked why PGE did not provide more evidence as to why the transmission upgrades are needed by 2028, not at a later date. Other councilors said they did not feel PGE had proved an alternative outside the park was unfeasible and did not present a compelling mitigation plan. And most of the 12 council members said they disagreed with PGE and the hearings officer that the proposal meets the parameters of the park’s management plan. “Ultimately, I think what has been proposed is probably the best option in the park,” said Councilor Eric Zimmerman. But, he said, nothing in PGE’s proposal showed that the council should overrule the Forest Park management plan. “I don’t think the standard has been met to not follow that plan,” Zimmerman said.Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney agreed. “If an alternative (to the project) exists, we should not be granting an exception,” she said. Councilor Dan Ryan said the decision will likely be one of many to pit the needs for clean electricity against those of protecting the environment. “Portland will be having more and more tough decisions that include extremely difficult trade-offs. This is just where we are in managing the climate crisis,” Ryan said. “I think PGE worked really hard to find the best option and yet we all want a different option.” That’s because, he added, he – like other Portlanders – loves the park and its trees. “Forest Park is a cathedral,” Ryan said. “And maybe it’s Holy Week and I’m just treating this in a very spiritual way, but it’s just really difficult for me to think I could take a vote that would on the appearance be about deforesting Forest Park during this sacred week.” — Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

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.