“I always considered myself an activist,” said neighbor Brett Garrett, who scaled the tree Tuesday morning. “And I like trees in general, but I didn’t consider myself to be a tree activist until the last week.”

The madrone, thought to have been planted about 10 years ago, looms over a patio at the neighboring Walnut Commons, a cohousing building. It had been slated for removal Tuesday by one of the office building’s tenants — the nonprofit Ecology Action — to make way for an electric bike storage shed.

According to Heather Henricks with Ecology Action, the placement of the shed was in the works for the past year, and the tree’s welfare was considered, but its existence was seen by the nonprofit’s leadership as a possible nuisance to the neighbors.

“We gave considerable thought to the site and whether to remove the tree,” Henricks told the Sentinel. “Until the past week, we were under the impression from Walnut Commons residents that they would welcome the tree’s removal due to complaints about its droppings on their patios and the possibility of thieves using it to climb over the divider between our properties.”

But about a week ago, while on the patio, some Walnut Commons residents overheard the office building’s property manager talking about the tree’s removal. The news spread quickly to other residents, including Garrett, who has lived in the building since it was built nearly 10 years ago, on the block kitty-corner from Santa Cruz City Hall.

“The word spread like wildfire through the building and everyone felt really alarmed about possibly losing this tree,” said Garrett. “It’s right next to our patio and it feels like part of our environment even though it is on their property.”

The neighbors put together a petition opposing the madrone’s removal and nearly every resident of the building signed it —  23 signatures. Garrett said he and his neighbors thought the tree’s removal was being facilitated by Cruzio Internet, another of the building’s tenants, and were surprised to discover that it was Ecology Action. After creating the petition, the residents reached out to the nonprofit.

“In the face of today’s mounting climate crisis, we need passionate environmentalists more than ever,” said Henricks. “We were deeply touched to learn that our neighbors felt a strong connection to the strawberry madrone tree and were moved to request we adjust the plan.”

As of Monday afternoon, the removal was still slated to go ahead.  Garrett, who said his activism is usually centered around environmental issues such as clean energy and transportation, decided that he had to take extreme action. Around 7 a.m. Tuesday, he climbed the tree — inspired in part by Julia Butterfly Hill, who in the late 1990s lived for more than two years in an old-growth redwood tree in Humboldt County to prevent it from being cut down.

“I don’t know how many weeks she spent up in that tree,” said Garrett. “I was prepared to spend a few hours.”

Garrett said that climbing the tree was an empowering experience and as he perched there Tuesday morning he felt peaceful. After about two hours, Ecology Action Chief Operating Officer Chuck Tremper gave him some good news.

“He drove into the parking lot and noticed me in the tree and came over and said that you might want to know the tree is not coming down,” said Garrett. “I was very relieved.”

Garrett mentioned that being an activist doesn’t always mean that one’s actions result in an intended outcome and that he was excited that the neighbors’ efforts saved the tree.

“The usual experience as an activist is that you work on things and bang on walls and nothing ever changes,” said Garrett. “This felt really gratifying to work on this for just a few days with a good cohort of other people and actually save the tree. It shows me that activism is really worthwhile and you can really make a difference.”

After Garrett safely descended the madrone and returned home Tuesday, Tremper sent a message to Walnut Commons residents.

“All of us at Ecology Action have been touched by how many people in our neighborhood have come to love and value the tree — and be moved to protect it. And we want to protect it,” wrote Tremper. “After some late-night brainstorming and penciling, we have found a way to do just that. Although we’ll need to further reduce our parking and make some other adjustments that will add to our team’s workload, we are proposing to move our bike storage building further away from the south lot line so the tree can remain.”

LOS ANGELES — Adding fluoride to drinking water is widely considered a triumph of public health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the cavity-prevention strategy ranks alongside the development of vaccines and the recognition of tobacco’s dangers as signal achievements of the 20th century.

But new evidence from Los Angeles mothers and their preschool-age children suggests community water fluoridation may have a downside.

A study published in JAMA Network Open links prenatal exposure to the mineral with an increased risk of neurobehavioral problems at age 3, including symptoms that characterize autism spectrum disorder. The association was seen among women who consumed fluoride in amounts that are considered typical in Los Angeles and across the country.

The findings do not show that drinking fluoridated water causes autism or any other behavioral conditions. Nor is it clear whether the relationship between fluoride exposure and the problems seen in the L.A.-area children — a cohort that is predominantly low-income and 80% Latino — would extend to other demographic groups.

However, the results are concerning enough that USC epidemiologist Tracy Bastain said she would advise pregnant people to avoid fluoridated water straight from the tap and drink filtered water instead.

“This exposure can impact the developing fetus,” said Bastain, the study’s senior author. “Eliminating that from drinking water is probably a good practice.”

About 63% of Americans receive fluoridated water through their taps, including 73% of those served by community water systems, according to the CDC. In Los Angeles County, 62% of residents get fluoridated water, the Department of Public Health says.

The data analyzed by Bastain and her colleagues came from participants in an ongoing USC research project called Maternal and Developmental Risks from Environmental and Social Stressors, or MADRES. Women receiving prenatal care from clinics in Central and South Los Angeles that cater to low-income patients with Medi-Cal insurance were invited to join.

Between 2017 and 2020, 229 mothers took a test to measure the concentration of fluoride in their urine during their third trimester of pregnancy. Then, between 2020 and 2023, they completed a 99-question survey to assess their child’s behavior when their sons and daughters were 3 years old.

Among other things, the survey asked mothers whether their children were restless, hyperactive, impatient, clingy or accident-prone. It also asked about specific behaviors, such as resisting bedtime or sleeping alone, chewing on things that aren’t edible, holding their breath, and being overly concerned with neatness or cleanliness.

Some of the questions the mothers answered addressed heath problems with no obvious medical cause, including headaches, cramps, nausea and skin rashes.

Among the 229 children — 116 girls and 113 boys — 35 were found to have a collection of symptoms that put them in the clinical or borderline clinical range for inward-focused problems such as sadness, depression and anxiety. In addition, 23 were in the clinical or borderline clinical range for behaviors directed at others, such as shouting in a classroom or attacking other kids, and 32 were deemed at least borderline clinical for a combination of inward and outward problems.

What interested the researchers was whether there was any correlation between a child’s risk of having clinical or borderline clinical behavioral problems and the amount of fluoride in his or her mother’s urine during pregnancy.

They found that compared to women whose fluoride levels placed them at the 25th percentile — meaning 24% of women in the study had levels lower than theirs — women at the 75th percentile were 83% more likely to have their child score in the “clinical” or “borderline clinical” range for inward and outward problems combined. When the researchers narrowed their focus to children in the clinical range only, that risk increased to 84%, according to the study.

The researchers also found that the same increase in fluoride levels was associated with an 18.5% increase in a child’s symptoms related to autism spectrum disorder, as well as an 11.3% increase in symptoms of anxiety.

The amount of fluoride needed for mothers to go from the 25th to the 75th percentile was 0.68 milligrams per liter. As it happens, that’s nearly identical to the 0.7 mg per liter standard that federal regulators say is optimal for preventing tooth decay.

Bastain said that allowed the researchers to compare what might happen to children in two parallel universes: a typical one where their mothers consumed fluoridated water during pregnancy, and an alternate one where they didn’t.

“You can use it as a proxy for if they lived in a fluoridated community or not,” she said.

What that thought experiment shows is that children in the fluoridated community face a higher level of risk. That said, it’s not clear when that risk becomes high enough to be worrisome.

“We don’t know what the safe threshold is,” Bastain said. “It’s not like you can say that as long as you’re under the 75th percentile, there are no effects.”

The study authors’ concerns about the effects of fluoride on developing brains didn’t come out of nowhere.

The National Toxicology Program — a joint effort of the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration — has been investigating the issue since 2016. In a report last year that reviewed an array of evidence from humans and laboratory animals, a working group concluded “with moderate confidence” that overall fluoride exposure at levels at or above 1.5 mg per liter “is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.”

The working group added that “more studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ.”

A 2019 study of hundreds of mothers in Canada — where 39% of residents have fluoridated water — found that a 1-mg increase in daily fluoride intake during pregnancy was associated with a 3.7-point reduction in IQ scores in their 3- and 4-year-old children.

And among hundreds of pregnant women in Mexico, a 0.5-mg-per-liter increase in urinary fluoride went along with a 2.5-point drop in IQ scores for their 6- to 12-year-old children, researchers reported in 2017.

Bastain and her colleagues write their study is the first they are aware of that examines the link between prenatal fluoride exposure and neurobehavioral outcomes in children in the United States. The results are sure to be controversial, Bastain said, but there’s a straightforward way for pregnant people to reduce the possible risk.

“It’s a pretty easy intervention to get one of those tabletop plastic pitchers” that filter out metals, she said. “Most of them do a pretty good job of filtering out fluoride.”

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Open the door to an apartment at 2 Charlton Street, and the space will look like any of the 3.6 million units in New York.

That is, with one notable exception: The windows are likely to be closed in the winter, a rarity in older New York buildings where the heat is often blasting from radiators. And yet the unit will be a Goldilocks temperature, just right.

The secret to 2 Charlton’s comfort is an easy-to-miss white box tucked into the corner, what New York-based technology startup Kelvin calls “the Cozy.” It’s a smart radiator that can cut greenhouse gas emissions and costs — and most importantly to residents, improve comfort. In a world where old buildings pose a stubborn decarbonization challenge, Kelvin is aiming to make it easier to cut emissions now and build a bridge to electrified heating and cooling.

Radiators work by pumping steam through pipes. Around 80% of buildings in New York rely on steam heating, which replaced stoves and fireplaces in the early 20th century, according to the nonprofit Urban Green Council. While that helped cut harmful air pollution then, it’s an inefficient form of heating today.

The traditional New Yorker solution to a too-hot radiator is letting the outside chill in in hopes of equalizing the temperature. While opening a window may relieve sauna-like conditions, it means the gas boilers powering radiators are working overtime, ramping up emissions and expenses. Inefficient operations contribute to building emissions, which are more than two-thirds of the city’s carbon footprint. And they lead to around $2 billion wasted on gas annually in New York, according to Kelvin.

“The New York story is you live in a tiny, overheated apartment,” said Marshall Cox, Kelvin’s chief executive officer and founder. He developed the Cozy as a solution to make steam heating in older buildings more efficient.

Cox experienced the discomfort of New York apartments firsthand when he was an engineering student at Columbia. That led him to build the first Cozy for his “horrible” apartment and launch Kelvin — formerly known as Radiator Labs — in 2013.

The Cozy fits over a radiator and traps steam heat behind the cover. It then uses sensors to release heat based on the temperature of the room as well as the radiator. When the room needs heat, the fan within the Cozy circulates hot air through the room. The trapped steam can also be sent to other parts of the building that may need heat. (While an individual apartment can install a Cozy, the startup currently only does complete building retrofits to maximize efficiency.) Kelvin was named a BloombergNEF Pioneer this year for its innovative approach to building decarbonization.

It takes Kelvin between one and six months to complete a project, including manufacturing, shipping and installation, and the company has put the Cozy system in residential buildings as well as schools, theaters and dorms. The radiator cover, which residents can use to set their apartment’s temperature, also collects data that can help determine when a building’s boiler should be operating. Kelvin has sold 30,000 Cozys, half of which have been installed. The introduction of utility and tax rebates as well as greenhouse gas regulations over the past several years have sent sales “through the roof,” Cox said.

The Cozy saves an average of more than 25% on heating costs in buildings utilizing steam radiators, according to Kelvin. And it also can provide residents with much-needed comfort. Chris McGinnis, a now-retired former systems engineer at IBM and co-op board member of 2 Charlton Street, brought the Cozy to his building in 2021, after piloting it. He has lived in the building since 1990 and first lived on the building’s second floor. That apartment was so hot that he would have to turn on the air conditioning in the winter.

It was “just so stupid,” recalled McGinnis, who found out about Kelvin in 2013. “You have this gigantic building and everyone has their windows open because they’re smoking hot.”

He didn’t have trouble convincing his co-op board to try out the innovation. “When they realized this could cost very little, save money and make them more comfortable, it wasn’t a big push,” McGinnis said.

“It’s New York City, life isn’t exactly perfect, but this is a major step in the right direction,” McGinnis said on the Cozy.

Most of the “pushback” Kelvin has gotten is related to financials, Cox said, adding that “people don’t want to spend money unless they absolutely have to.” Replacing radiator heating systems with a fully electric system can be even more costly, though, which is why Cox still sees a wide lane for Kelvin.

“I do not view full electrification as competition at all,” he said, sharing his doubt about its prospects. “It’s so expensive, it will never happen.”

Cozys can either be paid for all at once or using Kelvin’s no-money-down payment plan. If paid for when purchased, the Cozy costs $850 per apartment, including installation. The no-money-down option allows apartments to pay off the purchase in $10 to $20 monthly installments over the course of 10 to 15 years.

Further lowering costs, the cover qualifies for incentives in the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act. Federal and state incentives cover between 50% and 70% of the Cozy’s cost, making the price tag of each radiator cover around $200.

With Kelvin’s system, 2 Charlton is compliant with New York’s Local Law 97, a piece of legislation passed to limit greenhouse gas emissions from larger buildings with a goal of cutting them 40% by 2030.

“All of a sudden, it’s made every single landlord in New York City invested in reducing emissions in their buildings,” Rewiring America’s Director of Research Cora Wyent said of the legislation.

Policies like Local Law 97 may also lead to the creation of more startups like Kelvin offering building decarbonization options, according to Wyent. While radiator covers can cut emissions in the near term, cutting them further will require ending the use of fossil fuels for heating.

Heat pumps can do that, decarbonizing both heating and cooling. Some startups and incumbent HVAC companies, notably Gradient and Midea, have pioneered window heat pumps that can be installed in apartments.

Kelvin is in the modeling and prototyping stage of what it calls a hybrid electrification system, which pairs heat pumps and thermal batteries with its radiator enclosures. The company expects the system to be commercially ready by 2025. The startup expects its upcoming system to cost less than a fully electrified heating and cooling system, which can run from $11,400 per unit and up in New York, according to an Urban Green Council estimate. Through its approach, Kelvin can electrify 80% of a building for 10% of the cost, according to the company.

With assistance from Marie Monteleone.

©2024 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The risk of power failures this summer remains elevated for many parts of North America amid soaring demand and generator shutdowns.

The main Texas grid is especially vulnerable at sunset when solar generation plunges and demand remains high, with the riskiest hour from 8 to 9 p.m. in August, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. said in its summer assessment Wednesday. There’s an 18% probability a grid emergency will be declared and a nearly 15% chance for controlled blackouts in that period.

Grids across the U.S. are struggling to provide reliable power amid rapid growth in electricity demand and extreme weather. Recent summers in Texas have revealed vulnerability at dusk as reserves fall to low levels and set off a series of events to keep the lights on, including rolling blackouts.

Electricity consumption in Texas set records nearly two dozen times in the previous two summers. Separately on Wednesday, the state’s grid issued its fourth warning of a potential evening supply shortfall in about a month.

In addition to the outlook in Texas, NERC said New England faces tight supplies during extreme weather after a 1,400-megawatt Mystic Generating Station was shut this month. Regional grids operating in the Midwest and Southwest also are at risk of power shortfalls, along with British Columbia and Saskatchewan in Canada.

“A large amount of North America could be at risk of supply shortfalls during heat waves and extreme summer conditions,” Mark Olson, manager of reliability assessment, said during a media briefing.

While stress persists in heavily populated areas, NERC’s summer outlook was less dire than last year because of plentiful hydroelectric generation in the West, a lot more solar power and reduced wildfire risk.

©2024 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

For four generations, Steve Wine’s family has tended a 600-acre farm in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, raising steers and growing corn, soybeans and alfalfa. The farm has struggled in recent years with rising costs and slumping crop markets, leaving Wine to question the operation’s viability.

In a bid to sustain the farm, Wine will begin in the coming months to harvest a new crop: solar energy. He’s leased 34 acres to a solar electricity developer, which has installed panels that will generate about 5 megawatts of power at peak capacity. The project is funded by subscriptions from about 1,000 households in the region, who will receive credits on their electricity bills based on the power it generates.

“This is a fixed income that we know is going to be there,” Wine said. “I love farming, and this was an option we had to help lighten the burden.”

The energy model, known as community solar, is growing across the country. It allows people who rent homes or who can’t install rooftop panels on their own properties to subscribe to mid-size solar projects on nearby farms, schools or big-box stores.

While subscription methods can vary, industry groups say a typical monthly subscription of $120 to $135 can end up saving participants $15 to $30 a month. For many, the savings can amount to 5% to 20% of their electricity bill.

For property owners who host the solar panels, leases can be worth about $30,000 a year, according to one developer.

Backers say community solar can play an important role in expanding clean energy, and give low-income households relief on their energy costs. Although definitions can vary, the industry trade group Coalition for Community Solar Access says 20 states have policies that enable “true” community solar, which requires utilities to credit the electricity bills of households that subscribe to solar projects that aren’t built or run by the utilities themselves.

This year, lawmakers in at least 10 states have put forward bills that would enable or expand community solar programs, driven in part by federal funding opportunities from the Inflation Reduction Act. Citing consumer choice and affordability, a growing number of Republican lawmakers have sponsored such proposals, including in seven of those states.

But some bills have stalled amid strong opposition from utilities, which have argued that community solar programs don’t account for costs such as billing overhead and distribution fees, which are passed on to non-subscribing ratepayers.

“All the other utility customers can’t subsidize the benefits of those who are subscribing to community solar projects,” said Zach Hill, lead public and community affairs manager at Alliant Energy, a Midwestern utility that has opposed legislation in Wisconsin. “There’s no consumer protections [in the bill].”

‘It’s working’

Earlier this year, Virginia lawmakers passed bills to expand the state’s community solar program by 200 megawatts, enough to power more than 30,000 homes, and to bring projects into new areas of the state.

The state’s initial program, created in 2022, was capped at 150 megawatts and was nearing that capacity. According to a November projection by the consulting group Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors, more than 12,000 households will be subscribed to the program this year, receiving bill credits totaling $19 million — an average of about $130 per household per month.

Like many community solar programs, the Virginia measure exempts or discounts subscription costs for low-income customers, while reserving a set amount of memberships for such households. Low-income households have made up the entirety of the program so far.

“The fact that we were bumping up against the cap shows that there’s a demand for it and it’s working,” said Del. Rip Sullivan, a Democrat who sponsored the expansion measures this session. “These projects help owners of farmland keep their farms, lower costs to ratepayers and enable everyone around the state to participate in our transition to clean power.”

Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed Sullivan’s bills into law last month.

As Virginia’s program expands, other states are looking to establish their own. The Pennsylvania House advanced a bill earlier this year that would create a community solar program in the state. Sponsored by a mix of Democrats and Republicans, the measure was recently referred to a Senate committee.

Some utilities in Pennsylvania have worked with lawmakers to shape the proposal. Brian Ahrens, senior communications specialist with PECO, the state’s largest electric and natural gas utility, said the company is generally supportive of the measure but concerned about an amendment that would prevent utilities from recovering costs such as distribution expenses related to community solar. PECO aims to stay engaged in discussions as the bill heads to the Senate, he said.

“This is something we’d like to see, and it’s a benefit to our customers,” Ahrens said. “We want to ensure that [projects] are paying their fair share of the costs needed to tap into our distribution system.”

Many of the state proposals this session have been sponsored by Republican lawmakers, including those in Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

“The trend in the last few years has been more and more red states taking up these bills,” said Brandon Smithwood, vice president of policy at Dimension Renewable Energy, an Atlanta-based developer that has built community solar projects in 11 states. “There’s an appetite for these smaller, locally controlled projects that can yield savings to customers.”

Utility battles

In Michigan, Republican state Sen. Ed McBroom has been among the leaders backing community solar legislation.

“I’m doing my best to try to bring value to consumers who are paying rates that are far too high,” he said. “This allows folks to tap the solar market on a small scale.”

McBroom said the proposal has run into opposition from utilities whose leaders say the costs of integrating community solar will drive up rates. He questioned the sincerity of their concerns over consumer impacts. Democratic leaders in the Senate have committed to holding hearings on the issue, he said.

Consumers Energy, a Michigan-based utility, did not grant an interview request.

Community solar backers say utilities are a common roadblock for such proposals.

“[Utilities] would rather have their monopoly on the grid, and they have their claws in the entire political ecosystem,” said Matt Hargarten, public affairs director with the Coalition for Community Solar.

Utilities in Wisconsin successfully opposed a community solar proposal drafted by Senate Republicans. In an interview, officials at Alliant Energy said the Wisconsin measure failed to include protections that would ensure projects lined up sufficient subscribers before being built. Utility leaders feared the proposal would force them to buy electricity from projects that don’t have enough subscribers to be viable.

Alliant also pointed to its own subscription-based solar programs, offered to customers in Wisconsin and Iowa.

But advocates say such utility-run programs aren’t truly community solar, as they fail to reach the scale and cost savings of those offered by third-party developers.

“What’s important is creating a competitive market that allows for non-utility project developers,” said Maria McCoy, a researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit that seeks to empower local communities. “Subscribers should save money and not be paying a premium.”

In Washington, Democratic state Rep. David Hackney this year introduced a community solar bill that quickly ran into opposition. He conceded that utilities in the state raised legitimate consumer protection concerns that would need to be resolved before the issue could advance next session.

“The idea of community solar is still alive,” he said. “The hard work of legislation is coming to an agreement that’s acceptable to both sides.”

Among the utilities’ concerns was the possibility of incompetent or fraudulent developers exploiting their subscribers, with the utilities left to face the customers’ wrath.

“It was going to be us that they would come to, because we’re the ones putting those charges and credits on their bill,” said Heather Mulligan, manager of customer energy renewable programs with the utility Puget Sound Energy. “We’re very open to continuing the conversation and finding ways to support the development of community solar in a way that ensures there is oversight of all parties participating.”

____

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a national nonprofit news organization focused on state policy.

©2024 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

For decades, concerns about automobile pollution have focused on what comes out of the tailpipe. Now, researchers and regulators say, we need to pay more attention to toxic emissions from tires as vehicles roll down the road.

At the top of the list of worries is a chemical called 6PPD, which is added to rubber tires to help them last longer. When tires wear on pavement, 6PPD is released. It reacts with ozone to become a different chemical, 6PPD-q, which can be extremely toxic — so much so that it has been linked to repeated fish kills in Washington state.

The trouble with tires doesn’t stop there. Tires are made primarily of natural rubber and synthetic rubber, but they contain hundreds of other ingredients, often including steel and heavy metals such as copper, lead, cadmium, and zinc.

As car tires wear, the rubber disappears in particles, both bits that can be seen with the naked eye and microparticles. Testing by a British company, Emissions Analytics, found that a car’s tires emit 1 trillion ultrafine particles per kilometer driven — from 5 to 9 pounds of rubber per internal combustion car per year.

And what’s in those particles is a mystery, because tire ingredients are proprietary.

“You’ve got a chemical cocktail in these tires that no one really understands and is kept highly confidential by the tire manufacturers,” said Nick Molden, CEO of Emissions Analytics. “We struggle to think of another consumer product that is so prevalent in the world and used by virtually everyone, where there is so little known of what is in them.”

Regulators have only begun to address the toxic tire problem, though there has been some action on 6PPD.

The chemical was identified by a team of researchers, led by scientists at Washington State University and the University of Washington, who were trying to determine why coho salmon returning to Seattle-area creeks to spawn were dying in large numbers.

Working for the Washington Stormwater Center, the scientists tested some 2,000 substances to determine which one was causing the die-offs, and in 2020 they announced they’d found the culprit: 6PPD.

The Yurok Tribe in Northern California, along with two other West Coast Native American tribes, have petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to prohibit the chemical. The EPA said it is considering new rules governing the chemical. “We could not sit idle while 6PPD kills the fish that sustain us,” said Joseph L. James, chairman of the Yurok Tribe, in a statement. “This lethal toxin has no place in any salmon-bearing watershed.”

California has begun taking steps to regulate the chemical, last year classifying tires containing it as a “priority product,” which requires manufacturers to search for and test substitutes.

“6PPD plays a crucial role in the safety of tires on California’s roads and, currently, there are no widely available safer alternatives,” said Karl Palmer, a deputy director at the state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control. “For this reason, our framework is ideally suited for identifying alternatives to 6PPD that ensure the continued safety of tires on California’s roads while protecting California’s fish populations and the communities that rely on them.”

The U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association says it has mobilized a consortium of 16 tire manufacturers to carry out an analysis of alternatives. Anne Forristall Luke, USTMA president and CEO, said it “will yield the most effective and exhaustive review possible of whether a safer alternative to 6PPD in tires currently exists.”

Molden, however, said there is a catch. “If they don’t investigate, they aren’t allowed to sell in the state of California,” he said. “If they investigate and don’t find an alternative, they can go on selling. They don’t have to find a substitute. And today there is no alternative to 6PPD.”

California is also studying a request by the California Stormwater Quality Association to classify tires containing zinc, a heavy metal, as a priority product, requiring manufacturers to search for an alternative. Zinc is used in the vulcanization process to increase the strength of the rubber.

When it comes to tire particles, though, there hasn’t been any action, even as the problem worsens with the proliferation of electric cars. Because of their quicker acceleration and greater torque, electric vehicles wear out tires faster and emit an estimated 20% more tire particles than the average gas-powered car.

A recent study in Southern California found tire and brake emissions in Anaheim accounted for 30% of PM2.5, a small-particulate air pollutant, while exhaust emissions accounted for 19%. Tests by Emissions Analytics have found that tires produce up to 2,000 times as much particle pollution by mass as tailpipes.

These particles end up in water and air and are often ingested. Ultrafine particles, even smaller than PM2.5, are also emitted by tires and can be inhaled and travel directly to the brain. New research suggests tire microparticles should be classified as a pollutant of “high concern.”

In a report issued last year, researchers at Imperial College London said the particles could affect the heart, lungs, and reproductive organs and cause cancer.

People who live or work along roadways, often low-income, are exposed to more of the toxic substances.

Tires are also a major source of microplastics. More than three-quarters of microplastics entering the ocean come from the synthetic rubber in tires, according to a report from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the British company Systemiq.

And there are still a great many unknowns in tire emissions, which can be especially complex to analyze because heat and pressure can transform tire ingredients into other compounds.

One outstanding research question is whether 6PPD-q affects people, and what health problems, if any, it could cause. A recent study published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters found high levels of the chemical in urine samples from a region of South China, with levels highest in pregnant women.

The discovery of 6PPD-q, Molden said, has sparked fresh interest in the health and environmental impacts of tires, and he expects an abundance of new research in the coming years. “The jigsaw pieces are coming together,” he said. “But it’s a thousand-piece jigsaw, not a 200-piece jigsaw.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News , which publishes California Healthline , an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation .

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs of KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.

©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

If you want to understand why the two largest U.S. oil companies are together spending in excess of $100 billion on acquisitions right now, look no further than the amount of crude they’re extracting from the two hottest oil fields on the planet.

Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., which reported earnings Friday, are both predicting their production in the Permian Basin — the U.S. region that already supplies more oil than Iraq — will increase by 10% this year.

Exxon also revealed that production from its massive oil development in Guyana in the first quarter surged 70% from a year earlier. That’s enough to supply almost a fifth of the global demand growth this year that’s forecast by the International Energy Agency.

Guyana and the Permian stand out for relentless levels of production growth in a industry that has otherwise struggled to find new, low-cost resources in recent years. Now Exxon and Chevron are racing to cement their positions, outpacing their biggest European peers in the process. Exxon is set to become the Permian’s biggest producer once it closes its $64 billion acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources Co. while Chevron is spending $52 billion on Hess Corp. to gain a 30% share of Guyana’s prolific Stabroek Block.

The Permian and Guyana “are big growth drivers at both companies,” said Neal Dingmann, an analyst at Truist Securities. “There are definitely fears on U.S. inventory and shortages worldwide because of lack of investment in the group over several years now.”

After years of reduced investment in oil and gas as fossil-fuel companies focused on returns and reducing emissions, crude supplies are once again starting to look tight. Brent oil earlier this month traded above $90 a barrel for the first time since the fall, with tensions in the Middle East threatening to send prices even higher. For all the efforts to transition to greener sources of energy, oil demand is forecast by the IEA to grow by about 1.3 million barrels a day this year to a new record.

European supermajors Shell Plc and BP Plc, who are set to report over the next two weeks, are in a very different position. Shell walked away from Guyana months before Exxon drilled its first discovery in 2015, and sold its Permian position to ConocoPhillips in 2021. BP’s presence in the Permian is much smaller than either of the U.S. majors.

Furthermore, Shell and BP had in recent years sought to push into renewables. They’re now pivoting back toward bolstering oil and gas production. But that’s easier said than done, and both have anemic growth profiles out to 2030 compared with their U.S. rivals — assuming the Pioneer and Hess deals are completed.

For Exxon and Chevron, both of committed to fossil fuels during the initial wave of ESG investing, targeting the Permian and Guyana will not just grow production but also lower their overall cost of supply. Both regions can produce oil at a profit for less than $35 a barrel.

For now, both Exxon and Chevron are stuck in a holding pattern, waiting to close the acquisitions of Pioneer and Hess. The former is waiting approval from the Federal Trade Commission while the latter is tied up in arbitration because Exxon claims it has a right of first refusal over Hess’s 30% stake in Guyana. Even so, both say they expect to complete their respective deals by the end of the year.

“These are big deals that will definitely impact the overall growth trajectory for both companies,” Hummel said. “The focus will be on execution over the next few quarters.”

(With assistance from Laura Hurst.)

©2024 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Plastic is also entering our bodies. Recent studies show nanoplastics in bottled water, in the food chain, and in prepared food served in plastic. Human health risks are not yet known.

The Aspen Ideas: Climate summit, which ran from Monday through Wednesday in Miami Beach, gathered an array of global experts to bat around ideas about how to solve climate and pollution problems.

The panel “Taking Out the Trash: Solutions to plastic pollution” looked at how innovation is starting, just barely, to address the plastic problem. One startup is launching stainless-steel shareable water bottles, while the largest beauty company on the planet is pushing the industry to take tons of single-use plastic off store shelves and replace them with pouches.  Here’s a look at those potential solutions.

Bike sharing, but with water bottles

In a bike-sharing concept, you ride a bike you don’t own, then drop it off at a bike station. Trying something similar for water bottles might sound outlandish, but according to Manuela Zoninsein, it’s not only possible, it’s profitable.

Zoninsein is CEO of Kadeya, a Chicago-based startup that eliminates single-use bottles by creating what they call a “bottling plant the size of a vending machine.”

Users get a stainless steel bottle of water, drink it, and return it to any of Kadeya’s vending machines.

The machine is automated to then sterilize it, refill the bottle with tap water and reseal it for the next user, and stainless-steel bottles don’t need the plastic films found in aluminum cans.

For now, Kadeya places the machines at self-contained locations such as construction sites or military bases, but they have their sights on sports arenas, movie theaters, hotels, airports and airlines.

Zoninsein said the process cuts one-third of the cost, 75% of the carbon footprint and 99.9% of the plastic use.

The system not only eliminates plastic water bottles, it nixes the carbon footprint of shipping very heavy water around the country. And she said the systems can dispense sodas and cold brew as well.

As she developed the concept, skeptics had lots of questions, particularly about germs and hygiene.

“The washing technology already exists,” Zoninsein said, “We’re not trying to send someone to the moon.” That said, the system’s bottle washer is designed to wash only their bottles, not plates, etc., and can therefore be more exacting in its sanitization.

One audience member brought up the fact that poor local water quality in places such as Flint, Michigan, have caused residents to use far more single-use plastic bottles than they want to.

Zoninsein said there needs to be investment in infrastructure for water quality, and she commended the Biden administration for committing to eliminating lead pipes in the U.S. She said Chicago, where Kadeya is based, still has quite a few lead water service lines. “It’s insane. We’re the wealthiest country in the world and kids are drinking water with lead.”

As for plastic water bottles and microplastics, she predicts a consumer backlash once more findings on nanoplastics and microplastics come out.

According to the National Institute of Health, “when plastics break down over time, they can form smaller particles called microplastics, which are 5 mm or less in length — smaller than a sesame seed.

Microplastics, in turn, can break down into even smaller pieces called nanoplastics, which are less than 1 micrometer in size.” Nanoplastics are too small to be seen with the naked eye — tiny enough to enter the body’s cells and tissues.

Fixing the beauty industry’s ugly plastic problem

Go to any drugstore and you’ll see hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds of plastic packaging on the shelves: hair products, makeup, facial scrubs, potions, lotions and perfumes that all come in plastic. Panelist Marissa Pagnani McGowan, chief sustainability officer for L’Oréal’s North America division, the largest beauty company in the world, said the company is driving for better packaging solutions.

“We’re pushing very hard on refillable formats in the form of pouches,” she said.

The idea is that you buy the first bottle of shampoo, or whatever product it is, keep the “parent bottle” at home, and buy refill pouches when needed. The pouches, which use far less plastic than a new bottle, and are easier to ship, are currently made of recyclable plastic, but McGowan and her team are pushing for alternative materials in the future that would be biodegradable.

It’s not just material, though, it’s also mindset.

“There’s a lot that goes into changing behavior,” McGowan said. “Not only does the consumer have to buy the refill, take it home, refill their bottle enough times to make it worthwhile, but you also have to work with your big-box retailer to make sure that (the process is) easy and convenient and simple and that the consumer actually sees the benefit.”

Another crucial pillar, McGowan said, is creating a circular life for the plastics they do use.

L’Oréal is working with a startup to make plastic stronger so pellets can be reground into new pellets more times. Right now the average is two or three times. “We’re looking for plastics that can be used in a continuous loop.” she said.

You’ve also got to motivate employees. At L’Oréal, when a product is reformulated and repackaged, the new format has to have a better sustainability score. If scores don’t improve, bonuses shrink, said McGowan.

Pretty in plastic

Prior to L’Oréal, McGowan worked in fashion, where fabrics that contain plastic have revolutionized the apparel industry: Fleece, spandex, nylon, polyester, moisture-wicking polypropylene. Any fabrics with plastic may shed micro and nanoplastics into your home, and into water flowing out of your washing machine, McGowan said.

For apparel to become sustainable, it needs to become a more circular system, meaning material must last longer, and be easily reused.

“It’s about designing for recyclability,” she said. “It’s keeping products at their highest use for the longest time with durability.”

One of the vexing challenges for the apparel industry is converting or dismantling used, human-made fabrics into valuable forms.

That starts with how producers build fabric. McGowan said a crucial question for the apparel industry is, “Can you get a fabric blend that can be easily broken down, where you could pull apart a multi-blended fiber. Can you then turn that fiber back into something that’s meaningful?”

Things are changing, she said. “The thought process of design for something that can be broken down, the innovation to break it down, the use of materials once they have been reformulated — that is all happening now, and it wasn’t before, say 10 years ago. So I have hope for other plastic-based fibers.”

Bill Kearney covers the environment, the outdoors and tropical weather. He can be reached at bkearney@sunsentinel.com. Follow him on Instagram @billkearney or on X @billkearney6. 

The reforms were meant to allow the electorate to remove the officials responsible, pass laws over their objections, or undo their acts. People over business.

Yet next fall Californians will consider a referendum sponsored by big business to undo the act of the people’s elected leaders — a recurring theme in recent years. The specific matter at issue is Senate Bill 1137, a 2022 law that bans oil drilling within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, hospitals and the like. Oil companies responded by circulating petitions to challenge the legislation with a referendum, and voters will get the opportunity to decide its fate this year.

“It’s an egregious attack on democracy,” actress and activist Jane Fonda (yes, that Jane Fonda) told me recently. “It’s the most egregious attack on democracy and public health I’ve ever seen.”

Substantive issues

At its core, the referendum is one of “environmental justice,” said Fonda, who is helping organize the opposition. In a state where some 2.7 million people live within a few thousand feet of an oil well, public health advocates made their case that buffer zones were in the public interest, and their elected leaders responded.

That is how representative democracy is supposed to work. The referendum seeks to undo that, and it does so by marshaling a tool historically intended to curb the power of big business.

There are certainly substantive issues to consider. How bad are the health consequences of growing up in a home a few hundred feet from an oil well? Would creating the setbacks required by the bill damage the economy of California or raise the price of gasoline? Would that price be worth paying if it was spent to protect the state’s public health?

Supporters of the bill (and therefore, the opponents of the referendum) say that the price is minimal and the benefit considerable. A report to the Los Angeles City Council noted that “activities related to oil and gas operations have been associated with many potential negative health and safety impacts, especially when they occur in close proximity to sensitive uses such as homes, schools, places of worship, recreation areas, and healthcare facilities.”

In 2022, the council voted to ban new wells and phase out old ones over the next two decades.

SB 1137 was a companion idea. But even as Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill, oil companies rushed to head it off, calling their effort “Stop the Energy Shutdown.”

They were successful. After spending some $20 million to collect signatures, the law was shelved. Next November’s vote will determine if it gets implemented.

The industry’s argument is that, as long as oil is being consumed, it is better for it to come from local sources. If SB 1137 is allowed, California would be forced to “increase its reliance on imported oil, which could come from other oil-rich countries,” Rock Zierman, CEO of the California Independent Petroleum Association, wrote in an op-ed for CalMatters.

Last week, Zierman elaborated on that point, asserting that the law does nothing to decrease the state’s demand for oil.

“Californians consume 1.8 million barrels of oil a day,” he noted.

Supporters of the law question the seriousness of that argument, pointing out that oil is an internationally traded commodity, and a few oil wells in California residential neighborhoods are a negligible piece of the global market. Darkly warning of increased gas prices in this context is scare politics.

Test of democracy

For whatever reason — concern for prices, resistance to regulation, fear of the precedent of government mandates — oil companies have chosen to fight this. But they start at an obvious disadvantage: Californians have fought Big Oil before — some chart the modern environmental movement from the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. Environmental justice, with its emphasis on the disparate effects on poor Californians, is a compelling political argument in this very blue state.

It would take a lot of money to persuade Californians to trust Big Oil with their health and safety. But if Big Oil is unpopular, it is also rich. The campaign over drilling setbacks could thus be both a threat to democracy and a test of it.

Which brings me back to Jane Fonda.

She is not an official campaign spokesperson, but Fonda brings near-iconic status to the effort. First introduced to the public decades ago as a beautiful and talented actress, Fonda has parlayed her fame into political action. She has placed her reputation — even her life — in defense of participatory democracy. It is natural, then, that this test of democratic institutions and environmental protection drew her interest.

Fonda’s activism has made her a polarizing figure at times, but the issues that may have once struck mainstream America as fringe thunderbolts have gradually become recognized as sensible, even moderate, positions. It hardly seems radical today to have advocated for ending the Vietnam war, desegregation and equal voting rights; empowering women; or protecting the environment.

Fonda championed those causes when they were hard. In 2023, they seem natural.

“We’ve made quite a lot of progress,” she told me. “But the problems haven’t gone away.”

The solution, she said, is to energetically plow ahead. In our interview, she quoted Greta Thunberg, the young climate change activist. Pursue action, Thunberg advised Fonda. “Hope will follow.”

It is typical Fonda that this veteran of so many struggles, now in her 80s but as clear-eyed, open-hearted and forceful as ever, would credit a teenager for inspiration.

Over the coming months, Californians will get the chance to decide who to believe: oil companies and their spending or Fonda, her allies and her principles. I would not bet against Fonda.

Jim Newton is a contributor to CalMatters. He worked at the Los Angeles Times for 25 years as a reporter, editor, bureau chief and columnist, covering government and politics.

Over the past few years, international climate policy has been shaped largely by a close-knit group of politicians in the twilight of their careers. Now leaders from beyond the traditional U.S.-Europe-China power center — some new to the international stage, others already veterans — are emerging. And women are at the forefront.

“Women are now the decision makers that can increase the likelihood of impactful decisions that actually stick,” says Jennifer Morgan, Germany’s special climate envoy. After all, she says, it was two women — Laurence Tubiana, France’s climate envoy, and Christiana Figueres, who ran the United Nations’ climate body — who helped broker the landmark Paris Agreement in 2015 to slow global warming.

With the world dangerously off track from the target of keeping temperature rise within 1.5C of pre-industrial times, a global plan to tackle climate change is needed more than ever. We take a look at some of the people who will be leading those efforts in the years to come.

Mia Mottley

Few have changed the rules of the climate capital game more than Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Mottley. Through powerful speeches and radical proposals, she’s led a push to rewire the global financial system to make it easier for poor countries to have access to funds.

Mottley, 58, wants to overhaul the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank so less creditworthy countries can borrow more money to invest in protections against deadly weather events and be eligible for temporary debt relief when a disaster hits.

More than 40 world leaders met in Paris earlier this year to discuss her plan, known as the Bridgetown Agenda. The summit closed with support for more nimble IMF emergency funding, early warning systems for disasters, catastrophe insurance and pauses on debt repayments.

“She is an incredible speaker,” says Sebastien Treyer, executive director of French think tank Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales. “I have heard her speak many times, but every time I am emotionally taken again.”

Island nations play an outsized role in climate talks because their very existence threatened by rising seas and more frequent and forceful cyclones. But it is Mottley who has taken center stage in pitching the solutions for developing countries, while allying herself to the likes of French President Emmanuel Macron to win support.

Her Bridgetown Initiative — a blueprint to overhaul the global financial system to help heavily-indebted climate-vulnerable countries — was forged in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in 2017. After watching the category 5 storm ravage the neighboring island of Dominica, Mottley and her college buddy Avinash Persaud, a development economist, set about drawing up a plan to mitigate the impacts of future storms fueled by global warming.

Mottley wants to overhaul the so-called Bretton Woods institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (as well as their multilateral development bank successors), so that they lend more money to less credit-worthy countries. Those loans would help fund sea defences and provide temporarily debt relief when a disaster hits. Mottley and Persaud have also suggested a climate levy on shipping or financial transactions could help.

The proposals are radical, but they’re starting to gain traction among developed countries that have long been resistant to paying out more. More than 40 world leaders met in Paris earlier this year to work out how the Bridgetown Agenda might become reality. The summit closed with a movement toward more nimble emergency funding from the IMF, early-warning systems for disasters, catastrophe insurance triggered automatically by extreme conditions and pauses on debt repayments.

Jennifer Morgan

A longtime climate activist, Jennifer Morgan has attended every COP summit and spent almost three decades helping lead nonprofits such as Greenpeace and the World Resources Institute. But last year the 57-year-old moved into the political arena herself, reporting directly to Germany’s foreign minister as the country’s climate representative. Morgan, a New Jersey native who’s lived in Germany since 2003, was a surprising pick for a country that rarely appoints foreigners to its top ranks.

She says her past as a heavy-hitter activist hasn’t hindered her. “When you’re an NGO, your job is to be out there, pushing hard and provoking,” she says. “I don’t feel that I am constrained in speaking truth to power, but I have to do it in a different manner. Words matter even more.”

Morgan was instrumental in the setting up of a new fund to pay for climate damages at last year’s COP in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. Yet she was left visibly angry at the end of the meeting over the lack of progress on curbing emissions.

It’s imperative that more is done this year, she says, both on slashing carbon pollution and getting countries like China and Saudi Arabia to pay for the impacts caused in part by their emissions. She points out that China is now the world’s second largest economy and Saudi Arabia one of the biggest oil producers. “We don’t live in 1992 anymore,” she says.

Morgan’s profile is set to rise at this year’s COP28 meeting in Dubai now that Frans Timmermans has stepped down as the European Union’s climate chief. “We need a transformational roadmap,” she says. “We need to understand the moment we’re in right now for the future of humanity — that’s what motivates me.’’

Eve Bazaiba

Without the Congo Basin to act as a vast carbon sink, humanity will lose the fight against global warming. Ève Bazaiba, 58, wants to make sure rich countries know that—and pay to defend it.

In two and a half years on the job, the Democratic Republic of Congo’s minister of environment has become a fiery voice in climate talks on behalf of emerging economies fighting for compensation to protect their environment.

At the top of Bazaiba’s list of demands are higher payouts for carbon credits bought by companies and countries seeking to offset their pollution. And she has some bargaining power: Congo is home to the world’s second-biggest rainforest and the largest tropical peatlands.

Positioning herself as a pragmatist, Bazaiba promotes Congo as a “solution country” in the fight against climate change with its forests. The nation has the world’s largest hydropower potential and vast reserves of minerals such as copper and cobalt that are needed to roll out green technologies. Bazaiba also supports opening up parts of the rainforest to oil drilling, saying the government can still protect the environment, a position that’s made her controversial among environmentalists.

But she’s been consistent in her view that no global approach to slowing Earth’s warming can succeed without Congo. “There’s not a single room in the world — north, south, east, west — that can speak about climate questions without the Democratic Republic of Congo,” she said on a recent radio interview.

Barbara Creecy

Bazaiba’s South African counterpart Barbara Creecy has also proven herself to be a deft negotiator when it comes to climate finance. In 2021, she helped broker a groundbreaking deal with developed nations including the US and UK to transition her country away from coal.

Since taking the post in May 2019, the 65-year-old has been a vocal advocate for the developing world. There’s an “injustice that lies right at the heart of the climate crisis, which is the fact that the African continent is responsible for less than 2% of historical emissions,” Creecy says. “But this is a continent that’s gravely affected by climate change.”

The former anti-apartheid activist, a dark horse candidate to become her country’s finance minister, has argued forcefully for more financial support to help developing nations adapt to a warmer planet and cut emissions. At the same time, she’s urged other emerging economies to focus on solutions rather than grievances over broken promises.

“Let’s stop harping on and on about the $100 billion” a year that rich countries promised to deliver by 2020, she says. “Let’s actually talk about the post 2024 environment. What are the new goals? Where are we going to find new public finance?”

Marina Silva

Now in her second stint as Brazil’s environment and climate change minister, 65-year-old Marina Silva has spent a lifetime devoted to nature. The daughter of rubber tappers—hailing from one of the country’s most remote and impoverished states, nestled deep in the Amazon—she brings lived experience of the impacts of deforestation on communities that depend on the rainforest.

As part of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s left-wing government, she’s busy repairing the country’s green credentials following the ouster of Jair Bolsonaro, one of the world’s most unapologetic anti-environmentalists. Silva describes restoring protections for the rainforest as a “postwar recovery.” Since Lula took office in January, there’s been a 49.7% reduction in deforestation in the Amazon.

“There are things that we have to let go of, such as the idea that Brazil is an agricultural power because it covers a large area,” Silva says. “This idea has to be abandoned.”With Brazil set to lead the Group of 20 next year and host the COP30 summit in 2025, Silva has the opportunity in Dubai to stake out the nation’s positions on climate change before it takes the spotlight on the international stage.

Silva’s background gives her a unique voice, says Rachel Cleetus, senior economist and policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “She comes from a perspective of not just understanding the issues at play, but also understanding the role of the people, especially the Indigenous people.”

Others to watch

Tina Stege: The 47-year-old climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, one of the most vulnerable nations to global warming, is an instrumental voice in the campaign to phase out fossil fuels.

Maisa Rojas: A geophysics professor and contributor to major UN climate reports, Rojas, 51, brings a wealth of scientific expertise to her job as Chile’s environment minister.

Wopke Hoekstra: The EU’s new climate chief, who’s 48, is a relatively unknown quantity in environmental circles, but he comes with a reputation for fiscal prudence from his tenure as Dutch finance minister.

Teresa Ribera: The charismatic environment minister for Spain, 54, is at the forefront of EU green policymaking, with her country holding the rotating presidency this year.

Kristin Tilley: Australia’s climate ambassador, 48, is trying to give her country a greener image and pushing for it to host COP31.

Steven Guilbeault: Canada’s 53-year-old climate minister, another Greenpeace alum, will be in focus at COP28 after wildfires ravaged much of his country this year.

©2023 Bloomberg News. Visit at bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.