SAN JOSE – In a world where sustainability is becoming increasingly critical, the aviation industry is taking bold steps to reduce its carbon footprint. One of the most innovative approaches involves converting used cooking oil into jet fuel, known as Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). This transformation is not just a futuristic concept but a practical solution already in action, promising significant environmental benefits and economic opportunities. The Process: From Kitchen to Cockpit The journey of used cooking oil from kitchen waste to jet fuel involves several sophisticated steps. Initially, the used oil is collected from various sources, such as restaurants, and then cleaned to remove impurities. This purified oil undergoes a process called hydroprocessing, where it is mixed with hydrogen and subjected to high pressure and temperature. This step breaks down the oil’s triglycerides into simpler hydrocarbons, essentially transforming it into a form that mimics traditional jet fuel. The result is a clear, amber liquid that performs similarly to fossil-based jet fuel but with a fraction of the carbon emissions. This fuel can then be blended with conventional jet fuel, typically in a 50/50 ratio, to meet the rigorous standards required for aviation fuel. The Environmental Impact The primary appeal of SAF lies in its potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When used in place of traditional jet fuel, SAF can reduce emissions by up to 80% over its lifecycle. This is because SAF recycles carbon already in circulation, unlike fossil fuels which release new carbon into the atmosphere. This recycling helps mitigate the overall carbon footprint of flights, making aviation more sustainable. Economic Considerations While the environmental benefits are clear, the economic viability of SAF is also noteworthy. Converting used cooking oil into jet fuel can stabilize fuel prices and reduce airlines’ reliance on the volatile oil market. This conversion opens up new markets for waste oil, turning an environmental liability into a valuable resource. However, it is important to note that the production cost of SAF is currently higher than conventional jet fuel, which presents a challenge for widespread adoption. Potential Challenges and Oversight Despite its promise, the SAF industry is not without potential risks. The process requires significant energy, and stringent quality control measures are essential to ensure the final product meets safety and performance standards. Moreover, certification schemes like the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of SAF production, preventing fraud, and ensuring environmental benefits are genuine. Real-World Applications The feasibility of SAF is evidenced by real-world applications. For instance, American Airlines has partnered with Neste to receive the first-ever CORSIA-certified batch of SAF, demonstrating the fuel’s potential to meet international sustainability standards. Similarly, Airbus has successfully conducted test flights using SAF, highlighting its viability as an alternative to traditional jet fuel. In conclusion, turning used cooking oil into jet fuel is a remarkable feat of engineering and sustainability. While there are challenges to overcome, the potential environmental and economic benefits make SAF a promising solution for the aviation industry’s carbon reduction goals. As technology advances and production scales up, SAF could become a cornerstone of a more sustainable aviation future. By embracing such innovative solutions, the aviation industry can significantly reduce its carbon footprint, making our skies cleaner and our future greener. The transformation from fries to flights is not just a catchy slogan but a viable pathway to sustainable air travel.

SAN JOSE – The sweltering heat that gripped Las Vegas and Phoenix during recent political rallies is a stark reminder of the urgent need for consistent climate action. As attendees collapsed from heat exhaustion, the former President’s promise to “drill, baby, drill” underscores a troubling reality: the lack of continuity in climate policy between administrations is jeopardizing our future. In recent years, the world has witnessed unprecedented heatwaves, wildfires, and extreme weather events, all exacerbated by human-caused climate change. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence linking these disasters to fossil fuel consumption, some policymakers in Washington continue to push for increased oil and gas production. This short-sighted approach not only ignores the immediate health impacts of extreme heat on the populace but also endangers long-term climate goals. The current political landscape in the United States is fraught with division on climate issues. Each new administration brings a shift in priorities, often undoing the progress made by its predecessor. When President Biden took office, his administration implemented policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions, investing in renewable energy, and setting ambitious targets to combat climate change. However, with the rise of new political leaders advocating for a return to fossil fuels, these initiatives face the threat of being dismantled. This cyclical shift in climate policies hampers the nation’s ability to meet its 2050 climate goals. The commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century requires unwavering dedication and consistent policy support. Yet, the pendulum swing between environmental regulation and deregulation with each electoral cycle creates instability, discourages long-term investment in green technologies, and undermines public confidence in climate action. The consequences of this policy volatility are severe. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that delaying action will result in irreversible damage to ecosystems, more frequent and severe weather events, and significant economic losses. The health impacts are already evident; the recent rallies in the Southwest, where dozens were hospitalized due to extreme heat, are just a glimpse of what lies ahead if the climate crisis is not addressed with the urgency it demands. Moreover, the push for more drilling and fossil fuel production is not only environmentally detrimental but also economically shortsighted. Renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric power are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Investing in these technologies not only helps mitigate climate change but also creates sustainable jobs and drives economic growth. Conversely, doubling down on oil and gas locks the economy into a dependence on finite resources, susceptible to market volatility and geopolitical tensions. Policymakers must recognize that climate change is not a partisan issue but a global emergency that requires bipartisan cooperation and steadfast commitment. The health of our planet and future generations depends on the actions we take today. It is imperative that political leaders prioritize long-term climate strategies over short-term political gains and work together to ensure that progress made in reducing emissions and transitioning to clean energy is not undone. The dangers of ignoring the urgency of climate action are clear. As we face record-breaking heatwaves, devastating wildfires, and rising sea levels, the need for consistent, science-based climate policies has never been more critical. It is time for policymakers in Washington to transcend partisan divides, uphold the momentum for climate action, and safeguard our collective future. The stakes are too high, and the window for effective action is rapidly closing.

SAN JOSE – In a glaring example of corporate negligence, hundreds of orphan oil wells across California have been abandoned by their operators, leaving behind a legacy of environmental destruction and health hazards for nearby communities. The California Department of Conservation’s recent announcement about the first round of funding to permanently seal these wells reveals a disturbing pattern of corporate irresponsibility and the devastating impact on public health and the environment. Corporate Pollution and Abandonment Oil companies like AllenCo, Sunray Petroleum, and Citadel Exploration Inc. have consistently flouted regulations, resulting in severe consequences for the communities living near these wells. The wells, now orphaned, leak harmful pollutants, including methane—a potent greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. AllenCo’s 21 wells near Los Angeles have been a source of concern for over a decade. Located near Saint James Park, homes, and an elementary school, these wells have repeatedly violated California’s oil and gas laws. Despite court orders and remedial actions, the wells continue to pose significant risks to public health and safety. Sunray Petroleum’s 22 wells in Kern County, notorious for outstanding violations since 2017, have been found leaking methane. Similarly, Citadel’s 37 wells near Bakersfield have been neglected, resulting in oil-stained soils and elevated methane levels. These are not isolated cases but part of a larger, alarming trend of environmental degradation. Health and Environmental Impacts The consequences of these abandoned wells extend far beyond methane leaks. Residents living near these sites experience a host of health issues, including respiratory problems, headaches, and nausea. The contamination of soil and groundwater poses long-term risks to both human health and local ecosystems. In Ventura County, Peak Operator LLC’s 39 wells near Oxnard and Vaca Energy’s six wells are prime examples of how abandoned wells continue to pollute and harm the environment. The leaking wells have led to the degradation of air quality, further exacerbating health issues for local residents. Public Paying the Price The burden of addressing this environmental catastrophe has unfairly fallen on the public. With Governor Newsom’s administration allocating millions to seal these wells, taxpayers are essentially footing the bill for the oil companies’ negligence. This allocation, while necessary, underscores the failure of regulatory frameworks to hold these companies accountable. David Shabazian, Director of Conservation, emphasized that while the state is stepping in to mitigate the risks, efforts are being made to recoup costs from the responsible parties. However, the current situation starkly highlights how the public, particularly in disadvantaged communities, bears the brunt of the cleanup efforts. A Call for Accountability As the California Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) prepares to discuss the draft list of orphan wells, it is imperative that stronger enforcement actions are implemented to hold these companies accountable. The state must ensure that oil operators cannot escape the consequences of their actions by abandoning wells and leaving the public to deal with the aftermath. The ongoing efforts in Santa Barbara County, where CalGEM is plugging 172 wells in the Cat Canyon Oil Field, provide a blueprint for future actions. Working with local communities and indigenous groups like the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians for cultural monitoring and guidance is a step in the right direction. However, it is crucial that these efforts are expanded and that oil companies are held financially responsible for the damage they have caused. The plight of California’s orphan wells is a stark reminder of the need for rigorous regulatory oversight and corporate accountability. While the state’s intervention is a necessary measure to protect public health and the environment, it also highlights the urgent need for systemic changes to prevent such environmental and public health tragedies in the future. Communities should not have to bear the costs—both financial and health-related—of corporate irresponsibility. The time for stringent enforcement and accountability is now.

SAN JOSE – As summer approaches, Florida’s coral reefs face another perilous season of extreme heat, with water temperatures already reaching concerning levels. Last summer’s catastrophic bleaching event, driven by record high coastal waters, saw an unprecedented toll on the reefs. This year, scientists fear the situation may worsen, as water temperatures in the Florida Keys are already nearing dangerous thresholds. Derek Manzello, a coral reef ecologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), expressed his concern, stating, “It’s kinda crazy we are seeing these temperatures now. Before last year, we wouldn’t even think about it until August.” The early onset of high temperatures has prompted NOAA to issue its earliest ever coral bleaching watch, highlighting the urgency of the situation. The coral reefs, already struggling to recover from last summer’s heat, may not withstand back-to-back seasons of extreme temperatures. Last year, juvenile corals in underwater nurseries suffered significant losses, with an estimated half perishing. Corals begin to stress and expel the algae that give them their vibrant colors and essential nutrients when water temperatures reach a ‘bleaching threshold’ for a prolonged period, resulting in the corals turning a pale white. Phanor Montoya-Maya, restoration program manager for the Coral Restoration Foundation, emphasized the ongoing challenges. His team continues to breed genetically diverse corals, which are more resilient to environmental changes. However, they have been on a voluntary coral planting hold since last June, awaiting more stable conditions. “We’re exploring options like moving corals to deeper waters or further north, where bleaching was less severe last year,” Montoya-Maya said. “But for now, we pretty much sit and wait to see how reality is going to turn out.” Florida’s coral reefs are not alone in this struggle. Since February, over 60 countries have reported mass coral bleaching events, driven primarily by climate change. Human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, contribute to ocean warming and alter the water’s chemistry. Increased storms and rising sea levels further exacerbate the damage by depositing sediment on the reefs. Manzello warned that if current trends continue, we could witness the most extensive global bleaching event on record. Despite these challenges, there are glimmers of hope. Popular reefs like Cheeca Rocks in the Keys have shown resilience. “Despite the high water temperature, everything looked good, the coral all looked healthy, there was minimal disease, virtually no bleaching,” said Allyson DeMerlis, a coral researcher for NOAA and Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science. Recovery efforts are underway, with NOAA and the Coral Restoration Foundation leading the charge. They have been preparing for another difficult year since last November. These efforts are crucial, not only for the survival of Florida’s reefs but also for the global coral ecosystems that face similar threats. As we await the unfolding of this year’s summer temperatures, the fate of Florida’s coral reefs hangs in the balance. The urgency to address climate change and implement sustainable practices has never been clearer. Our actions today will determine the future of these vital marine ecosystems.

SAN JOSE – Carbon pricing has emerged as one of the most potent tools for combating climate change, incentivizing reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally. The “State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2024” report by the World Bank provides a comprehensive overview of the current landscape, highlighting the significant progress made over the past decade, the challenges that persist, and the future trajectory of carbon pricing initiatives worldwide. Growth and Adoption of Carbon Pricing In the last ten years, the coverage of global emissions by carbon pricing mechanisms has expanded remarkably. In 2014, only 7% of global emissions were covered by carbon pricing instruments. Today, nearly a quarter of global emissions are under some form of carbon pricing, reflecting a growing acknowledgment of the importance of these tools in the fight against climate change. The report notes that as of 2024, there are 75 national carbon pricing instruments in operation. This includes recent implementations in countries like Australia, Hungary, Slovenia, Taiwan, China, and several sub-national schemes in Mexico. Middle-income countries such as Brazil, India, Chile, Colombia, and Türkiye are also making notable strides towards implementing emissions trading schemes (ETSs). Despite this progress, the report underscores that higher pricing and wider coverage are essential to unlock the full potential of carbon pricing. Currently, the ambition of most carbon pricing policies falls short of what is needed to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. The average price of carbon remains below the levels required to achieve significant emission reductions. Revenue Generation and Utilization One of the positive trends highlighted in the report is the increase in revenue generated from carbon pricing. In 2023, revenues from carbon pricing instruments exceeded $100 billion for the first time, driven by high prices in the European Union and a temporary shift in some German ETS revenues from 2022 to 2023. These revenues are crucial as they fund climate and nature-related programs, thus reinforcing the environmental benefits of carbon pricing. The majority of jurisdictions use these revenues to support climate-related projects or bolster general budgets. For example, the EU requires member states to allocate at least half of their ETS revenues to climate and energy purposes, resulting in significant investments in green transport, energy efficiency, and renewable energy projects. However, the contribution of carbon pricing revenue to national budgets remains relatively small, indicating room for fiscal reforms to maximize the benefits of these instruments. Challenges and Implementation Gaps While carbon pricing has seen considerable uptake, the report points to an implementation gap between countries’ commitments and the policies enacted. This gap is particularly evident in the variation of carbon prices across different ETSs and carbon taxes. Over the past year, ten ETSs, including major systems in the EU, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea, experienced price decreases, which can undermine the long-term price signal needed to drive investments in low-carbon technologies. Moreover, the expansion of carbon pricing coverage has slowed. The share of global GHG emissions covered by carbon pricing remains stable at around 24%, with new implementations only partially offsetting reductions in emissions in existing systems. The report emphasizes that even with new carbon pricing instruments in countries like Brazil, India, and Türkiye, global coverage is unlikely to exceed 30% in the near term. The Future of Carbon Pricing The report identifies several emerging trends that could shape the future of carbon pricing. These include the integration of carbon pricing into broader economic policies, the development of sector-specific initiatives like the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), and the implementation of carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs). The EU’s CBAM, which started its transitional phase in 2023, represents a significant shift in the global carbon pricing landscape. By applying a carbon price on imports equivalent to the EU ETS, the CBAM aims to level the playing field between domestic producers and international competitors, potentially driving other countries to adopt similar measures. Despite these advancements, the report stresses the need for increased ambition and stronger political commitment to achieve meaningful progress. The development of robust global frameworks and the sharing of best practices are crucial to drive the necessary level of ambition and ensure the effectiveness of carbon pricing mechanisms. The “State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2024” report paints a picture of both progress and persistent challenges in the realm of carbon pricing. While significant strides have been made, particularly in expanding coverage and generating revenue, the current pace of implementation and the level of ambition are insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goals. As countries prepare to submit new nationally determined contributions in 2025, the report calls for immediate and sustained focus on implementing more ambitious carbon pricing policies to decisively bend the emissions curve and safeguard a livable planet.

SAN JOSE – In a clandestine meeting, the leaders of the world’s wealthiest countries reached a decision that could shape the future of global energy for decades. Their conclusion: nuclear energy is crucial for addressing the planet’s burgeoning energy crisis and climate change. This bold stance, however, has sparked a heated debate among experts, policymakers, and environmentalists. While proponents argue that nuclear energy is the only viable path to a sustainable future, critics caution that alternative renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, offer safer and more sustainable options. As the world stands at a crossroads, the question remains: Is going nuclear truly the best solution? The Nuclear Renaissance The recent international nuclear energy summit in Brussels marked a pivotal moment. For the first time in 70 years, representatives from over 30 countries convened to discuss the future of nuclear power. The consensus was clear: nuclear energy must play a central role in the global energy transition. Fatih Birol, Chief of the International Energy Agency (IEA), declared, “Without the support of nuclear power, we have no chance to reach our climate targets on time.” This sentiment was echoed by other world leaders, including Belgium’s Prime Minister, who lauded nuclear energy’s potential to create jobs, drive innovation, and foster economic progress. In December 2023, the United Nations underscored the importance of nuclear energy by including it in its “global inventory” of climate protection technologies. This move aimed to triple the use of nuclear energy by 2050, a goal that could significantly increase demand for uranium, the critical element powering nuclear reactors. Uranium: The Double-Edged Sword Bayridge Resources, a Canadian mineral exploration company, finds itself at the heart of this nuclear resurgence. With significant stakes in the Athabasca Basin—one of the richest uranium regions in the world—Bayridge is well-positioned to capitalize on the growing demand for uranium. The company has secured substantial funding from Sprott Asset Management, a global asset manager, underscoring investor confidence in its future. However, the promise of nuclear energy comes with substantial risks. Uranium mining and nuclear waste disposal present significant environmental and health challenges. The waste generated by nuclear reactors remains hazardous for centuries, posing long-term storage and contamination risks. Critics argue that these issues overshadow the potential benefits of nuclear power. Renewable Alternatives: A Safer Path As the debate over nuclear energy intensifies, many experts advocate for a greater emphasis on renewable energy sources. Wind, solar, and hydropower offer clean, sustainable alternatives without the long-term waste disposal issues associated with nuclear energy. Advancements in renewable technology have made these sources more viable than ever. Solar power, for example, has seen a dramatic decrease in costs and an increase in efficiency. Wind energy, harnessed through both onshore and offshore wind farms, continues to grow as a significant contributor to the global energy mix. Furthermore, energy storage technologies, such as advanced batteries, are addressing the intermittency issues that have historically plagued renewables. These innovations enable more consistent energy supply, reducing the need for backup power sources. The Economic Case for Renewables Beyond environmental benefits, renewable energy also offers compelling economic advantages. Investment in renewable infrastructure creates jobs and stimulates local economies. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the renewable energy sector employed 11.5 million people globally in 2022, a number expected to grow significantly in the coming decades. In contrast, the nuclear industry requires massive upfront investments and long construction timelines. The average cost of building a new nuclear power plant is around $5.5 billion, compared to significantly lower costs for wind and solar projects. Moreover, decommissioning old nuclear plants adds to the financial burden, often costing billions and taking decades to complete. The Path Forward While nuclear energy can contribute to reducing carbon emissions, it is not without substantial risks and costs. The long-term challenges of nuclear waste disposal and the high economic barriers to entry make it a less attractive option compared to the rapidly advancing field of renewables. Global leaders must weigh these factors carefully as they chart a path toward a sustainable energy future. Investing in renewable energy technologies, enhancing energy efficiency, and developing robust energy storage systems could provide a safer, more cost-effective solution to the global energy crisis. As countries strive to meet their climate targets, the focus should be on creating a diverse energy portfolio that leverages the strengths of various renewable sources. By prioritizing innovation and sustainability, the world can move towards a cleaner, more resilient energy future without the long-term risks associated with nuclear power. The push for nuclear energy represents a significant moment in the global energy debate. Yet, as we stand on the brink of a potential nuclear renaissance, it is crucial to consider whether this path is truly the most prudent. With the advancements in renewable energy technologies, a safer, more sustainable, and economically viable alternative is within our grasp. It is time to embrace the full potential of renewables and chart a course towards a brighter, greener future.