Month: January 2022

Enlarge / Carbon tax isometric vector concept. (credit: Getty Images)

One of the simplest ways to reduce carbon emissions is to put a price on them, gradually ratcheting up the price to induce conversation and emissions-free technologies. In turn, the simplest way of imposing that price is by taxing emissions. But taxes are typically unpopular, as people are very sensitive to the cash they extract.

A rebate plan alongside carbon taxes makes those taxes less painful. Rather than putting the tax’s income into the national budget, the revenue is divided up and returned to citizens. The division is often done on a per-capita basis, which turns out to be progressive, since lower-income individuals tend to end up producing fewer carbon emissions but get an equal share of the rebate.

While a rebate sounds great on paper, only a couple of countries have actually tried it. A new study looks at these countries more carefully and finds that most citizens underestimate the rebate they get, and opinions on the taxes have become politicized.

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images | Rafe Swan)

The Federal Communications Commission is moving ahead with plans to require broadband “nutrition labels” that include details on the actual price of Internet service and information about data caps and performance.

The consumer labels that home Internet and mobile broadband providers would have to provide at the point of sale will be similar to those adopted by the FCC in 2016. The labels and related rules requiring greater transparency were eliminated under former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, but the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act approved by Congress in November 2021 requires the FCC to issue new rules mandating the display of the consumer labels.

Today’s 4-0 FCC vote approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks public comment on the plan. There’s generally at least a few months between an NPRM and a commission vote to issue final rules. The deadline for initial comments will be 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register, and reply comments will be due 45 days after Federal Register publication. The docket where comments will be filed can be found here.

Enlarge (credit: Jericho (modified)/Google/Ron Amadeo)

There is hope for users of Google’s “legacy” free G Suite accounts. Last week, Google announced a brutal policy change—it would shut down the Google Apps accounts of users who signed up during the first several years when the service was available for free. Users who had a free G Suite account were given two options: start paying the per-user monthly fee by July 2022 or lose your account.

Naturally, this move led to a huge outcry outside (and apparently inside) Google, and now, the company seems to be backing down from most of the harsher terms of the initial announcement. First, Google is launching a survey of affected G Suite users—apparently, the company is surprised by how many people this change affected. Second, it’s promising a data-migration option (including your content purchases) to a consumer account before the shutdown hits.

Google Apps (today this service is called “G Suite or Google Workspace”) allows users to have a Google account with a custom domain, so your email ends in your website address rather than “@gmail.com.” It’s typically used for businesses. The basic tier of G Suite was free from 2006 to 2012—anyone could sign up for a Google account with a custom domain, and apparently, a lot of geeks did this for friends, families, and other non-business uses. Google stopped offering free G Suite accounts in 2012, but it was previously unthinkable that Google would go after its most enthusiastic, early-adopter users and kick them off the service. You trust Google and store a ton of data on a Google account, so the accounts are forever, right?

Enlarge / We’d like to replace you with a forest. (credit: Peter Cade)

By shifting to more plant-rich diets, wealthy nations could cut their agricultural emissions by 61 percent—and sequester nearly 100 gigatons of CO₂ equivalent if the surplus farmland is left to rewild.

The global food system is the second-biggest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs), accounting for up to a third of emissions. Over half of that number comes from meat and dairy production, despite these sources providing a meager 20 percent of the world’s calories. Wealthy nations drive most of this demand.

A recent study calculated the carbon-saving potential of having these wealthy countries shift away from meat and dairy in a way that would create what the study authors call a double dividend. “Our double dividend means if we change animal-based diets to plant-based diets, we can reduce GHG emissions (dividend one) from direct agricultural production,” explains lead author Dr. Zhongxiao Sun. “The saved agricultural land from diet change can be restored to potential natural vegetation for carbon sequestration (dividend two).”

Enlarge / Exhaust from fossil fuel vehicles is a significant contributor to PM2.5 pollution in the US. (credit: Ina Fassbender/picture alliance)

At the outset of the pandemic, when lockdowns were widespread, a remarkable phenomenon occurred. Places that had been saturated with pollution suddenly cleared. The sky over Los Angeles turned blue. Snow-capped mountain ranges that were normally obscured by pollution glistened on the horizon. The white marble of the Taj Mahal, which is normally wrapped in smog, shone brightly against an azure sky. Even in regions that aren’t typically considered polluted, the air just smelled fresher.

The reason, of course, is that hardly anyone was driving. Burning fossil fuels, whether under the hood of an automobile or in a home furnace or power plant, produces copious amounts of fine particulate pollution, also known as PM2.5—particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. For years, researchers didn’t understand the impact of these pollutants.

But as scientists have started digging, they have discovered that particulates have an outsize impact on our health. Previous research showed that PM2.5 from burning fossil fuels kills more than a million people a year, mostly in heavily polluted regions of Asia. But now, a new study from the Health Effects Institute shows that even in the US, where the air is comparatively clean, PM2.5 current Environmental Protection Agency guidelines may not be low enough to prevent unnecessary deaths.