Despite the planet’s growing plastic pollution crisis, petroleum-based polymers have become an integral part of modern life. They make cars and airplanes lighter and more energy efficient. They constitute a core material of modern medicine by helping to keep equipment sterile, deliver medicines and build prosthetics, among many other things. And they are a critical component of the wiring and hardware that underlies our technology-driven civilization.

The trouble is, when they outlive their usefulness, they become waste and end up polluting our oceans, rivers, soils and bodies.

But new research from a team of chemists at UC Berkeley suggests a glimmer of hope when it comes to the thorny problem of recycling plastics — one that may allow us to have our cake, and potentially take a very small bite, too.

The group has devised a catalytic recycling process that breaks apart the chains of some of the more commonly used plastics — polyethylene and polypropylene — in such a way that the building blocks of those plastics can be used again. In some cases, with more than 90% efficiency.

The catalysts required for the reaction — sodium or tungsten — are readily available and inexpensive, they say, and early tests show the process is likely scalable at industrial levels. It uses no water and has fewer energy requirements than other recycling methods — and is even more efficient than manufacturing new, or so-called virgin, plastics, the researchers say.

“So by making one product or two products in very high yield and at much lower temperatures, we are using some energy, but significantly less energy than any other process that’s breaking down polyolefins or taking the petroleum resources and turning them into the monomers for polyolefins in the first place,” said John Hartwig, a UC Berkeley chemist who was a co-author of the study published recently in the journal Science.

Polyolefins are a family of thermoplastics that include polyethylene — the material used to make single-use and “reusable” plastic bags — and polypropylene — the ubiquitous plastic that holds our yogurts and forms microwaveable dishes and car bumpers. Polyolefins are produced by combining small chain links, or monomers, of ethylene or propylene, which are typically obtained from oil and natural gas.

Polyethylene and polypropylene account for the majority (57%) of all polymer resins produced, the study authors noted. They have proven a plague to the environment, and in microplastic form have been found in drinking water, beer and every organ in the human body, as well as blood, semen and breast milk.

Hartwig and R.J. Conk, a graduate student who led the research, said they have not yet heard from the plastics, recycling or waste industries. They said they had been keeping their technology under wraps until publishing their paper and obtaining a patent on the process.

A spokeswoman for the Plastics Industry Association declined to comment or provide an expert to review the paper.

Hartwig said there are some caveats to the work. For instance, the plastic has to be sorted before the process can be applied. If the products are contaminated with other plastics, such as PVC or polystyrene, the outcome isn’t good.

“We don’t have a way to bring those [plastics] back to monomer, and they also poison our catalyst,” said Hartwig. “So for us, and basically for everybody else, PVC is bad. It’s not able to be chemically recycled.”

He said other contaminates — food waste, dyes, adhesives, etc. — could also potentially cause problems. However, the researchers are still early in the process.

But plastic bags, such as the ones used to hold produce in supermarkets, offer promise as they are relatively clean and “nobody knows what to do with them.” He said plastic bags are problematic for material recovery facilities where they are known to gum up machinery.

“There are places that do collect those bags. I don’t know what they do with them. Nobody wants them,” he said.

But others are less sanguine.

Neil Tangri, science and policy director at GAIA — an international environmental organization — said that while he was not a chemist or chemical engineer, and therefore couldn’t comment on the methods, he noted that there are broader “real world” issues that could prevent such a technology from taking off.

“Plastic recycling is not something we do well … we only get about 5% or 6% per year. So there’s a hunt for new technologies that will do better than that,” he said. “My basic warning is that going from small-batch analysis in the lab to functioning at scale with real-world conditions … it’s a huge, huge leap. So it’s not like we’re going to see this move into commercial production in the next year or two.”

He noted that while the reaction temperature cited was lower than that used in pyrolysis — the burning of plastic for fuel — or cracking — when plastics are made from virgin material — it still requires a lot of energy, and therefore potentially creates a fairly sizable carbon footprint. In addition, he said, 608 degrees — the reaction temperature cited — is the temperature “where dioxins like to form. So, that could be a challenge.” Dioxins are highly toxic byproducts of some industrial processes.

But, Tangri said, even if you could solve all of those issues — as well as the sorting and contamination issues Hartwig cited — “it is so cheap to make virgin plastic that the collection, the sorting, the cleaning … they were talking about … all of those steps, the energy use, you just can’t sell your [recycled material] at a price that makes sense to justify all that …. And that’s not really the fault of the technical approach. It’s the realities of the economics of plastic these days.”

It’s a point to which Lee Bell, technical and policy advisor for IPEN — a global environmental advocacy group — agrees.

“What appears promising in the lab rarely translates to commercial scale success and high yields from mixed plastic waste,” he said. “Not only do they have to deal with the diabolical issue of unavoidable plastic contamination [because chemical additives are in all plastic] but also competing with cheap virgin plastic in the marketplace.

“My view is that this is yet another lab experiment on plastic waste that will ultimately be thwarted by mixed plastic waste contamination and commercial realities,” he said.

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

WASHINGTON (AP) — Even as she promoted her efforts to boost clean energy, Vice President Kamala Harris said in Tuesday’s debate that the Biden-Harris administration has overseen “the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil.″

The comment by Harris, a longtime climate hawk who backed the original Green New Deal, surprised supporters and opponents alike — and conflicted with frequent boasts by Harris and President Joe Biden that they are champions in the fight to slow global warming.

After former President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Biden-Harris administration reentered the global pact aimed at reducing emissions. The administration also set a target to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 and moved to accelerate renewable energy projects and shift away from fossil fuels.

Liam Donovan, a Republican strategist, said it was notable that at a debate in energy-rich Pennsylvania, Harris chose to “brag about something that President Biden has barely acknowledged — that domestic fossil fuel production under the Biden administration is at an all-time high.″ Crude production averaged 12.9 million barrels a day last year, eclipsing a previous record set in 2019 under Trump, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The statement was “another sign of Harris’ sprint to the middle″ on energy policy and other issues, said Donovan, who works with energy industry clients at the Bracewell law and lobbying firm.

Harris went one step further, rebranding the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act — the administration’s signature climate law — as a boon to fracking and other drilling, thanks to lease-sale requirements inserted into the bill by independent West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a key swing vote in the Senate and a strong supporter of the fossil fuel industry.

Harris’s comments disappointed some in the environmental community.

“Harris missed a critical opportunity to lay out a stark contrast with Trump and show young voters that she will stand up to Big Oil and stop the climate crisis,” said Stevie O’Hanlon, a spokesperson for the Sunrise Movement, one of the groups behind the Green New Deal.

“Harris spent more time promoting fracking than laying out a bold vision for a clean energy future,” O’Hanlon said. “Young voters want more from Harris” on climate change, she added. “We want to see a real plan that meets the scale and urgency of this crisis.”

Her group is working to turn out young voters, “but we hear people asking every day, ‘What are Democrats going to do for us?’” O’Hanlon said. “To win, Harris needs to show young people she will fight for us.”

Other environmental groups were less critical, citing the looming threat to climate action posed by Trump, who rolled back more than 100 environmental protections during his term as president.

“There is only one presidential candidate who is a champion for climate action and that is Kamala Harris,” said Alex Glass, speaking for Climate Power, a liberal advocacy group. Harris “laid out a clear vision to invest in clean energy jobs and lower costs for working families,” Glass said.

By comparison, she said, Trump “will do the bidding of his Big Oil donors.”

Glass cited the conservative Project 2025, written by Trump allies, saying it will put millions of clean-energy jobs at risk and let oil companies “profiteer and pollute.” Trump has denied a direct connection to Project 2025 but has endorsed some of its key ideas.

Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry’s top lobbying group, said Harris’ comment in support of fracking reflected political reality in the closely contested election. “You have to be for fracking to be elected president in 2024,” he said. “That’s good news for our industry and great news for American consumers.”

Asked why he was so confident about the need to support fracking, Sommers offered a one-word answer: “Pennsylvania.”

Not only is it a key swing state in the election, Pennsylvania also “is the beating heart of the natural gas industry in this country,” Sommers said, second only to Texas in total production.

“You don’t win Pennsylvania without supporting fracking, and you don’t win the presidency without Pennsylvania,” Sommers said.

In the debate, Trump disputed Harris’s claim that she will not try to ban fracking, but Sommers said he takes Harris at her word and welcomes her support for fracking and oil drilling more generally.

Asked if he was concerned about Harris’ past actions suing oil companies, Sommers said no. The oil and gas industry supports 11 million jobs, he said, and the price of gasoline “is determined by economics — supply and demand. There is no man behind the curtain” rigging prices.

As California attorney general, Harris “won tens of millions in settlements against Big Oil and held polluters accountable,” her campaign says. Her platform includes a promise to ”hold polluters accountable to secure clean air and water for all.”

Trump, meanwhile, has vowed to rescind unspent funds from the climate law and other programs, and said he will target offshore wind projects. He said Harris would move to restrict onshore oil and gas production if elected.

“They’ll go back to destroying our country, and oil will be dead, fossil fuel will be dead,” Trump said.

A president’s power to restrict fracking, even on federal lands, is limited, and barring the practice on private land would require an act of Congress.

Jamie Henn, director of the activist group Fossil Free Media, supports a fracking ban, but said he was “not particularly worried about Harris having to thread the needle on fracking and other energy issues.”

“Her job right now is to get elected,” Henn wrote on the social media site X. “That’s the most important ‘policy’ on climate and everything else. They’ll be plenty of time to push her when she’s in office.”

In the report, researchers compiled breeding results in 511 osprey pairs in a dozen study areas, including in Hampton Roads. Breeding pairs were monitored throughout the nesting season, or from March to August, to measure success. To maintain population, ospreys need 1.15 chicks per pair of breeding ospreys. The collective reproductive rate for the population being monitored was 0.55 young chicks per pair.

Areas where ospreys relied on menhaden as a primary food source saw the biggest deficits in reproductive rates. Areas where catfish and gizzard shad were the main source of food had sustainable osprey populations.

“A large number of osprey pairs did not lay clutches during the 2024 nesting season,” reads a report from osprey researcher Bryan D. Watts. “These pairs arrived from wintering grounds in a timely manner (late February to early March). Most of these non-breeding pairs remained resident throughout the nesting season and defended territories but were never documented to lay eggs.

“This is the first time this behavior has been documented on a large scale within the Chesapeake.”

In Virginia Beach, breeding performance for ospreys had a “minor deficit,” or a reproductive rate between 0.8 to 0.9 young per breeding pair. Around the Elizabeth River in Norfolk and Portsmouth and on the Eastern Shore, the rate had a “moderate deficit,” or 0.6 to 0.8 young osprey per pair. Areas on the Peninsula and Northern Neck had a “major deficit.”

While nests can be threatened by several factors — such as weather and predators — Watts noted that observations, studies and pollution did not prove to have significant impact on the nests. Poor breeding performance throughout the main stem of the Chesapeake Bay in 2024, he wrote, was driven by the loss of young after hatching.

This can be seen in “asymmetrical broods,” or when one hatchling is able to grow larger than another hatchling born in the nest at the same time.

“Asymmetric broods were common and widespread throughout the main stem of the Bay,” Watts’ report continues. “On average, pairs in the main stem lost 1.1 young between hatching and fledging. Both the high failure rate of nests and the high frequency of one-young broods for successful nests were driven by brood reduction caused by food stress.”

Last month, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission voted to form a workgroup to consider additional restrictions on the industrial harvest of menhaden, and Virginia is currently the only state on the East Coast that allows for menhaden reduction fishing in state waters. Lawmakers this year did not pass a bill to fund a local study on menhaden populations.

Chris Moore, Virginia executive director for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said that menhaden industry management is “operating with a question mark” without the study. Existing data looks at menhaden populations across the East Coast, so not having Virginia-specific data makes it unclear how dire the situation could be.

“This year’s osprey data adds to the growing concerns about the number of menhaden in the bay and the importance of a robust menhaden population for species that depend on them for food and Virginia’s economy,” Moore said. “We must follow a precautionary, ecosystem-based approach to setting limits on the menhaden fishery.

“That approach must include the study of the industrial fishing impacts to the bay, as well as considering seasonal fishing closures from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.”

Eliza Noe, eliza.noe@virginiamedia.com

Jackson and three others created the project in 1991 around a kitchen table. She left her job as a Virginian-Pilot reporter to focus on the project full time. Since then, nearly 7,000 families have joined the project’s River Star Homes, which is made up of homeowners who have pledged to keep the river clean by taking care of their own yards. In addition, thousands of children across the region have learned on the Dominion Energy Learning Barge and 40-acre Paradise Creek Nature Park.

Before the project was formed, the Elizabeth Rriver was considered one of the most industrialized rivers in the world and was “virtually devoid of life for miles at a stretch.”

“I’ve had the great privilege of leading many thousands of supporters and partners to make so much progress toward turning around the health of a river once presumed dead,” Jackson said in a statement. “I’m hoping this is the next great thing I’m able to help do to continue the transformation of the Elizabeth River into the future.”

The nonprofit debuted the Ryan Resilience Lab this summer. Constructed inside a flood zone along one of Norfolk’s busiest commercial corridors, the lab is flanked by multiple residential neighborhoods and showcases what the future of sustainable coastal living might look like.

The facility features a floating entry pavilion and storage shed, a “living shoreline” instead of a hardened shore, an 80,000-watt solar energy system, rainwater collection system, and a permeable parking lot to keep polluted runoff from reaching the river.

“For the last three decades, we worked on fixing problems of the past — legacy pollution, loss of wetlands and oysters,” Jackson said. “Now we are refocusing to help people find hope and action for the future, as we inherit the highest rate of sea level rise on the East Coast.”

Eliza Noe, eliza.noe@virginiamedia.com

Amid a barrage of climate-infused weather disasters such as flooding and hurricanes, along with the shattering of heat records,wildfires and many Americans growing concerned about the planet’s warming, climate change was barely discussed during the presidential debate.

When asked the sole debate question on climate Tuesday night, Vice President Kamala Harris said, “young people of America care deeply about this issue,” and added that the United States has increased domestic production of oil to historic highs, a fact that will contribute to global warming. Harris’ opponent, former President Donald Trump, didn’t answer the question, instead saying incorrectly that the administration of President Joe Biden and Harris is “building big auto plants in Mexico, in many cases owned by China.”

While climate was not front and center, statements made by both candidates — on fracking, energy policy and renewables, provided windows into major climate policy issues. What to know about key climate topics covered — and not covered — during Tuesday’s debate.

Fracking

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a drilling method used to extract oil and natural gas from deep underground bedrock using a highly pressurized liquid. The technique is part of what allowed the U.S. to become the world’s top producer of oil. As of March, the country produced more crude oil than any nation ever for the past six years, according to the Energy Information Administration.

On Tuesday, Trump falsely said about Harris: “If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania will end on Day 1,” arguing that her administration would harm the state and nation’s economy. Without a law approved by Congress, a president can only ban fracking on federal lands, which make up about 2% of the state of Pennsylvania, where the debate took place.

Harris said during her 2020 campaign for president that she opposed fracking. But lately, including during the debate, Harris said she would not ban the practice if she is elected. Though Harris said her values have not changed, the discussion of fracking was notable because the drilling method does not align with efforts to switch to clean energy, which Harris also says she champions.

Oil and natural gas are fossil fuels, the burning of which produce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane that warm the planet.

Energy policy

During the debate, Harris also called for investment in “diverse” sources of energy, “so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.”

After Trump pulled the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change during his first term, the Biden-Harris administration reentered the global pact aimed at reducing emissions. The administration also set a target to slash U.S. emissions 50% by 2030 and put forth policy to accelerate clean energy projects and shift away from fossil fuels.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, passed in 2021, has provisions related to climate change, and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act is the most sweeping climate law in the nation’s history, pouring billions of dollars into the clean energy workforce that has prompted a massive buildout of manufacturing facilities. It includes production tax credits for electricity produced from renewables, including wind and solar.

But these policies alone won’t be enough for the U.S. to reach its goal of cutting carbon pollution in half, nor do they stop the fossil fuel industry from having opportunities to expand on federal lands before renewables can be built.

Renewable energies

During the debate, Trump falsely claimed that under Harris there would “be no fossil fuels” and the country would “go back to windmills.” At one point, Trump called himself a “fan” of solar but then criticized solar farms that take up large plots of land.

Solar power can be generated on a large or small scale, but even the largest solar farms use a tiny fraction of the land used for agriculture in the U.S. Experts say wind and solar, both clean energies, will be key to tackling the greenhouse gas emissions that are fueling the climate crisis, causing substantial damages to humans and ecosystems alike.

Last year, 30% of the world’s electricity was produced with renewables and the U.S. has committed to tripling renewables by 2030 in order to do its part in addressing climate change.

Some key issues not discussed

Permitting of new energy projects in the U.S. has not gotten much attention throughout the election cycle, but it’s important because it can make or break the nation’s ability to meet clean energy targets.

Wind and solar power can contribute millions of dollars in tax revenue per year to rural communities, an Associated Press analysis found. But first those projects have to get approved in local governments, a process out of the federal government’s control. Misinformation runs rampant, and communities can turn against those projects.

For instance, wind developers told the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in a January report at least a quarter of applications to build wind projects were canceled in the last five years, with local rules and community opposition cited as some of the leading reasons.

Meanwhile, during the debate, insurance only got a brief mention by Harris, as part of a dig at Trump.

“The former president has said that climate change is a hoax,” she said. “And what we know is that it is very real. You ask anyone who lives in a state who has experienced these extreme weather occurrences, who now is either being denied home insurance or it’s being jacked up.”

Residents living in areas prone to disasters like flooding and wildfires are having a hard time getting insurance at all, and federal policies may force people to pay more, an AP review found.

Electric vehicles also got little attention Tuesday, though Trump raised the idea of all critical minerals coming from China, which would include lithium and nickel. China currently dominates global EV battery production. Though EVs can run on clean electricity, mining for their batteries is an environmental and human rights concern.

Biden has created U.S. tax credits for EV purchases. While Trump has said the current administration’s efforts have resulted in an EV “mandate,” that is not true. Automakers do have to sell some electric vehicles to meet Environmental Protection Agency standards, but those regulations can also be met with more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars.

___

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Neopestalotiopsis disease, which first appeared several years ago in Florida, can cause light to dark brown spots on plant leaves and rotting of the fruit. To avoid it, some local growers started getting their plants from a supplier in Canada. But now, major nurseries there are also seeing symptoms, and they’ve recently warned the fruit growers.

“They are basically canceling orders (and in many cases refunding the deposit) or telling plug plant producers and farmers to take plants at their own risk — no reimbursements for bad or infected plants delivered this year,” said Phil Brannen, a professor in the Plant Pathology Department at the University of Georgia, in an Aug. 21 post on the university’s cooperative extension’s website.

It’s not the first time Hampton Roads has dealt with a strawberry disease, but this one could have a major impact on growers who count on the popularity of the fruit.

“That’s a major crop that draws the consumers to the farms,” said Jayesh Samtani, associate professor and small fruit extension specialist at the Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center. “It’s the first crop that gives you fruit in the spring season.”

The disease can reduce a grower’s harvest by as much as 50%, Samtani said.

“It’s scary for sure,” said Roy Flanagan, Virginia Beach’s agricultural extension agent and owner of Flanagan Farms, which offers u-pick strawberries in the spring. “It’s a new enemy of the plant that you’ve got to figure out to combat.”

Virginia Beach is the commonwealth’s largest producer of strawberries thanks to the area’s temperate climate and nutrient-rich soil. The value of the crop in Virginia Beach ranges from $750,000 to $1 million per year. Meanwhile, a strawberry farm in Virginia Beach sees an estimated 1,500 visitors each week in May, according to the city.

Some area farms were able to order healthy cutoffs, or bare root plants, from California this year before they sold out, according to Samtani. Flanagan Farms and Cullipher Farm are among those. Others will take the risk with the Canadian plants or cancel their orders.

The situation likely will have long-lasting repercussions.

“The disease has a tendency to stay in the soil from one season to another,” Samtani said. “Even next year, if your plants come in clean, it would not be advisable to use the same site.”

Cindy Weatherly, who operates a farm in Pungo and Cindy’s Produce, a farm stand on Harpers Road, will skip growing strawberries this year to avoid contamination.

“This is an aggressive strain,” Weatherly said. “I don’t want to introduce a disease into my soil that I know nothing about until I watch someone else take care of it.”

To help stave off the disease, which thrives in warm climates, some growers will receive their plants a little later than normal, Samtani said. Strawberries in southeast Virginia are typically planted from last week of September through the first week of October. Chandler, Sweet Charlie, and Ruby June varieties are mostly grown locally.

Samtani plants berries at the research center each year. He’s expecting strawberry plants to arrive Oct. 10.

The Henley family is one of the city’s largest strawberry producers, growing them across 10 acres. They received the tips of strawberry plants from a supplier in Nova Scotia and have been rooting them in trays, said farm owner Barbara Henley. She’s already noticed some signs of the disease in one of the varieties, but is on track to plant in three weeks.

“Ours look fairly good,” Henley said, also a City Council member. “I’m afraid to say too much.”

The research center is advising growers about how to mitigate the disease if plants are infected. One option is fumigating the soil, which involves injecting a synthetic chemical gas. Sanitizing clothing, equipment, machinery and pruning tools also will be critical.

And fungicidal treatments can also help keep the disease under control. However, the most effective chemical — thiram — is being phased out by the Environmental Protection Agency, Samtani said.

Some factors, like weather, will be out of the control of growers. A dry, mild spring could keep the disease at bay.

“We don’t really know what’s going to happen until it all unfolds and the season progresses,” Samtani said.

Stacy Parker, 757-222-5125, stacy.parker@pilotonline.com

What’s the first industry to fall victim to climate change? There’s a decent argument that it already happened — more than 600 years ago.

When the Norman Conquest in 1066 installed a French feudal aristocracy in the British Isles, the invaders brought with them a love of winemaking. Those skills flourished in the conditions of the Medieval Warm Period, a patch of unusually high temperatures from about 950 to 1250 that allowed vineyards to spread across the well-drained chalk soils of southern England. The mild conditions gave way to a frigid period known as the Little Ice Age, however, which held sway until the 19th century. As the climate cooled, English viticulture collapsed.

That should be a worrying example if you’re a winemaker. Grape vines are notoriously sensitive to the smallest changes in landscape and climate. Those with a skilled palate (I’m not one of them) can supposedly sense the subtlest of environmental effects in a bottle of wine — whether the winter that preceded the vintage was warm or cold, the harvest wet or dry, the grapes grown on a slope facing to the north or the south.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see how a warming climate could play havoc with this. Own a semiconductor factory, and your climate exposures will occur on the macro scale. Will bigger rainstorms flood the site, and will hotter summers push up my bill for air conditioning? A vintner, on the other hand, has to think about micro issues. Will a few extra warm nights or blazing days in growing season throw off the delicate balance of sugar and water formation in developing bunches? And will that make the resulting bottles less fragrant or complex than they otherwise would be?

For winemakers in Europe, a fresh climate headache is looming in the geographic indications they’ve used to defend their art. For the best part of a century, European agricultural producers have built a complex system of intellectual property around the idea that particular types of food and drink are regionally distinctive, and have names that must be protected under copyright law. There’s even a line on geographical indications in the Treaty of Versailles, the document that formally ended World War I.

Recognition of geographic indications is a basic hurdle for any nation wanting to strike a trade deal with the European Union and gain access to the world’s second-biggest market. It’s why makers of sparkling wine in most of the world can’t call their product Champagne, and why Australian and Canadian producers of fortified white wine these days label their bottles as “Apera,” because only those from the Jerez region of Spain can call themselves Sherry. Fully 1,646 of the 1,658 geographic indications for wine listed on the European Union’s eAmbrosia register are for EU countries. Of the rest, five are in the UK, four in China, two are in the U.S. (the Napa Valley and Willamette Valley) and one in Brazil.

Adding such geographic limits might have seemed like a good idea during the stable climate of the 20th century, but in the more disordered era into which we’re now moving it’s a risk. Many geographic indications assign a specific grape variety for a specific region. Barolo, arguably Italy’s most revered wine style, must be grown only with Nebbiolo grapes in a handful of communities among the misty mountains of Piedmont. As a warming planet makes the climate of northern Italy more like regions further south where Nebbiolo can’t flourish, the rigidity of Barolo’s geographic indication risks driving it into extinction.

Researchers in Europe recently analyzed 1,085 wine geographic indications across the continent to work out which were most at risk from a warming climate. What they found should worry viticulturalists: a swath of country is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and has little natural capacity to adapt.“Strong yield decreases were projected for northern Italy, central Spain, Greece, and Bulgaria,” they wrote, “and decreased suitability for Spain, parts of France, central and northern Italy, and large parts of eastern Europe.” In Burgundy, regions known for the Pinot Noir grape may become unable to grow the variety. The geographic indication system needs to be rethought to allow winegrowers to switch their practices as the climate warms, they argued.

That shouldn’t be impossible. Champagne, grown at the northern limit of wine cultivation and traditionally seen as the product of a difficult environment, is conventionally made from just three grape varieties: Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, and Meunier. But there are four other less celebrated varieties (1) that can be added to the blend, and may provide a way of preserving the wine’s characteristics even as the climate of Champagne starts to more closely resemble that of southern France. A further variety, known as Voltis, has been selectively bred as part of a deliberate effort to prepare for the effects of a warmer climate.

For many wine regions, that’s going to be a wrenching shift. What makes European wine unique is the marriage of a particular grape and viticultural practice with a particular region’s soil, climate, and intangibles. That sort of thinking is going to have to change as the planet warms. If Europe’s winemakers don’t want to experience the fate of medieval English vineyards, they’ll need to adapt before they’re wiped out.

(1) The varieties are Arbane, Petit Meslier, Pinot Gris, and Pinot Blanc. They’re often regarded as more difficult to work with in Champagne.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change and energy. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times.

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

At dawn, he would accompany his grandmother to a reef at low tide, where she plucked black snails, spiny lobsters and spiky sea urchins from the craggy rock. In Hawaiian, she would instruct him to break off a branch of kiawe, a type of mesquite, to tease out an octopus hiding in a hole.

It taught Rodrigues, 71, the value of ahupuaa, a Native Hawaiian system for dividing land from the mountains down to the ocean, with the residents of each section living off the land and waters within it.

But now the section where he lives and where his ancestors have always lived — the Olowalu ahupuaa — is also home to a temporary landfill being used to store debris from the deadly wildfire that decimated the historic nearby town of Lahaina last summer, destroying thousands of buildings and killing 102 people. It’s enough refuse to cover five football fields five stories high, including soil contaminated with lead and arsenic.

A controversy over whether that site is truly temporary — and over where the debris might finally wind up — has sparked a fierce legal fight with tens of millions of dollars at stake, not to mention a priceless ecosystem rich with coral, manta rays and other sea life just offshore.

“Why would you go put opala like this in a place that’s clean?” Rodrigues asked, using a Hawaiian word for trash.

Handling debris after large wildfires is always a logistical challenge. After the 2018 Camp Fire killed 85 people and burned down most of the town of Paradise, California, more than 300,000 truck loads were required to transport the debris to three different landfills, said Cole Glenwright, the deputy incident commander of the debris removal operation. The whole process took about a year.

It’s taking much longer on Maui, given environmental concerns, how long it has taken to clear destroyed lots, worries about Native Hawaiian cultural sites, and tussling over the ownership of a potential permanent site for the debris.

The temporary landfill in Olowalu is a former quarry on state-owned land and close to Lahaina, which made it a convenient choice for quickly storing the debris being cleared away so the town can rebuild. Officials believe its arid climate will reduce the risk of contamination spreading, and they say they’ve taken many precautions, including using thick liner and stormwater controls to contain runoff.

Officials have analyzed samples of soil, groundwater and surface water and found no traces of contamination being released, according to a quarterly report released in July.

But the site is just uphill from a coral reef, and some locals fear an ecological catastrophe if pollution does reach the water.

The operation of the site also threatens sacred Hawaiian shrines and altars and desecrates ancient Hawaiian burial sites, according to a lawsuit filed by two people who don’t want the debris in Olowalu. One of the plaintiffs is Manoa Ka’io Martin, whose ancestors are among those buried nearby. The other is farmer Eddy Garcia, who worries about contamination of the food he grows, including taro, bananas, pineapples and starfruit.

Amid demands to remove the debris from Olowalu, Maui County is seeking to seize a privately owned former quarry near the Central Maui Landfill across the island to use as a permanent dump site.

That’s prompted another legal fight. The company that owns the land, Komar Maui Properties, doesn’t want to give it up.

Komar bought the land in 2015 with plans to build a private landfill, but it says permitting issues have stalled development. It is contesting the county’s effort to take the property by eminent domain — a process by which governments can seize private land for public use, with fair compensation for the owner. A federal judge has prevented the county from taking immediate possession while the lawsuit plays out.

Andy Naden, general counsel and executive vice president of Komar Investments, the parent company of Komar Maui Properties, says the county moved to seize its land only after learning the Federal Emergency Management Agency would pay “tipping fees” associated with disposing of the Lahaina debris — fees typically paid by weight to landfill owners. Maui County charges a tipping fee of nearly $110 per ton for municipal solid waste.

“FEMA is going to dump 400,000 tons into this hole,” Naden said. “That equates to $44 million that the federal government is going to give to whoever has the hole.”

Shayne Agawa, director of Maui’s Department of Environmental Management, disputed that. He said his department has long been interested in acquiring the land as part of plans to expand the adjacent public landfill.

Agawa, who lives in Olowalu, said the county doesn’t want the debris to remain at the temporary site. But it has yet to come up with a backup plan in case the court blocks the county from seizing Komar’s land. Officials are looking at other nearby parcels, he said.

To respond to cultural concerns, Maui officials consulted with the county’s archaeologist, Janet Six, and FEMA had one of its historic advisors assess the site. Six told The Associated Press she could not rule out the presence of ancient cultural sites or burial grounds, but noted that the area was previously disturbed by mining. FEMA found that no historic properties would be affected.

The lawsuit filed by Garcia and Martin asserted that the construction and operation of the temporary dump has in fact damaged or desecrated such sites by exposing them to toxic material, in violation of Martin’s spiritual practices.

Garcia said he feels uneasy as rumbling trucks haul debris up the road next to his farm. He worries one heavy bout of rain will cause toxins from the debris to contaminate the food he grows.

The pair dropped their lawsuit after the county announced plans for the permanent site in central Maui, but their lawyer is considering their next legal steps while the debris sits in Olowalu.

“I have a feeling they’re going to try to make it permanent and just say, ‘Sorry, we can’t move it to the other site,’” Garcia said.

Further complicating the issue is that the ashes or bones of some fire victims might be mingled in the debris. Raenelle Stewart’s 97-year-old grandmother died in the fire. Stewart often wonders if the ashes the family received contained all her remains. The fire debris should be kept nearby, she said.

“I think they should designate a spot in Lahaina for it,” she said. “I don’t think it’s so toxic that the earth can’t handle.”

Randy Awo, a retired administrator in the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, is a Native Hawaiian resident of Maui. He’d prefer to have the debris shipped out of state — an option officials rejected as too expensive.

Awo called the concerns about remains “a sacred topic” and said he does not want to be insensitive to families who lost loved ones. But, he added, the community must also protect Maui’s finite amount of land.

“When our environment is subjected to toxins that threaten life itself,” Awo said, “we have to start making decisions that weigh both.”

At first, Nawal Baker thought she’d been bitten by a shark.

The 30-year-old Henrico resident and a friend were swimming in the ocean Sunday by Jennette’s Pier in Nags Head when she felt a severe pain on her foot. Knee deep in the Atlantic, she feared she was about to be pulled under, and yelled for her friend to get out of the water while heading for shore herself.

“I was looking down initially, because the water is so clear, and just as I looked up, I felt something. I was 100% sure it was a shark,” she said.

When she got out of the water, there was a “good amount of blood,” and it looked like someone had stabbed the top of her foot with a pencil. It didn’t take long to figure out the culprit was a stingray, not a shark.

“It looked like nothing, but the pain was indescribable,” she said.

Baker credits Debbie Wilson, a paramedic from Virginia, for keeping her calm as she was treated on the beach before being taken to the hospital.

“Debbie held my hand from start to finish, my eyes were on her the whole time,” Baker said.

Ray stings are relatively uncommon on the Outer Banks, local experts say, but do happen — we just don’t always hear about them.

“When our staff gets stung while teaching surf lessons, we simply have them soak their foot in a bucket of hot water, which helps immensely,” said Daryl Law, spokesman for Jennette’s Pier.

There are several types of stingrays in the waters around the Outer Banks and coastal North Carolina, with the Atlantic stingray the most common, according to the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality. A video from Jennette’s Pier on Sept. 1 showed several butterfly rays in the water around the time Baker was stung.

Rays are bottom-feeders with flattened, oval bodies and a long, venomous spine for self-defense. They can reach up to 6 feet long, but most are roughly 2 feet when encountered, the DEQ website said.

Law said people often confuse stingrays and harmless skates, noting rays “have whip-like tails that possess a sharp barb shaped like a long fingernail. Skates have sticker-like bumps on their tails but no stinging barb.”

Treating Baker’s sting began on the beach with hot packs, then continued in the hospital with immersing her foot in nearly scalding water, which helps neutralize stingray venom. Baker said she went into the ocean “knowing full well” she was sharing the water with plenty of sea creatures, but she didn’t expect an encounter with a stingray.

“The most traumatizing thing was thinking there was a shark and trying to shove my friend out of the water,” Baker said. “I genuinely thought that was the last moment of my life.”

Now, Baker’s thinking about getting a stingray tattoo on her foot when the wound heals.

Wildlife experts say ocean swimmers and waders can avoid rays by doing the “stingray shuffle.”

“Just shuffle your feet across the bottom and stingrays will feel the vibration and swim away, decreasing chances of being stung,” Law said.

A 0.3-mile stretch of beach in Buxton already had been closed for more than a year, with the expansion adding about a quarter of a mile more, the park service said in a release.

The beach is now closed from the southern end of beachfront homes in the village of Buxton at the end of Old Lighthouse Road to south of the old lighthouse jetties. The closure includes the beachfront in front of the southern groin and the Old Lighthouse Beach parking lot.

“The closure may change over the coming days based on ongoing field observations,” the release said.

Park rangers noticed “strong petroleum smells” Thursday morning along Old Lighthouse Beach, near the former U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard facilities just north of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse’s original site, the park service said.

They also found erosion from strong winds and wave action this week “uncovered significant quantities” of concrete, rebar, wires, PVC and metal pipes, metal fragments, and cables at the former military site.

“Soil and groundwater that is apparently contaminated with petroleum from historic military use of the site is now exposed to the beachfront during low tide, and wave action during high tide,” the release said.

All Buxton visitors should stay out of the area, the park service said.

Rangers reported observations of the petroleum exposure to the National Response Center, operated by the Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers and other state of North Carolina agencies that assist with pollution response, the park service said. The park service also requested assistance from the Regional Response Team, an interagency team that can help coordinate response and provide technical advice during oil spills or pollution events.

On Sept. 1, 2023, the park service closed two-tenths of a mile of beach near the exposed debris, then expanded the closure in March to roughly three-tenths of a mile.

In May, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers removed one pipe at the site thought to be leaking petroleum on the beach. Cleanup efforts have stalled as federal agencies and the military grappled with who is responsible.

The site is part of a 25-acre area the park service formerly leased to the military. A Navy base operated there from 1956 to 1984 on a submarine monitoring project kept classified until 1991. The facility was then used as a Coast Guard base until 2013 before returning to park service control.