DENVER — In many parts of the United States, spring is in the air. On the calendar, it’s less than two weeks away. That means many Americans are getting out their leaf blowers to deal with the foliage that’s been buried under snow all winter — while other people are prepping their lawn mowers for many months of yard maintenance. While lawn and garden care tools may not be large, gas-powered ones can produce a shocking amount of harmful air and noise pollution. 

To raise awareness of this pervasive threat to our ears, lungs and air, members of U.S. PIRG Education Fund’s and Environment America Research & Policy Center’s state groups will be hosting and participating in demonstrations of electric-powered equipment across the country over the coming months. 

“Given the electric lawn equipment options now available, it’s absurd to put our breathing and hearing at risk when we are doing yard work,” said CoPIRG Foundation Clean Air Advocate Kirsten Schatz. “We can improve our health and quality of life — and our neighbors’ — by retiring our antiquated, dirty, loud, gas-powered lawn mowers and leaf blowers.”

Entities responsible for multiple properties can make a greater impact than individuals. In response to growing public concern about pollution, many cities, states, utility companies and others across the country are shifting or making it easier to shift to cleaner, quieter electric lawn equipment. But we would all benefit from a more accelerated and widespread transition. That’s why our advocates are doing a “roadshow” of events including demonstrations of electric lawn tools, informational webinars and awards ceremonies for municipalities and policy makers who are setting good examples. 

Some of the planned events include (Note — all entries subject to change):

Wednesday, March 12 – Mia McCormick from Environment Florida Research & Policy Center will host a “Cleaner Air with Electric Lawn Care” workshop at the Climate Correction Conference in Orlando

Wednesday, March 12 – Diane Brown from Arizona PIRG Education Fund will distribute educational materials, including the Lawn Care Goes Electric report, at Arizona Electric Fleet Day, an event supported by the organization.

Friday, March 21 – Ian Seamans from Environment Texas Research & Policy Center will host an electric lawn care webinar to help municipal and/or corporate sustainability directors in Texas learn how they can address the issue.

Saturday, March 29 – Mia McCormick from Environment Florida Research & Policy Center will demonstrate electric lawn care tools at the Tampa Garden Club’s Greenfest.

Sunday, March 30 – Mia McCormick from Environment Florida Research & Policy Center will demonstrate electric lawn care tools at the Tampa Garden Club’s Greenfest.

Tuesday, April 1 – Ellie Kerns from PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center will attend Electric Lawn Equipment Demo Day at Philadelphia City Hall from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Wednesday, April 2 – Celeste Meiffren-Swango from Environment Oregon Research & Policy Center will demonstrate electric lawn care tools at the state capitol in Salem.

Wednesday, April 2 – Kirsten Schatz from COPIRG Foundation will demonstrate electric lawn care tools for commercial landscapers.

Monday, April 14 – Wednesday, April 16 – Diane Brown from Arizona PIRG Education Fund is inviting entities to showcase electric lawn mowers and other lawn equipment at the annual Arizona Transit Association and ADOT conference.

Wednesday, April 16 – Kirsten Schatz from COPIRG Foundation will host a national webinar for municipal and/or corporate sustainability officers and local elected officials.

Earth Week (TBA) – Doug O’Malley from Environment New Jersey Research & Policy Center will demonstrate electric lawn equipment and highlight both local ordinances and the need for further action at the state level. 

Earth Month (TBA) – Jennette Gayer from Environment Georgia Research & Policy Center will host webinars for local governments and demonstrate electric lawn equipment at events in Macon, Columbus and Decatur.

At these events, our team will discuss the many options available to those who want to take action, including how:

• States, utilities, enterprise funds and other entities can establish or expand financial incentives for cleaner, quieter electric lawn equipment such as point-of-sale discounts or rebates for individuals, and grants for local governments and commercial operators;
• Local governments, states and institutions such as universities and hospitals can commit to going electric for their own landscaping needs;
• Retailers can commit to meeting or beating The Home Depot’s goal of having 85% of lawn equipment sales be electric by 2028;
• States and local governments can stop the sale of new gas-powered equipment;
• States and local governments can phase out the use of gas-powered equipment.

Topics

In the world of infectious disease research and development, professionals can’t afford to base their work on biosafety inaccuracies—and as the often-botched response to COVID-19 indicated, the public should be intolerant of such errors, as well.

As environmental, health, and safety (EHS) experts, we know that biosafety lapses can lead to operational errors—and potentially catastrophic disruption. However, the world of entertainment is laxer and willing to let mistakes or inaccuracies creep into the public consciousness. This can have serious ramifications—as knowledge of biological dangers can be a matter of life and death—both in our work life—and as citizens.

What Is “The Hot Zone” About?

With that in mind, we’d like to share an example of where a famous author gets biosafety facts wrong: Richard Preston’s book, “The Hot Zone.” Admittedly, this is a gripping account of the emergence of filoviruses like Ebola and Marburg. (It was so popular, it spawned a television miniseries with high-profile stars like Juliet Margulies.)

While “The Hot Zone” excels in creating suspense, however, it is riddled with biosecurity and biosafety inaccuracies. Yes, some credit the book with raising public awareness of highly pathogenic viruses. But it also perpetuates misinformation about laboratory safety, containment procedures, and the risks of emerging infectious diseases.

To set the record straight, below are five key biosafety and biosecurity inaccuracies, distortions, and omissions.

Biosafety Inaccuracy 1: Exaggeration of Ebola’s Airborne Transmission Potential

One of the most misleading “Hot Zone” suggestions is that Ebola is airborne. The book claims that the virus can be transmitted through the air between infected primates and humans. This assertion lacks scientifical validation.

True, there is lab-based evidence that droplets can transmit filoviruses over short distances, but there has been no confirmed case of airborne Ebola transmission in humans. The exaggeration of airborne transmission risk fuels unnecessary panic and misrepresents the actual routes of Ebola virus transmission (primarily via direct contact with infected bodily fluids).

It is very unlikely for Ebola to mutate in a way that changes this transmission. Since its discovery in 1976, it has been proven to be a stable virus with a relatively constant mutation rate. Samples from 1976 and 2014 have a difference of about 3%, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Biosafety Inaccuracy 2: Mischaracterization of Biosafety Protocols at USAMRIID

The book portrays biosafety procedures at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) as chaotic and haphazard. In reality, USAMRIID is a highly regulated facility that adheres to stringent biosafety and biosecurity protocols.

The depiction of scientists working in BSL4 laboratories as constantly at risk of exposure due to minor lapses is an oversimplification. While laboratory work with high-consequence pathogens carries inherent risks, these are mitigated through strict procedural controls, advanced containment technologies, and extensive personnel training—details that are largely absent from “The Hot Zone.”

Biosafety Inaccuracy 3: Misrepresentation of the Reston Virus Outbreak

“The Hot Zone” dramatizes the 1989 Reston virus outbreak, where an Ebola-like filovirus was discovered in monkeys in a Virginia facility. Preston’s narrative suggests that the event nearly resulted in a catastrophic human outbreak, but this is misleading.

Reston virus (while classified as an Ebola species) has never been shown to cause disease in humans. In fact, the animal handler identified as the outbreak source never developed any illness during monitoring. The suggestion this event could have triggered an epidemic ignores the significant biological differences between Reston virus and its deadly counterparts, Ebola Zaire, Sudan, and others.

Biosafety Inaccuracy 4: Sensationalized Depictions of Infection Symptoms

For a book about the Ebola virus, “The Hot Zone” presents a highly exaggerated portrayal of the disease’s symptoms. While the virus is a severe and often fatal illness, the book indulges in hyperbole when discussing symptoms. It depicts the course of the disease as involving excessive bleeding, rapid tissue liquefaction, and nearly instant death. This isn’t exactly the case.

In reality, while hemorrhagic symptoms do occur, they are not as extreme or as universally present as the book implies. The majority of Ebola-related fatalities are from multi-organ failure and shock, rather than the explosive bleeding scenarios Preston depicts in “The Hot Zone.”

Biosafety Inaccuracy 5: Misrepresentation of the Relationship of Biosafety Ethics and Regulatory Oversight

“The Hot Zone” fails to provide an accurate depiction of the United States’ extensive regulatory framework that governs biosafety and biosecurity. High-containment laboratories operate under strict oversight from agencies such as the CDC, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

These institutions enforce rigorous protocols to prevent accidental exposures and biosecurity threats. The book focuses on building fear of imagined dangers—but neglects to highlight the rigorous ethical and procedural considerations that actually govern high-risk pathogen research.

Avoid Biosafety Inaccuracies: Talk to Experts

So, on any level, is the book “The Hot Zone” true? Not scientifically, at least. While the book is an engaging thriller, it’s not an accurate depiction of real-world biosafety and biosecurity practices. The book is riddled with biosafety inaccuracies that misinform the public and cause cause chaos and confusion to readers.

To summarize, it:

• Amplifies fears about airborne transmission
• Misrepresents laboratory safety protocols
• Exaggerates the impact of the Reston virus
• Distorts Ebola symptoms to create fear
• Omits crucial regulatory oversight details

Misinformation about emerging infectious diseases can contribute to unnecessary panic and hinder effective public health responses. All the more reason to avoid relying on faulty and inaccurate information in the quest for safe and successful operations. Professionals in virology and pandemic preparedness need to make judgements based on scientifically accurate sources—rather than sensationalized accounts. It’s non-negotiable.

At Triumvirate Environmental, our extensive biosafety consulting experience and industrial hygiene services experience prevent biosafety errors from affecting organizations involved in many sorts of sensitive R&D. We rely on evidence-based guidance at all times, with support from the best brains in the business. Have questions about biosafety or biosecurity? Talk to us today.

(Editor’s note: Christopher Hamilton, EHS Consultant with Triumvirate Environmental, contributed extensively to this blog.)

New guidance has added impetus to the search for a reliable and effective PFAS treatment solution. CPL/Puragen details the use of its PFAS treatment system Search, Capture, Destroy at a UK-based water utility.

Possibly a surprising enlistment in the ongoing culture wars, plastic is nonetheless another issue where melodrama often trumps detail. Or perhaps that should be: “Trumps”. The 47th president’s early executive order on straws – reversing Biden’s own 2024 order aiming to phase out single-use plastics in federal facilities – was undoubtedly another symbolic win for a presidential strategy that seems to place a premium on showboating. But – and you’ve probably guessed what’s coming next – a fairly large segment of informed opinion and civic society is pushing in quite a different direction. Technology seems likely to play a decisive role in eliminating the environmental harms of plastic, and legislation is being shaped to encompass new findings.

The collapse of November’s talks in Busan, which had hoped to agree the terms of a Global Plastics Treaty, an internationally binding legal instrument to control plastics pollution, appeared to be a significant setback. One sticking point seemed to have been on whether such a treaty needs to eliminate plastic, as opposed to improving its disposal or recycling, with a phase-out suggested by Kuwaiti delegates as likely to exacerbate economic inequalities.¹

When talks resume this year, said campaign group #BreakFreeFromPlastic, delegations must continue to support “a high-ambition, legally-binding treaty”, which should include provision on corporate accountability, prioritizing plastic production reduction measures, and scaling reuse and refill systems.

Reducing the amount of plastic produced by the fast-moving consumer goods sector has gained traction as a viable way of reducing the amount showing up in the environment, and various studies point to a more or less 1:1 correlation between these two phenomena.²

And it seems self-evident that manufacturers of single-use plastic products should be held accountable for managing the resulting plastic waste. The UK, for instance, has moved in this direction with the Plastic Packaging Tax, which imposes a charge on plastic packaging that fails to meet a minimum threshold of 30 per cent recycled content, and this is currently set at around £217 per tonne.³

The world’s top plastic polluter, The Coca-Cola Company, disappointed environmental observers in late November by quietly dropping a 2022 pledge to achieve 25% reusable packaging by 2030. This was simply removed from its website and (presumably) erased from existence. Campaign group #BreakFreeFromPlastic lamented: “Instead, Coca-Cola continues to focus on failed recycling goals that will do little to address the plastic crisis.”⁴

Whether recycling contributes adequately to the plastics crisis seems unclear. Some recent data suggest the quality of recycling will be decisive. The EU’s Waste Framework Directive has already recognised this, with Article 11 requiring member states to “promote high-quality recycling”. It encourages the use of separate collection systems to meet the necessary quality standards for relevant recycling sectors.⁵

One Swedish group reported results in early February that lend support to this position, noting that high-quality material recycling through advanced sorting has a significantly lower climate impact than material recycling without sorting (downcycling). In fact, downcycling has almost as much climate impact as incinerating the plastic.⁶

They called for the introduction of adequate policy instruments. The current regulatory framework for recycling plastic packaging waste in many places (including Sweden) prioritizes recycling over incineration but doesn’t consider how different recycling methods affect the climate, resource efficiency, and the possibility of increased circularity.

Advanced computer vision and robotics is making it possible to sort waste material into more specific streams, and in a fast and accurate way. For example, Recycleye provides robotic pickers that can process up to 55 items per minute with less than one per cent contamination, as Tom Cash, director of automation parts supplier, Foxmere, explains in a recent article. It also opens up the possibility of more precise separation, and extracting high quality recyclates, such as food-grade polyethylene terephthalate (PET), from residual waste.

“It’s been claimed that this reduces the cost of waste sorting and boosts profit margins from higher purity material bales,” said Cash.

Where does it come from?
An underpinning of the plastics crisis seems to be the fact that very little plastic packaging is recycled (9% being one OECD estimate), so the rest ends up in landfill, incineration or the environment. There are many unknowns here, and popular myths. For example, one familiar saw is that 80% of the plastics in the ocean come from land, with the rest originating at sea. “This claim is uncertain,” according to the Plastic Mythbusters website,⁷ a project set up in 2023 by academic groups, which said it couldn’t find credible scientific source to support the claim.

“The percentage of land- and sea-based plastic inputs into the ocean has not yet been calculated on a global level and therefore remains unknown.

“Scientific studies show that the ratio of land versus ocean-based plastics can differ strongly depending on the specific location the scientific metric used.”

Similarly with the claim that we ingest and inhale a credit card’s worth of plastic every week? “This claim is certainly false,” says the website, pointing out that while scientific estimates vary widely, ‘one credit card per week’ is a gross overestimate.

When it comes to identifying the waste found in the environment, there also seems to be scant room for certainty. In one study, less than half the waste collected had recognizable branding, making it impossible to connect it with the companies responsible for producing it.

One solution being explored here is Blockchain, providing a secure and accurate way of tracking plastic waste back to its source. For example, a project called TRACKCYCLE launched by Circulor in partnership with TotalEnergies and Recycling Technologies, aims to enhance traceability in hard-to-recycle plastics (HTRP). It uses Blockchain technology to create a seemingly fully transparent recycling value chain, tracking materials from waste sourcing to the production of recycled polymers. Stakeholders in the polymers industry are provided with detailed records of material quality and origin.⁸

New materials
Finding alternative materials to those currently used for single-use plastics is another important avenue of progress. Improvements with biodegradable plastics has prompted some unusual claims, and China has even exempted biodegradable bioplastics from its ban on single-use plastic, as if it were evident that end-of-life issues with these materials are not the same as with other plastics.⁹

Unfortunately, things are not quite as clear-cut as this suggests, as technology analyst IDTechX noted in a recent announcement.¹⁰ “To biodegrade well, these bioplastics need certain conditions in their environment. If they end up in a landfill in an anaerobic environment, they will not degrade at all.”

Their limitations are being addressed by the development of bioplastic bio-composites, which combine bioplastics with biobased fillers such as natural fibres derived from wood pulp, wood flour, and cotton. These fibres can be incorporated into the polymer matrix during the resin extrusion process, realizing advantages of strength and durability, while also maintaining biodegradability.

“Overall, the gap between the promise and delivery of biodegradable bioplastics is still significant,” concludes the group in its recent report, “Are Biodegradable Bioplastics Meeting Their Promise?” But better infrastructure for composting these materials, and innovations like biobased composites, promise ongoing improvements.

At Davos in January, NBCo announced a range of fibre bottles, made from “rapidly renewable resources” such as bamboo and agricultural waste. These provide a reported recyclability rate of 90-99% in paper streams. NBCo said the products were undergoing rigorous biodegradability testing in soil and seawater, which was expected to conclude in early 2025.

Much of the offering seemed to revolve around the provision of “a truly end-to-end supply chain”, and an approach that claims to grasp the complexity involved for brands to switchfrom plastic to fibre-based solutions.

The group’s presentation also carried the suggestion of something like a new paradigm, and spoke of “regenerative manufacturing”, which they said, “offers a vision of putting more back into the system than we take out.”

“True circularity mirrors nature: we must create materials that can seamlessly return to the earth as nutrients, not poisons.”

Notes
[1] “Global plastic talks collapse as oil states rebel”, BBC, 1 December 2024. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c785l1nrpd1o
[2] A peer-reviewed study published by Science Advances. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj8275 fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1TaR6pqqY7SDzVQDvvyW4WQ7E8RFfnJ5NwlfyAyxBJiiZZ49k37-X_Ihg_aem_BGSuHAtnUHFNWS5Np49pDg
[3] https://www.gov.uk/green-taxes-and-reliefs/plastic-packaging-tax
[4] Press release, “Sustainability Advocates Respond to Coca-Cola Quietly Dropping its 25% Reusable Packaging Target”>Sustainability Advocates Respond to Coca-Cola Quietly Dropping its 25% Reusable Packaging Target”, BFFP, received by email, 3 December 2024
[5] https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/waste/framework/guidance_doc.pdf
[6] Press release, “Big difference in climate benefits between recycling methods – new policies needed in Sweden and internationally”, Svensk Plaståtervinning AB, received 11 February 2025.
[7] The Plastic Mythbusters website was set up in 2023 by researchers at the University of Strathclyde and Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon and communications experts at Ahnen & Enkel.
[8] “Is production really pollution? Technology that tackles the plastic waste problem” by Tom Cash, director of automation parts supplier, Foxmere. Received by email, 20 January 2025.
[9] Press release, “Are Biodegradable Bioplastics Meeting Their Promise?”, IDTechEx, received 16 October 2024.

BENGALURU, India (AP) — Most of the world has dirty air, with just 17% of cities globally meeting air pollution guidelines, a report Tuesday found.

Switzerland-based air quality monitoring database IQAir analyzed data from 40,000 air quality monitoring stations in 138 countries and found that Chad, Congo, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India had the dirtiest air. India had six of the nine most polluted cities with the industrial town of Byrnihat in northeastern India the worst.

Experts said the real amount of air pollution might be far greater as many parts of the world lack the monitoring needed for more accurate data. In Africa, for example, there is only one monitoring station for every 3.7 million people.

More air quality monitors are being set up to counter the issue, the report said. This year, report authors were able to incorporate data from 8,954 new locations and around a thousand new monitors as a result of efforts to better monitor air pollution.

But last week, data monitoring for air pollution was dealt a blow when the U.S. State Department announced it would no longer make public its data from its embassies and consulates around the world.

Breathing in polluted air over a long period of time can cause respiratory illness, Alzheimer’s disease and cancer, said Fatimah Ahamad, chief scientist and air pollution expert at Malaysia-based Sunway Centre for Planetary Health. The World Health Organization estimates that air pollution kills around 7 million people each year.

Ahamad said much more needs to be done to cut air pollution levels. The WHO had earlier found that 99% of the world’s population lives in places that do not meet recommended air quality levels.

“If you have bad water, no water, you can tell people to wait for half an hour a day, the water will come. But if you have bad air, you cannot tell people to pause breathing,” she said.

Several cities like Beijing, Seoul, South Korea, and Rybnik in Poland have successfully improved their air quality through stricter regulations on pollution from vehicles, power plants and industry. They’ve also promoted cleaner energy and invested in public transportation.

Another notable effort to curb severe air pollution was the Association of Southeast Asian Nations agreement on transboundary haze pollution. Even though its had limited success so far, ten countries in the region pledged to work together to monitor and curb pollution from large forest fires, a common occurrence in the region during dry seasons.

Shweta Narayan, a campaign lead at the Global Climate and Health Alliance, said many of the regions witnessing the worst air pollution are also places where planet-heating gases are released extensively through the burning of coal, oil and gas. Slashing planet-warming emissions to slow the heating up of the planet can also improve air quality, she said.

Air pollution and climate crisis “are two sides of the same coin,” she said. ___

Follow Sibi Arasu on X at @sibi123

___

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.

This post is by Michael Solomon Williams, head of campaigns, Campaign for Better Transport 

Rail fares have gone up. Again. It happens every year, but it doesn’t need to. With annual rises, we’ve seen the cost of train travel increase at nearly twice the rate of driving, as a 14 year freeze on fuel duty means that driving costs in real terms are at 1990s levels. Little surprise that those who can drive, for all its risks, costs and stress, choose to do so instead of taking a greener, safer, healthier mode of transport.

Year on year rises aren’t the only problem with rail fares. Remember the national outcry when tickets for an Oasis concert were being sold for more than the advertised price and prices went up as time passed? It was all over the press and the public were up in arms. Yet, if you’ve ever tried to travel by train across the UK, you’ll have become desensitised to being treated the same way. A seat might be £10 one day, £30 the next, £80 the day after and £300 a few days later.*

There can be a place for demand-based pricing when it works for the public, such as when hotels reduce room rates at the last minute. But the prices only seem to travel in one direction for Oasis tickets and train travel. Those with urgent needs to travel across the country at short notice, are hit harder than those with the ability to book weeks or months in advance.

Imagine if it cost more to drive a car if you decided to use it on the day, instead of deciding to drive a month earlier? People wouldn’t stand for it. Yet this is the reality of intercity rail travel.

This is a significant year for rail
In 2025, the government’s process of establishing Great British Railways as the new, publicly owned body to run our railways is due to come into legislation. Setting aside the many outstanding questions which need to be answered around the process of rail reform, one thing is clear: this is a chance for a complete reset on rail fares.

Green Alliance’s recent report, Next stop, better rail, found that a ten per cent reduction in rail fares could increase rail use by ten per cent and remove approximately 1.2 billion car miles from the roads every year, reducing CO₂ emissions by around 335,000 tonnes. Could the case be any clearer?

Government would be well advised to heed a recent YouGov poll which showed that support for publicly run railways plummets from 66 per cent to just 6 per cent if it means fares going up. And in our recent poll, 71 per cent of people said that cheaper fares would make them more likely to travel by train.

We need to act now on rail fares
That’s why Campaign for Better Transport is calling for clear, visible, impactful action from the government on fares to get Great British Railways off on the right track.

The government should review the whole range of fares and simplify the booking process where needed, and freeze rail fares while this is done.

But it’s not just about making fares simpler. In places like London which has capped fares for public transport, there’s a huge array of fare types and prices, but as fares are capped, people feel they are being fairly charged. Caps have also worked wonders on our buses across the country with the fare cap (formerly £2, now £3) which we campaigned successfully for. That cap, costing the government only £350m a year, had a huge impact on bus ridership and, we believe, is an outstanding example of the positive impact of government investment in transport fares. We have even heard happy stories of people making the most of the fare cap by taking the bus up and down the country.

Yet there are also numerous stories of people flying to other UK cities via destinations in Europe because it is cheaper than taking the train across the UK. This is crazy in a climate emergency when we know we need to switch more journeys from cars and planes to trains. So why not cap intercity rail fares too? This would deliver huge benefits for passengers struggling with the cost of living, while also helping to reduce carbon emissions and health harming air pollution.

Now is the time to finally act decisively on this issue, to do so for people’s finances, for the country’s prosperity, and for the good of the planet. Let’s fix fares for good.

Campaign for Better Transport has launched a new campaign, Fix Fares for Good, calling for caps on intercity rail, a better deal for passengers and a range of other measures to finally sort out a situation which has gone on for far too long. Find out more, here.

*These are illustrative rather than actual fares, but you don’t have to look far to find real examples.