In 1985, three British scientists working at the British Antarctic Survey stunned the world when they discovered that at certain times of the year a hole opened up in the stratospheric ozone layer above the South Pole. Their observations, backed up by data provided by NASA satellites, were published in Nature magazine in that same year.

Subsequent studies demonstrated that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used at the time in air-conditioning and refrigeration systems as well as in aerosol sprays, were tearing open a hole in earth’s ozone layer, causing dangerous levels of ultraviolet, cancer-inducing radiation to reach the earth’s surface.

Just two years later, in August 1987, a unified global community rallied together and finalized The Montreal Protocol, which phased out the production and consumption of man-made ozone-depleting substances.  At the time, America’s Republican president, Ronald Reagan, encouraged the Senate to ratify the agreement, which it did.

In the speech he delivered at the signing, Reagan took the opportunity to underscore both the global nature of environmental challenges and the need for international cooperation. Here are his words:

“The Montreal Protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a product of the recognition and international consensus that ozone depletion is a global problem, both in terms of its causes and its effects.”

This historic agreement—ratified at a time when science still held sway over at least some of public policy—has been hailed as “one of the most successful multilateral agreements in history.”

Before the 2016 election that brought Donald Trump to the White House, preceding administrations had affirmed America’s commitment by joining the international community and agreeing to additional amendments to the protocol. The fifth and most recent amendment, called the Kigali Amendment, was negotiated as late as 2016 with the full support of the Obama administration.

The Kigali Amendment proposes to phase down the production and consumption worldwide of hydro-fluorocarbons (HFCs), which have been used as a substitute in refrigeration and air conditioning since the phase-out of CFCs mandated by the Montreal Protocol. As understanding of climate science has advanced, it’s been proven that HFCs are greenhouse gases that are more potent than carbon dioxide in warming the atmosphere.

Currently, thirteen Republican senators, led by Louisiana’s John Kennedy and Maine’s Susan Collins, have recommended that the Trump administration support their efforts to gain support for ratification of the Kigali Amendment. Tragically, even with the support of the refrigeration and air-conditioning industries and projections of increased manufacturing jobs and significant export growth, the Trump administration is slow walking the proposal and calling for more study on the issue.

Good news

In the big picture, The Montreal Protocol proves that a firm and long-term commitment by the international community to science-based responses to climate change can achieve significant results. According to multiple studies, including one released at the end of 2018 by the United Nations entitled “Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2018” and another completed by NASA, thirty years after implementation of The Montreal Protocol, the phased elimination of CFCs has done exactly what the scientists had hoped it would. The ozone layer is now on the path to recovery.

And there’s even better news. The Montreal Protocol’s Scientific Assessment Panel now projects that the ozone layer will see almost complete recovery by the middle of the twenty-first century.

That’s great news for the global community. With full, continuing implementation, this still-groundbreaking agreement will have long-lasting health and environmental benefits. It’s estimated that:

• 280 million cases of skin cancer will be avoided.
• Approximately 1.6 million skin cancer deaths will be prevented.
• More than 45 million cases of cataracts will be avoided in the U.S. alone.
• Decreased ultraviolet radiation will prevent reduced agricultural output and the disruption of marine ecosystems.

To view a video on the science of ozone, CFCs, and HFCs, watch here.

The post The Montreal Protocol: Saving Earth’s vital ozone layer appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Do you remember your first brush with the scientific method? For most of us, the six steps at the core of the scientific method were introduced during our formative years in elementary school. Remember the infamous lima bean experiment? I recall how curious I was when my first-grade teacher unveiled the stack of mason jars, the pile of paper towels, and the tray of beans set up on the crayon-scuffed table in the middle of the room. I’ve never forgotten the sense of wonder as I watched the emergence of the bean’s roots and shoots inside the glass jar. I’ve also never forgotten my impatience as I was reminded to color in a chart that showed that I’d faithfully followed each prescribed step. That was the moment when I, like most first graders, first became immersed in the step-by-step process that forms the basis for all science.

Everything a kid then and now needs to know about the universe of scientific inquiry— about curiosity, about logical planning, about patience, about predictability and integrity, about personal responsibility and commitment to wherever the observed facts may lead an experiment—was contained in the simple act of adding water and light to a lowly bean and observing the miracle of photosynthesis and plant growth.

What we learned in first grade

In child-friendly terms, first-grade teachers introduce the indisputable fact that the scientific method forms the basis for every transformative discovery in science and technology from the ancient world to our time. As adults, most of us understand that no matter what the area of study, the research, experimentation, and the drawing of conclusions based on observation follow the same path—a path that culminates in a set of facts. This trajectory is true for everything from the simplest discoveries—like the environmental triggers that jump start the germination of seeds that feed and sustain us—to the most complex and multifaceted—like space exploration, or identifying the causes of climate change, or the molecular signature of life, or the unraveling of the interconnections between genetics and disease.

So what went wrong in the American zeitgeist that so many first graders have grown up to be adults who seem to be casting aside what they learned about science and facts at the age of six?

Incredibly, the one third of adult Americans who identify as climate-change deniers or doubters have suppressed the lessons of their six-year-old selves and succumbed to factless, corporate-interest propaganda and wild conspiracy theories. Even worse, individuals who have been appointed to be guardians of agencies of our government are ignoring, suppressing, and, in the most extreme, censoring and altering facts promulgated by scientists faithful to the scientific method and the agencies’ science-based missions.

What we’ve forgotten

How much has science denial and suppression of fact-based research under the current president and his appointees affected government agencies and the scientists who commit themselves to fact-based policy on behalf of the health and prosperity of Americans?

A survey of more than 63,000 federal scientists working in sixteen government agencies paints an alarming picture. The survey, conducted in the fall of 2018 by the Union of Concerned Scientists, reveals that

• 80 percent of the survey’s respondents reported workforce reductions through staff cuts, hiring freezes, and failures to replace staff who quit or retired.
• 87 percent reported that budget and staff reductions undermined their ability to fulfill their scientific missions.
• 50 percent across the sixteen agencies confirmed that political interests are currently hindering the agencies’ ability to base policy solely on scientific findings.
• 76 percent of National Park Service respondents and 81 percent of respondents at the EPA reported that political interests have become an obstacle to fact-based policy.

Survey respondents also confirmed the dysfunction and corruption of mission that outside observers have been reporting since the election of 2016. These are shocking numbers.

• 70 percent agreed or strongly agreed that leaders of the agencies plucked from the industries agencies are supposed to be regulating are inappropriately influencing the agencies’ decision making.
• And the most extreme type of interference—actual censorship—is insidiously undermining agencies’ science-based missions, with nearly 35 percent (or approximately 150) of scientists working in the EPA reporting that they’d been asked to censor the phrase “climate change” from their reports;
• Another 30 percent indicate that they had avoided working on climate change or using the phrase “climate change” without “explicit orders to do so.”

Here’s what one anonymous EPA scientist revealed,

“The current administration sees protecting industry as part of the agency’s mission and does not want to consider action that might reduce industry profit, even if it’s based on sound science [emphasis added]. We are not fulfilling our mission to protect human health and the environment as a result.”

The scientists who responded to the survey and were courageous enough to send out an S.O.S. are without a doubt imploring us to take action before the pollution of science and the diminishment of a fact-based world goes beyond our ability to rein in the chaos.

Back to the future

Here’s the first step. Let’s send Donald Trump and his unqualified agency appointees back to their first-grade classrooms for a two-year remedial course on science and the true meaning of the word “fact.” Then, while they’re playing around with their lima beans and mason jars, those in our government who believe in fact-based policy can get on with the work of allowing scientists to provide us with the evidence to create policies that protect and enhance our lives, the lives of our children, and the world.

The post Lima beans, the scientific method, and saving the planet appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you work at the Centers for Disease Control—the nation’s top public health agency—you are now officially banned from using the following seven words:  “Vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based,” and “science-based.

Although it sounds like a page out of a George Orwell novel, it’s not. According to the Washington Post, the forbidden-word edict was announced at a policy meeting at CDC on Dec. 14, 2017. The official who presented the word ban offered no explanation, but the reason seems obvious: The quasi-fascists in the Trump administration don’t “believe” in science when it contradicts their beliefs and ideology on social issues such as reproductive rights, gender equality and social fairness.

How do you research and/or report on developments in the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS without using the phrase “evidence-based?” How do you investigate sexually transmitted diseases, birth defects caused by the Zika virus, without using the words “vulnerable,” and “fetus?”  Research and policy groups at the CDC work on issues ranging from food and water safety to heart disease and cancer, and ways to control the spread of infectious diseases. Under the censorship doctrine of the Trump administration, these groups will not be allowed to use some of the basic language of their work to report on their progress or to make recommendations. There are no alternative words for “science” and “evidence,” —and none have been suggested under this edict.

This unprecedented, Orwellian, authoritarian crap emanates from a Trump administration rife  with right-wing extremists, Constitution-averse Christian zealots [like Mike Pence, for example], willful no-nothings and flat-earthers—plus look-the-other-way legislators in hock to industries who hate the science that generates regulations that force them to act responsibly. While the media focuses on Trump’s latest offensive tweet, this is the kind of long-lasting damage that is being inflicted behind the scenes.

Need I say that censorship is dangerous? This forbidden-word proclamation—if obeyed by people who don’t want to lose their jobs—sets a frightening precedent. We can only hope that the scientists and staff at the CDC will have a Spartacus moment and will ignore the order.

Forty years ago, George Carlin shocked us with his monologue on the seven words you couldn’t say on TV. His routine was funny. This is most assuredly not.

The post Seven words now banned at the Centers for Disease Control appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The EPA’s Office of Science and Technology [OST] no longer includes the word science in its mission statement. That’s a big effing deal, says the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative [EDGI], a group of scientists and academics who track changes to about 25,000 federal government webpages. [Okay, EDGI didn’t say effing…]

The New Republic published EDGI’s latest findings on March 7. To document its point, EDGI provided screenshots comparing OST’s previous mission statement to its Trump-era revision.  [I have transcribed the screenshot copy here.]

Under “What We Do,” OST previously said:

OST is responsible for developing sound science-based standards, criteria, health advisories, test methods and guidelines under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We work with partners and stakeholders to develop the scientific and technological foundations to achieve clean water through national programs that protect people and the aquatic environment.

Now, “What We Do,” says:

OST works with states, tribes and other stakeholders to develop recommended safe water quality levels for toxins, nutrients and pathogens to help ensure our nation’s waters can be used for fishing, swimming and drinking water. OST also develops national economically and technologically achievable performance standards to address water pollution from industry.

What’s the difference? It’s all just a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, right? Wrong, says EDGI’s Gretchen Gehrke, in an article in the New Republic.

“This is probably the most important thing we’ve found so far,” said Gehrke, who works on EDGI’s website tracking team. “The language changes here are not nuanced—they have really important regulatory implications.”

The New Republic explains the differences this way:

The EPA’s Office of Science and Technology has historically been in charge of developing clean water standards for states. Before January 30 of this year, the website said those standards were “science-based,” meaning they were based on what peer-reviewed science recommended as safe levels of pollutants for drinking, swimming, or fishing. Since January 30, though, the reference to “science-based” standards has disappeared. Now, the office, instead, says it develops “economically and technologically achievable standards” to address water pollution.

Gehrke says removing “science” from OST’s missions and replacing it with “technologically achievable” means the EPA is moving toward more technology-based standards, where polluters just have to install certain types of technology.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy organization, agrees. Moving towards what companies claim is feasible for them would mark a “major change in direction” and could signal that the EPA is turning to see their job “as being a support for business as opposed to safeguarding public health.”

The change reflects a major movement from working with scientists to guarantee safe water for citizens of the US, writes Andrew Griffin in The Independent:

…decisions could just be made based on the technology that is available. Even more, the wording could be used to reduce the regulations that currently apply.

Environmentalists often argue that clean water should be assessed by scientists on a performance basis, who check for the amount of certain pollutants that are found in water. But instead, the technological approach could just require companies to install certain pieces of equipment – whether or not that equipment makes the water clean enough to drink or swim in.

The wording change at OST is, of course, just the tip of the [now-and-for-the-forseeable-future dirtier] iceberg. Using OST as a template, we can look forward [actually, backward] to science-based decision-making going missing at other government agencies we’ve relied on for half a century or more: the Federal Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Centers for Disease Control, and others.

We are in trouble.

The post Deleting science from EPA’s Office of Science and Technology appeared first on Occasional Planet.

This quotation from a bona fide scientist offers a fitting reproach to the anti-science Republicans who want us to live in their don’t-question-me world. It’s the latest in our long-running series of quotes that remind us, over and over, that everything ends up being political, whether we like it or not.

We’re always on the lookout for quotes–contemporary and historical–that are pertinent to the current political environment.

Our illustrator is Christopher Burke, whose unique, quirky cartoons add a touch of whimsy–which we really, really need as we embark on a new, frightening era in American democracy.

The author of this quote is Richard Feynman [1918 – 1988]. Feynman won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. His entertaining lectures and witty books helped popularize scientific ideas among non-scientists. .

The post Political quotes: Unanswerable questions appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How much of science do people believe? In our 2016 survey, we did not ask “What weighs more, a ton of steel or a ton of cotton?” But we did ask people about their understanding of gravity and climate change and other topics. Here are the top findings:*

1. Only 81% of survey respondents believe what scientists say about gravity. What are the other 19% thinking?
2. When it comes to gravity, Republicans and Democrats are both on the same page.
3. Republicans have less faith in weather forecasts, whether or not a drug is safe to take, and yes, climate change.

It seems that Republicans have more trouble with scientific knowledge if it is sanctioned by the government. Only 34% of Republicans believe weather forecasts, even though data indicates that 48-hour forecasts from the National Weather Service are remarkably accurate. A similar number of Republicans believe information about whether or not a drug is safe, which might in part explain why Republicans are not so supportive of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). Contributions from pharmaceuticals might also influence Republicans (and Democrats) in Washington.

But as might be expected, in our survey, Republicans were less than half as likely to believe what scientists say about climate change (35% to 86%). A clear question is whether or not Republicans are just skeptical of scientists who write about climate change, or if this is a different kind of “learned behavior?” Is their thinking influenced by church teachings? What about what Republican office-holders say? If that is so, does it mean that campaign contributions from fossil fuel companies to Republican candidates have a “trickle down” effect of polluting the thinking of rank-and-file Republicans on climate change? This question is one for further exploration.

Here are a couple of other observations from the survey:

Figure 2

The blue vertical bar represents the thinking of 18-29 year olds. This group has more confidence across the board in what scientists say. This raises two related questions:

1. Did the people in the other three age brackets used to have more faith in what scientists said when they were younger?
2. Will the current group of 18–29 year olds have less faith in science as they get further removed from school? If so, why?

A final finding is very tentative because of sample size. But we found that the African-Americans who took the on-line survey showed less belief than others in what scientists say.

Most profoundly, only 6% of African-American Democrats believe that the number of calories listed for a food is accurate. The sample size of African-Americans was only 50, so this will certainly require more study.

But the most vexing question is the one we cited first. Why do so many people not believe what scientists say about gravity. To try to answer that question, we refer them to several experiments on gravity conducted by non-scientist David Letterman in 1986, while dropping “stuff” off a “five-story tower” in New Rochelle, NY.

*Occasional Planet interviewed 550 Americans on January 14-15, 2016, using the services of the online-site Survey Monkey. The sample size is reliable +/- 4.5%, 95% of the time. It is demographically balanced by gender, ethnicity, age, income and geographic region.

The post Survey: Do you believe in science? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Former Vice President Al Gore met with Congressional leaders today to propose the Scientific Freedom Restoration Act. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that science, scientific research, and evidence-based policies receive the same consideration given to ideas, school lesson plans, laws and policies based on religious teachings and beliefs.

Since beginning his crusade against human-created climate change, Gore has been repeatedly criticized by climate-change deniers, who claim that the Earth is only 5,000 years old and that God alone is responsible for all climate events.

Provisions of the proposed bill include:
-The restoration of the term “science” in all elementary, middle- and high-school textbooks.

– A “Flat Earth” clause, imposing penalties on holders of FCC licenses for presenting, in news reports, religious-based ideas as being equivalent to scientific evidence.

-Prohibition of discrimination against scientists and lay people who espouse facts. [This provision is intended to prevent businesses–particularly in Indiana–from refusing to serve people who accept the validity of science.]

“Enough, already, with the crazy, religious arguments against climate change,” said Gore today at a press conference. The rest of his statement could not be heard over the stampede of reporters hurriedly departing when their Twitter feeds suddenly lit up with the announcement that Jesus Christ was about to make an appearance on the Washington, DC Mall.

The post Al Gore proposes “Scientific Freedom Restoration Act” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Call me crazy. Call me immature. Or call me deluded. Maybe I should be called all of the above because at my age I’m not supposed to feel this blush of excitement. But here’s the embarrassing truth. I’ve got a crush on satirist Andy Borowitz.

What’s Andy got that heats up my blood? What he’s got is perfect pitch for capturing the absurd in the contemporary American psyche. Being a progressive news junkie, how can a girl resist?

Lord Byron, a consummate seducer like Andy, wrote, “Fools are my theme, let satire be my song.” If ever I find myself lucky enough to spend a few moments shooting the breeze with Andy over a slow latte, I plan to take a stab at a bit of verbal seduction. After dropping a few well-placed pearls of wisdom, I’d find just the right moment to slip Byron’s words into the conversation. I imagine Andy would smile and nod his head, surprised at my erudition and this unexpected dollop of sophistication. I’m certain that before our cups were drained and our little tryst had come to an end that Andy would find a way to let me know how much he appreciated me reminding him of Byron’s scathing, yet poetic, observation. I imagine that my seduction would have been so complete by that time that Andy would feel comfortable letting me enter into the inner sanctum of his creative process. My guess is that Andy would confide that sentiments much like Byron’s are what turn on his own creative juices when composing his satirical masterworks.

Of course, this Andy crush is a bit of fantasy. But the truth is that Borowitz sings the song of satire like no other comic or social critic out there today. Before leaving my life forever, I imagine Andy pushing back his café chair and whispering seductively that life is short, so why not embrace the satire while you can?

I say, take Andy’s advice and read his latest pitch-perfect ditty on the ebola panic and America’s fatal attraction to the fairy tales of the anti-science lotharios.

There is a deep-seated fear among some Americans that an Ebola outbreak could make the country turn to science.

In interviews conducted across the nation, leading anti-science activists expressed their concern that the American people, wracked with anxiety over the possible spread of the virus, might desperately look to science to save the day.

“It’s a very human reaction,” said Harland Dorrinson, a prominent anti-science activist from Springfield, Missouri. “If you put them under enough stress, perfectly rational people will panic and start believing in science.”

Additionally, he worries about a “slippery slope” situation, “in which a belief in science leads to a belief in math, which in turn fosters a dangerous dependence on facts.”

At the end of the day, though, Dorrinson hopes that such a doomsday scenario will not come to pass. “Time and time again through history, Americans have been exposed to science and refused to accept it,” he said. “I pray that this time will be no different.”

The post I’ve got a crush on you, Andy Borowitz appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How times change.

It seems just yesterday when Al Gore was being vilified as America’s über-exaggerator for his warning in 2006 of the coming disaster that is climate change.

Although climate change is certainly no laughing matter, Gore certainly could claim to have the last laugh. In the years since Gore first entered the words “inconvenient truth” into our lexicon, the international scientific community has gathered hard data, put that data through state-of-the-art computer models, and concluded that human activity—specifically, our addiction to the burning of fossil fuels—contributes to the climate-warming trends being observed around the globe.

How overwhelming is the consensus? Let’s just say it’s hard to argue away the conclusions of the majority of climate scientists.  Sadly, it looks like we need to come to terms right now with the reality that we’ve already crossed the climate-altering Rubicon.  (Unless, that is, if your reality is the fictional world of FOX News and conservative media, and you take seriously the false claims of congressional climate deniers).  For those inhabiting a political/philosophical home on the far-right shore, propaganda, disinformation, and lies about climate crisis hold sway. Over there, confusion reigns about what’s fact and what’s fiction, much to the detriment of all of us and the difficult policy prescriptions that we should be actively pursuing.

For those of us inhabiting the world of facts, however, and looking for a nonpolitical, objective take on climate change, there’s no better place to look than to NASA. Can we all agree—no matter what our political leanings—that NASA, an agency of the federal government, is no leftie, tree-hugging group under the influence of Al Gore and radical environmentalists?

If we can agree on NASA’s bona fides, then how about visiting the scientists over there to get the facts?  What you’ll find on NASA’s official website is an unequivocal confirmation that 97% of global climate scientists looking at all the studies, computer models, and first-hand observational research data agree that the probable cause of climate-warming trends is human activity.

And NASA provides even more hard evidence right there on its public website.  The website refers to over 200 scientific organizations worldwide that have issued public statements on warming trends and human activity.

Let me repeat that number again: two hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world.

Ask yourself. When was the last time FOX News invited independent experts on climate science—not scientists and pundits on the payroll of corporate interests—to sit down on one of their quasi-news programs?  Those would be reputable scientists from wonky organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, or the National Research Council.

The answer is, you won’t find those independent voices shooting the bull with Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly. But wherever or however the deniers derive their beliefs doesn’t matter.  The global climate crisis is real.  It’s happening now. What those of us who choose to live in the real world decide to do with the facts of climate change is what counts.

The first step is clearly in the hands of our media. Media should be, after all, a responsible gatekeeper for the accuracy of the information we get, the form in which we receive our information, and how we process with critical thinking that information.

Edward R. Murrow summed up the vital role of the media not only in his time but in ours when he said, “…To be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful.”

With such a solemn responsibility, isn’t it about time journalists and media outlets follow Murrow’s lead and stop giving climate-change deniers a pass and an uncritical forum for their fairy tales? It’s way past time to call out the deniers on their spin and their disregard for scientific fact.

On October 5, 2013, the Los Angeles Times took the lead and did just that. Paul Thornton, editor of the Los Angeles Times’ letters section, set off a firestorm when he announced the paper’s decision to stop publishing letters containing factual inaccuracies about climate change.  Explaining the policy shift, Thornton wrote,

Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—a body made up of the world’s top climate scientists—said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming.  The debate right now isn’t whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.

He concluded,

Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published.  Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.

Now that the Los Angeles Times has broken from the pack, the question is which other newspapers and media outlets will have the courage to follow?

Image information: Carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere are rising. Both images show the spreading of carbon dioxide around the globe as it follows large-scale patterns of circulation in the atmosphere. The color codes in these two pictures are different in order to account for the carbon dioxide increase from 2003 to 2007. Image credit: NASA/JPL 

The post Science supports climate change reality: It’s time for the media to get on board appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Our planet’s supply of clean drinking water is dwindling, and lack of clean water is one of the many environmental problems looming in our future. Industrial and agricultural contamination, over use, and population growth threaten to make water as scarce and valuable as oil.  So, it’s heartening to learn that a small company in France, Eole Water, has been working to address the world’s water shortage problem by creating water from the air we breathe.

Eole Water designs wind turbines that not only generate electricity but also extract moisture out of the air passing through the system. The end product is clean, filtered purified, drinking water. Thibault Janin, director of marketing at Eole Water, envisions communities in Africa and South America, as well as remote islands in Asia that have little or no access to safe drinking water, as potential beneficiaries of the technology. He gives the example of Indonesia that has thousands of islands and has no way to centralize their water supply. Eventually the energy and water producing turbines could be used in smaller cities. Eole Water has installed a prototype in the desert near Abu Dhabi. In that very dry climate, it produces 62 liters of water an hour.

How bad is the world water shortage problem?

The following statistics are from Eole Water’s website:

• 1.1 billion people have no access to safe water and 2.6 billion people do not have basic sanitation.
• More than a third of humanity (over 2 billion people) survives with less than 5 liters of water per day.
• Now estimated at 6.6 billion, world population is growing by 80 million each year. The demand for freshwater will increase by about 64 billion cubic meters a year. This data is in addition to the effects of global warming and growing pressure on groundwater, lakes and rivers.
• The lack of water is responsible for 7 seven deaths every minute or 3.6 million people per year.
• Access to drinking water is not a measure of water quality. Between 3 and 4 billion people have access to drinking water of poor quality.
• Pollution from industry and consumerism are deteriorating the last water sources available.
• 97% of people in rural areas of Asia and South America do have not access to safe drinking water
• 14% of people drink water from rivers and lakes, shared with animals
• In July 2010, the UN General Assembly recognized water quality access and sanitation installation as a human right.

How do you create water from air?

There’s water in the air around us all the time; we just can’t see it. According to the Department of Energy, when it’s hot and humid, evaporated water can make up as much as 6 percent of the air we breathe. On cold, dry days it can be as low as .07

Our air is part of the Earth’s water cycle. It goes like this: Water evaporates out of rivers, lakes and the ocean. It’s carried up into the atmosphere, where it can collect into clouds, which are accumulations of water vapor. After the clouds reach their saturation point, water droplets form, which we experience as rain. This rain runs off the land and collects into bodies of water, where the whole process begins again.

The problem is, the water cycle is not predictable and goes through dry periods. Because of this, inventors like Eole Water have begun to see the wisdom in not waiting for nature. Why not pull the water vapor right out of the air, all the time, 24/7?

The Eole Water technology works by first generating electricity from the wind, which enables the entire water generating system to function. Then air is sucked in through the nose of the turbine and directed through an electric cooling compressor situated behind the propellers. The compressor extracts the humidity from the air and condenses it into water. The water is then transferred down stainless steel pipes to a storage tank in the base of the turbine. Once there, the water is filtered, purified and made ready for use and consumption.

One turbine can produce, on average, up to 1,000 liters of water every day, depending on the level of humidity, temperature and wind speeds. Right now the initial cost of the technology is prohibitive—$660,000 to $790,000 per turbine. But with economies of scale, the price could fall, and many people living in remote areas of the world, and even not so remote areas, could have could have a source of clean water produced by renewal energy.  Access to clean water, a human right, would help eradicate many illnesses as well as provide a boost for  subsistence economies.

There’s plenty of money in the world to make this technology available to those who need it. There just needs to be the will to make it happen.

The post Creating water from thin air appeared first on Occasional Planet.