On this Fourth of July, we’re thinking about the environmental impact of fireworks.
View in Browser | Add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your address book.

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

ADVERTISEMENT
Happy Independence Day, Climate Fwd: reader. This is a weekly newsletter from The New York Times climate team, with stories and insights about climate change. Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
On this Fourth of July, we’re thinking about the environmental impact of fireworks. And if you missed it, we have a report about global warming putting 800 million people in South Asia at risk. Also, keep reading for an update on conservation programs that could be cut in the farm bill.
Illustration by Claire O’Neill/The New York Times
<nil>
Tryggvi Adalbjornsson
“Mom, are they going to turn off fireworks because of you?”
Kimberly Prather remembers her kids asking her that when they learned that she had written a scientific study of fireworks pollution. Professor Prather is a chemist at University of California San Diego who spends most of her time studying cloud formation. But she has a side interest — fireworks.
Her work around the July 4, 1995, holiday measured particles in the air in Riverside County, Calif., and found a spike in chemicals like barium, which isn’t a particularly common element in the atmosphere, but is vital to fireworks. It’s what helps create vivid greens.
The goal of fireworks is to be big, loud and colorful. To achieve that, a range of chemicals is needed, often including charcoal-based fuel along with various metal compounds to make the colors. For instance, copper has a role in blue bursts, and strontium in red ones.
And at least when Professor Prather did her original research, there was also a small amount of lead. Since then, she expects that lead content has been reduced. But this year she will be bringing out the test equipment to see. “I’m curious as heck if the lead’s really gone,” she said.
How worried should we be? “I definitely try to avoid breathing that air,” she said.
But at least it’s not as bad on the Fourth of July as it sometimes gets in India, where the annual Diwali “Festival of Lights” is celebrated with so many fireworks that in 2016, some schools were closed because of thick pollution. Last year, India’s Supreme Court temporarily banned fireworks in the capital.
There’s a chance for “green” fireworks in the future, though — and not the barium kind. Another pyrotechnic-minded professor, Thomas M. Klapötke of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany, has been looking for ways to make fireworks better for the environment. His research focuses on military-grade products (flares, for instance), but the chemistry is similar.
In 2014, his team introduced a new way to make blue fireworks. Traditionally, chlorine was involved, but “Our new chlorine-free coloring agent could revolutionize the manufacture of fireworks and blue-emitting signal flares for the U.S. Army and Navy,” he said at the time.
Coming soon, in other words: Maybe more fireworks that don’t take your breath away?

PUT THE ‘FORWARD’ IN CLIMATE FWD:

If you like what we’re doing, please spread the word and forward this email to your friends. If this email was forwarded to you, be sure to sign up here to get our newsletter delivered to your inbox each week.

By The New York Times | Source: World Bank
<nil>
Somini Sengupta

Somini Sengupta

@SominiSengupta
Hurricane Harvey. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. California wildfires. We know how devastating a natural disaster can be. But what about the slow burn of rising temperatures? How do we measure something that crawls up on us so slowly we can hardly notice it?
This is what drew me to an exhaustive World Bank report published last week on one of the most populous regions of the world: South Asia. It carefully compiled vast amounts of scientific and economic data and concluded, rather astonishingly, that by 2050, if global greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current trajectory, a whopping 800 million people in that part of the world would live lesser lives because of climate change.
More surprising to me was that the impact would be felt not just by coastal people vulnerable to rising sea levels. People living in the vast hinterlands of countries like India and Pakistan would see their living standards measurably decline. And most jarring for someone like me who has reported from those countries: The people who will feel the most severe impacts are some of the world’s poorest and hungriest people — those whose carbon footprints are tiny.
Why should that matter to the rest of us? The people of South Asia make up nearly a fourth of humanity, and so what happens to them stands to have inevitable global repercussions on everything from migration to conflict.
Here is our full story.
ADVERTISEMENT
A multi-vehicle crash caused by blowing dust near York, Neb.

A multi-vehicle crash caused by blowing dust near York, Neb. Nebraska State Patrol, via Associated Press

<nil>
Kendra Pierre-Louis

Kendra Pierre-Louis

@KendraWrites
A curtain of dust descended twice in two days across eastern Nebraska this spring, causing multi-vehicle accidents that led to one death and dozens of injuries. It was the sort of event that could potentially be mitigated by agricultural conservation programs nestled in the farm bill wending its way through Congress.
Much of the debate over the contents of the multiyear farm bill has centered on food aid programs. But some conservationists and farmers are worried about proposed changes to two other initiatives, the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Farm conservation programs matter because two-thirds of United States lands are privately owned. “These lands are critically important to conservation on soil, water, fish, wildlife,” said Ashley Dayer, a professor of conservation social science at Virginia Tech. “If we just focused on public land, we would lose a lot of those benefits that the broader American public relies on and benefits from.”
The version of the bill passed by the House last month would fold C.S.P. into EQIP and cut $79.5 million a year in farm conservation spending over 10 years (total farm conservation spending is expected to be roughly $5 billion to $6 billion per year). The version passed by the Senate last week would keep the programs separate, cut C.S.P. by $100 million a year and EQIP by $150 million a year over the same period, and transfer those dollars to other conservation programs. Overall conservation spending would remain flat.
Many farmers and ranchers say they could not afford conservation measures without federal funds. When the 2014 farm bill cut conservation measures by $4 billion over 10 years, it included cuts to the largest farm conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Program. The program, in essence, pays farmers not to farm. But the cuts led some farmers to convert once-conserved grasslands back into farmland.
Converting farmland into grasslands helps lock planet-warming carbon into the soil, but a recent study found that converting the land back to farmland releases carbon back into the atmosphere. The grasses can also keep the soil from being blown about during windy weather.
Dr. Dayer recently interviewed farmers and ranchers in eastern Nebraska about conservation and dust storms. “They had seen, as a result of the Conservation Reserve Program, that there is less blowing dirt in that region,” she said. “But they’ve seen it start to increase again as there’s been less funds available for C.R.P.”
Some conservationists and farmers fear that merging the separate C.S.P. program into EQIP could water down the program. While EQIP funds a selection of vetted farm practices — like planting vegetation alongside streams to impede the flow of farm chemicals — C.S.P. takes a more holistic approach to farm management, said Adam Reimer, a postdoctoral researcher at Michigan State University. C.S.P. is more focused on outcomes and provides farmers more flexibility to achieve those conservation goals.
In May, about 50 Kansas farmers sent a letter to Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who heads the Agriculture Committee, asking that C.S.P. and other conservation programs be maintained.
Not all conservation groups share the concerns. Ducks Unlimited, a nonprofit waterfowl conservation organization whose members are primarily duck hunters, has thrown its support behind the conservation provisions in both versions of the farm bill.
“Whether it’s C.S.P. or EQIP or you kind of make up the name of the program, as long as we can keep doing those practices and funding keeps flowing toward conservation practices, we’re happy,” said Kellis Moss, the group’s director of public policy.
ADVERTISEMENT
Our latest
Former E.P.A. Aide Says Pruitt Asked Her to Help Find Work for His Wife
By LISA FRIEDMAN

Samantha Dravis, a former E.P.A. policy chief, told a congressional committee of the request, the latest allegation that he used government staff for personal errands.

The E.P.A.’s Ethics Officer Once Defended Pruitt. Then He Urged Investigations.
By ERIC LIPTON

The ethics official had said Scott Pruitt’s $50-a-night condo rental appeared to be appropriate. But he later learned that the landlord’s husband was lobbying the agency.

Kennedy’s Retirement Could Clear Path for Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks
By BRAD PLUMER

On issues like climate change and water pollution, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was often a decisive vote.

A Victory for Coral: Unesco Removes Belize Reef From Its Endangered List
By TRYGGVI ADALBJORNSSON

The Belize Barrier Reef has been removed from the United Nations list of threatened world heritage sites because it no longer faces immediate danger from development.

HOW ARE WE DOING?

We’d love your feedback on this newsletter. Please email thoughts and suggestions to climateteam@nytimes.com.

Follow Us on Twitter
|
Get unlimited access to NYTimes.com and our NYTimes apps. Subscribe »
Copyright 2018 The New York Times Company
620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018