Pierre Delforge is the director of high-tech energy efficiency for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). He contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Nationwide, "always on" electrical appliances and electronic devices in off, standby or sleep modes cost the average U.S. household about $165 per year — and some households, up to $400 — adding up to about $19 billion. 

That's equal to the electricity generated by 50 large power plants, or at a more human scale, like brewing 234 cups of coffee every single day for a year. And, this always-on, or idle, load is putting about 105 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air for no good reason.

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have implemented efficiency programs and labels, focusing on appliances that used the most energy, such as furnaces, water heaters and refrigerators. The programs have been remarkably effective at cutting energy waste and sparking innovation: For example, new clothes washers use 75 percent less energy, and new dishwashers use half as much, as they did in 1987. Refrigerators today use only a quarter of the electricity of their 1970s counterparts while offering 20 percent more storage — and costing half as much. [Slay Some Energy Vampires]

Meanwhile, the number of gadgets in American homes and offices has proliferated, previously purely mechanical appliances now have electronic displays and controls, and many devices are connected to the Internet 24/7 — all causing a rise in demand for electricity to power otherwise idle devices. Now it’s time to tackle that energy waste, an issue that emerged along with the technology.

Shifting out of idle

I recently helped produce the NRDC report "Home Idle Load: Devices Wasting Huge Amounts of Electricity When Not in Active Use" to address this longstanding issue. 

Our study — conducted in partnership with Home Energy Analytics and the Stanford Sustainable Systems Lab — used three separate data sets to assess the use of always-on devices and their impact on consumer utility bills: smart-meter data from 70,000 northern California homes; smart-meter and related information from 2,750 San Francisco bay area homes; and a detailed in-home audit of 10 San Francisco bay area homes. The results showed that on average, more than one-fifth of the homes' electricity consumption — 23 percent — was going to power devices that weren't being actively used. 

However, if appliance manufacturers, policymakers and consumers all get on board to control the "energy vampires," the nation will see significant reductions in idle load. In fact, if all U.S. households reduced their idle load to the level already achieved by one-quarter of the homes in NRDC's study, the households would save $8 billion on annual electricity bills, avoid 64 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year (equivalent to the output of 21 power plants), and prevent 44 million metric tons of carbon pollution from reaching the atmosphere. 

While consumers can take some action to reduce their idle load, ultimately it's up to the manufacturers to design all products with the goal of minimizing idle power so that consumers don't have to worry about always-on electricity waste and can purchase any device trusting that it will work efficiently. The way to ensure this would be for the DOE to implement idle load efficiency standards. 

Although the United States has minimum efficiency standards that cover idle load consumption for some appliances, such as microwave ovens, most products are not yet covered. With revised — and in some cases, new — standards, there would be no need for consumers to think about this electricity waste, the same way federal regulatory mechanisms ensure that vehicles are safe to drive and foods are safe to eat. [New Agreement Slashing Set-Top Box Energy to Save $1 Billion Annually (Op-Ed)]

Steps toward minimizing idle load will only be more critical in the future, given the constant stream of new products that now feature digital controls and displays — such as dishwashers, washers and dryers — and more products coming into the marketplace that include Internet connectivity. As appliances and electronic devices get smarter, manufacturers and policy makers need to do the same. 

Eliminating energy waste also decreases the number of fossil-fuel-burning power plants necessary to generate electricity, thereby reducing harmful air pollutants and carbon emissions. Given that U.S. power plants account for nearly 40 percent of the nation's carbon pollution, smarter energy use can have a measurable impact on overall emissions. In addition, optimizing energy use helps eliminate the need to build new expensive energy infrastructure, saving utilities and their customers money. And as the international climate talks are set to resume in December, a plan to control idle load energy waste could help the United States meet global emissions targets. 

What you can do now

Until manufacturers design all products to minimize always-on loads, consumers can take some action to mitigate the impact on their utility bills. 

The first and most obvious step toward minimizing the idle-load effect is to unplug devices when they are not in use, such as during the night or when the home's occupants are away for any lengthy period.

Another option is to plug energy vampires, such as game consoles, into smart power strips, which employ timers and sensors that turn devices off completely until their next use. Electronics retailers sell them, and some local utilities offer free smart power strips as part of home energy audits. Others provide discounts, or even rebates on utility bills, to customers who buy and use them (check with your local utility).

Consumers also should buy the most energy efficient appliances, electronics and other devices, always looking for the EPA's ENERGY STAR® label that identifies the highest-performing models. 

Not sure how much vampire energy is being gobbled in your home? NRDC has provided a step-by-step home "idle load" action guide that can help you identify, measure and reduce vampire load consumption. 

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Pierre Delforge, NRDC's director of high tech energy efficiency, previously worked for 20 years in the IT industry in software development, hardware integration, and energy efficiency and climate programs. He contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

Each year across the United States, computers consume as much as 66 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, the equivalent of 22 large power plants. Even when idle, your desktop computer may draw as much as 50 watts of electricity, and there are currently are no U.S. energy standards to dictate otherwise. [U.S. Energy Use Plummets, Even as Population Grows (Op-Ed )]

According to a study by the University of California, Irvine, desktop computers sit idle up to 61 percent of the time after they have been turned on. And desktops still represent more than one-third of computer sales (not including tablets) and are responsible for more than two-thirds of energy use, both now and projected to 2018.

In its latest effort to control its state's energy costs, the California Energy Commission last week issued a new proposal to reduce the energy waste found in desktop and laptop computers, as well as monitors and signage displays, such as those that are proliferating in airports, stores and most public spaces.

Those devices annually guzzle roughly 8.3 billion kilowatt hours in the state, enough to power nearly all the residences in Los Angeles for an entire year, and cost Californians $1.3 billion in annual electricity bills. The commission says its proposed standards could cut those bills by $430 million. For the average desktop computer owner, this represents a $67 savings over the 5-year lifespan of a machine. The estimated cost to manufacturers to correct idle-time power use is just $2 per machine, as the changes require mostly engineering design work, rather than more expensive hardware components. In addition, each year the standards would prevent more than 800,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, equal to removing 170,000 cars from California's roads.

The standards would apply only to products sold in California, but as home to one-eighth of America's consumers, what happens in California can actually drive standards for the entire country, as manufacturers are unlikely to keep a separate inventory to sell in other states. In addition, California standards could pave the way for equivalent, federal, energy-saving standards.

Everyone would benefit. If the California standards were to become national benchmarks, it could save U.S. consumers $2.6 billion on their electricity bills, as well as eliminate the need to generate 21 billion kilowatt hours of electricity — the equivalent output of seven 500 megawatt coal-fired power plants. Annually, an estimated 15 million tons of carbon pollution would be avoided — equivalent to removing 3 million cars from the road each year.

Desktop versus laptop

California's draft computer standards would only apply to computers when they are idle, so they will have zero impact on active performance. In addition, the standards are performance-based, meaning higher performance computers, such as those designed to play video games with complex graphics, have higher energy limits. Therefore, as long as they're designed with efficiency best-practices in mind, even the highest performance machines can comply. 

The largest energy savings potential is for desktop computers. They are not designed to optimize their power use based on how much work they need to perform, because they don't have to, having access to virtually unlimited power from the wall outlet. 

Notebook, or laptop, computers are far more energy efficient than desktops. They're built to run as long as possible on a battery charge, and the proposed California standard would affect only the worst performers — 73 percent of today's models already meet the proposed benchmark. A stronger standard could have been proposed. While laptops are already more efficient than desktops, they still use much higher power than tablets, like the iPad, when idle. With their rapid growth in sales, laptops are poised to represent the majority of computer energy use within the next few years, and warrant a stronger focus. [Moving at the Speed of Clicks: Improving Computer Efficiency ]

As for monitors and displays, the most and least efficient models vary in energy consumption by as much as 600 percent. The most efficient use advanced back-lighting, better filters, and more efficient electronic components within the display. A 2013 study by a group of California investor-owned utility companies found that it would be possible to almost halve the average energy use of a typical monitor using technologies already on the market.

Mandatory vs. voluntary

Although there are no state (or federal) legal requirements for manufacturers to meet a minimum level of energy optimization, computer manufacturers can apply to be part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's voluntary ENERGY STAR™ labeling program. Although that can be good incentive for manufacturers, it doesn't prevent them from also selling inefficient models. 

U.S. computer manufacturers did not provide the California Energy Commission with energy usage data, but a recent study by CLASP examined data from the Chinese market, which uses similar technology to ours, and found nearly half the machines sold there already meet the latest benchmarks to be allowed to use the ENERGY STAR™ label. So, stronger U.S. standards could ensure the worst energy guzzlers are forced out of the marketplace, or convinced to significantly up their game. California's proposed standards can be seen as a large, statewide tail wagging a global dog. With California representing 38 million consumers, computer manufacturers cannot afford to ignore the state's standards — in anything, let alone computers — and simply sell their devices in other states without such restrictions. In essence, that would make California's standard the standard for the entire country, and since computers are sold on a global market, it also could also influence the efficiency of models sold worldwide.

State vs. federal

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has been considering whether to set efficiency standards for computers, but it can take eight or nine years to develop a federal standard (from analysis to effective date), while actual technological advancements race ahead in a matter of months. 

The California proposal is an example of how a state can deal with some issues more quickly than the federal government can. The California Energy Commission began pursuing this energy issue in September 2012, and under the current timeline, workshops and public hearings will begin as early as April with the hope of beginning implementation of the laptop standards by 2017, with desktop standards following the next year.

If California's proposed energy efficiency standards become effective — and are strengthened in some areas to reflect the best practices in energy efficiency — the future will be bright in the Golden State and nationwide. 

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Zack Strong contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Earlier this month, Idaho's Wolf Depredation Control Board ("Board") reported that, over the past several months, it had spent about $143,000 in state taxpayer dollars to kill 31 wolves in the name of protecting livestock.

That's about $4,600 per wolf — a lot of money for the Idaho public to be spending to kill their own wildlife.

Moreover, in most situations, lethal control makes little sense — financial or otherwise. When a wolf is killed, or a pack is wiped out, another will move in to take its place. And the cycle of killing repeats. That's the nature — and failure — of lethal control: because its impact is only temporary, it must be used — and paid for — frequently and indefinitely.

By contrast, nonlethal deterrents can have long-lasting effects, be used for multiple years, and effectively keep both livestock and carnivores alive. For example, the money used by the Board could have paid for at least 10 (or 20, through cost-sharing) full-time livestock herders or "range riders" to collectively monitor and protect thousands — perhaps tens of thousands — of cattle or sheep for an entire season.

Herders and riders keep livestock safe in several ways. As riders in Montana have observed, by maintaining a human presence, and hazing predators when necessary (and legal), it is possible to teach them to leave livestock alone. And as biologists have pointed out, because wolves and other predators are territorial and will keep other predators away, a non-depredating wolf or pack sharing the landscape with livestock may be a rancher's best, cheapest, and longest-lasting defense of all.

Further, by working with cattle, riders can train them to stay closer together as a herd and act more aggressively toward predators, making them less susceptible to predation. Thus, even in a single season, riders can have long-lasting effects.

Alternatively, the money spent by the Board could have purchased miles and miles of reusable electric fencing or fladry — enough to enclose dozens of calving, lambing, or other pastures, year after year, to protect newborn animals, or keep livestock bunched together and less vulnerable.

Or it could have paid for dozens of guard dogs and their food and care. Or multiple motion- or radio-activated guard boxes that emit flashing lights or high-pitched noises when they detect a predator's movement or radio collar. Or it could have helped pay for livestock carcass removal programs, such as those being successfully run in Montana and Wyoming.

Of course, there may be times when a habituated or chronically-depredating wolf has to be killed. But those situations are few and far between. Conflicts are rare to start with (in 2012, wolves were responsible for only about one percent of all Idaho sheep losses (337 out of 32,000); and in 2010, less than 0.01 percent of all Idaho cattle losses (89 out of 93,000)). And the Board itself, in its recent report, acknowledged that last year livestock depredations in the state were lower than ever. Of the few conflicts that do occur, it is likely that many or most are preventable through nonlethal means.

Indeed, in Montana, a growing number of ranching communities — such as NRDC's partners in the Tom Miner Basin and Centennial Valley — are investing more and more in proactive measures, including all of those mentioned above. And agencies such as Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Montana Livestock Loss Board, and Montana Wildlife Services, are providing critically important support.

These efforts should — and could — serve as a model for the Board in Idaho. For there is nothing in the Board's statutory mandate that restricts its funding to lethal measures only. To the contrary, its mandate states, "Control activities funded by the board shall be consistent with the provisions of section 36-1107(c), Idaho Code," which in turn explicitly authorizes any owner of livestock or domestic animals in Idaho "to take all nonlethal steps they deem necessary to protect their property."

In light of lethal control's high cost, low success, and lack of any long-term benefit, and given that the Board is free to invest in alternative measures, it should take its mandate to heart, and adopt an approach that prioritizes — or at least includes — investment in nonlethal strategies such as riders, fencing and guard animals that effectively reduce losses.

After all, shouldn't the goal — and the best use of public dollars — be to protect, not just to kill?

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

This gallery highlights some of the unusual creatures at the heart of a recent Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Op-Ed on Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Deep beneath the ocean off the U.S. Atlantic coast, forests of sea creatures thrive. New species are being discovered on the sea beds all the time, but a new report from the NRDC — "The Atlantic's Deep Sea Treasures," — warns that deep-sea trawling and energy exploration are putting those ecosystems at risk. Read more in the Expert Voices Op-Ed "Coral Thrive Off U.S. Atlantic Coast, But Threatened" and see a gallery of some of the exotic creatures below.

A creature from the past?

One of the more strange-looking animals NOAA researchers came across in Veatch Canyon, a bathysaurus. These fish use their lower jaw to scoop in the sand. (Credit: Image courtesy of NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program, 2013 Northeast U.S. Canyons Expedition.)

Weird and wonderful

As seen in Heezen Canyon, an eelpout rests on the seafloor. (Credit: Image courtesy of NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program, 2013 Northeast U.S. Canyons Expedition.)

An unusual combination

A porcupine crab makes its way over the muddy seafloor bottom. (Credit: Image courtesy of NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program, 2013 Northeast U.S. Canyons Expedition.)

Home to the odd

NOAA Ship Ferdinand R. Hassler's mapping coverage in the Block Canyon area, overlaid on mapping data from NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer. (Credit: Image courtesy of NOAA Ship Ferdinand R. Hassler.)

Beautiful colors of the deep

A striking purple coral, a species of Clavularia, seen in Nygren Canyon. (Credit: Image courtesy of NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program, 2013 Northeast U.S. Canyons Expedition.)

Smile for the camera

An octopus strikes a pose for the NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer's remotely operated vehicle near Shallop Canyon. (Credit: Image courtesy of NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program, 2013 Northeast U.S. Canyons Expedition.)

Freakish creature

A seaspider, or pycnogonid, seen while exploring Oceanographer Canyon. (Credit: Image courtesy of NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program, 2013 Northeast U.S. Canyons Expedition.)

Snack time

A king crab explores the soft sediment on the sea floor. (Credit: Image courtesy of NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program, 2013 Northeast U.S. Canyons Expedition.)

What a creature

A chimaera swims lazily a couple meters above the seafloor in Lydonia Canyon. (Credit: Image courtesy of NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program, 2013 Northeast U.S. Canyons Expedition.)

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Elizabeth Noll, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) energy efficiency advocate, contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

You may not be an engineer or have X-ray vision that allows you to tell from looking at your appliances and electronics whether they are needlessly gobbling energy. Fortunately, you don't have to, because the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has established standards ensuring a minimum basic level of efficiency that all Americans can depend on for more than 50 types of products in their homes, businesses and industries.

In fact, for almost four decades, national energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment have proven to be one of the most successful policy tools to reduce U.S. energy demand, lower emissions of climate-changing carbon emissions and other pollutants, drive new energy-efficiency technology innovation and save consumers billions of dollars every year, without sacrificing comfort or the performance of these products.

Those standards are the result of a great deal of input from manufacturers, energy efficiency advocates like NRDC, consumer groups, and many others. And, as a new NRDC fact sheet released today (Dec. 5) reminds, the standards have a bipartisan history dating back to 1987.

Efficiency without sacrifice

Whether we need a cold beer from the refrigerator or hot water from the shower, energy efficiency means using less energy while getting the same or better energy performance . Since the first efficiency standard was set for refrigerators, they have gotten bigger and quieter and added new features, all while keeping the lettuce fresh and energy bills down. In fact, refrigerators today use a quarter of the energy compared to those from the 1970s, all while offering 20 percent more storage and costing half as much.

The DOE Appliance Standards Program sets a basic minimum level of energy efficiency for products representing about 90 percent of home energy use, 60 percent of commercial building consumption and approximately 29 percent of industrial energy usage. In our homes, these products include common appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers, washers and dryers, and air conditioners. Standards also cover commercial and industrial equipment like electric motors and distribution transformers.

The money saved

In total, these standards have created remarkable energy and utility bill savings for consumers . When comparing five typical household appliances that just meet the efficiency standard today with those same types of products purchased in 1992, homeowners save $300 annually on their utility bills, thanks to less energy waste. In terms of energy savings, new clothes washers use 75 percent less energy, and new dishwashers use half as much, as those from the 1987.

Rather than dictate a specific technology, the DOE sets a minimum level of energy-saving, leaving manufacturers free to innovate and find new ways to achieve even greater energy savings. In many cases, standards spur manufacturers to make technology advancements that reduce energy waste even more, which, in turn, creates new opportunities for improved minimum efficiency standards (and sometimes new jobs, as well).

The DOE is required to set standards at the maximum energy savings levels that are "technologically feasible and economically justified," meaning, among other things, that energy bill savings will outweigh any additional increase in product cost, often by a wide margin. To determine whether a standard meets those criteria, the DOE does extensive research, analyzes the market for each appliance, and determines the impacts to consumers, manufacturers and the U.S. economy.

The agency does that through an open and transparent process that allows for stakeholder input at multiple stages. While most standards work their way through a formal rule-making process, some standards are developed through consensus negotiations that bring together industry professionals and advocates.

Getting more than efficient

Although standards set a minimum "floor" for the smarter use of energy, manufacturers can — and do — go beyond that to cut their products' electricity and natural gas use even more. How do you find these products? There are labels that can help.

The yellow EnergyGuide labels found on many home appliances help consumers make informed decisions when buying new products. Required by the federal government on specific appliance types, EnergyGuide labels give information comparing similar models in terms of the efficiency level as well as how much products cost to operate and the annual energy used to run them. Manufacturers must use standard test procedures developed by the DOE to prove the energy use and efficiency of their products. The EnergyGuideallows consumers to compare similar products and see how they measure up.

In addition to the yellow EnergyGuide labels, consumers can look for the blue Energy Star designation on new appliances. Generally speaking, Energy Star represents the top 25 percent most energy-efficient models on the market. Although it's a voluntary program, it is widely recognized by consumers, which drives manufacturers to meet the efficiency benchmark in order to tout their products as qualifying for the coveted Energy Star designation. Some utilities offer rebates to consumers that purchase Energy Star appliances. Meanwhile, Energy Star recently launched a new category, called "Energy Star Most Efficient," that recognizes the truly best performers on the market due to their cutting-edge energy efficiency and the latest in technological innovation. [Energy Efficiency Making Good on its Promise (Op-Ed )]

EnergyGuide labels, Energy Star and minimum efficiency standards work together to encourage the market to greater levels of energy efficiency and help arm consumers with information on how to take control of bigger utility bills from energy-wasting appliances.

Standards lead to cleaner air, fewer brownouts

Improving the efficiency of the appliances and equipment in buildings in the U.S. can also significantly reduce the pollution that harms human health and the environment. America's power plants are the largest source of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, responsible for roughly one-third of all domestic climate-changing pollution. If appliances and equipment use energy in a smarter way, power plants generate less power to run them.

That saves billions on our energy bills and reduces America's carbon footprint. As a result of efficiency standards in place today, we will reduce carbon dioxide pollution by 470 million metric tons annually by 2035. That's equal to avoiding the pollution from 118 coal-fired power plants!

More efficient appliances also mean peak electricity needs — like on a hot summer day, when air conditioners are blasting away alongside all of our other appliances and equipment — will decrease by 240 gigawatts in 2035, more than twice the capacity of all the nuclear power plants in the United States. That will reduce the risk of rolling brownouts or blackouts, and allow homes and businesses to be more productive and resilient. Whether in a home, business or factory, energy that is burned without benefit is a waste.

National appliance standards cost-effectively save the U.S. a considerable amount of energy, lower emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and save consumers billions of dollars every year ($1.1 trillion in cumulative net savings by 2035), all while improving the environment. Looking forward, additional energy savings will appear as new product categories emerge due to technological progress and manufacturing ingenuity, and as standards for existing product categories are updated to reflect technology advancements.

So, next time you go to your fridge, you can feel good that standards have helped you save enough to pay for that six pack and plenty more — while ensuring a cleaner environment, too.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Peter Lehner is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This op-ed will appear on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Lehner contributed this articleto Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

A group of Harvard students recently filed suit against the college's president, fellows and others for "mismanagement of charitable funds." The suit asks the court to compel the university — which boasts a $36 billion endowment, the largest of any university in the world — to divest from fossil fuels.

Harvard is just one of many colleges across the country where students, alumni and some faculty, motivated by the urgency of the climate crisis, have been pressuring administrations to move investments out of fossil fuels.

The divestment debate

Carbon pollution from fossil fuels is the primary driver of climate change. Scientists estimatethat rises in sea level, deadly floods, droughts, heat waves and other harmful impacts of climate change could become irreversible unless fossil fuel companies keep the majority of their known reserves in the ground.

Harvard, like many other universities, has rejected calls for divestment, using the same excuse as other schools: Their concern for the financial stability of the university, among other things, makes divestment impossible. But studiesfrom asset management firm Impax have demonstrated that fossil-fuel-free investments make money — just as much, if not more than conventional investment strategies. If fund performance isn't the issue, why the reluctance to divest? Are U.S. universities, just like the U.S. Congress, so hooked on fossil-fuel funding that they fear alienating certain deep-pocketed interests? If celebrated institutions of higher education can't shake free of fossil fuel influence, what hope is there for the country's somewhat less high-minded political system? [We Will Not Run Out of Fossil Fuels (Op-Ed )]

It's time for universities to consider what they stand for, as they did with apartheid in the 1980s and with tobacco in the 1990s, and divest from fossil fuels. That industry is standing in the way of clean-energy progress , and using its power and influence to ensure that its polluting products continue to dominate the global energy system and destabilize the climate. These actions pose serious risks to the environment, human health, the nation's economy and its national security — risks that are disproportionately borne by those who have contributed least to the problem.

"People of conscience," urged Desmond Tutu in a video released just before the UN Climate Summit in September, "need to break their ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change."

Harvard, my alma mater, has $34.6 million invested in the top 200 fossil-fuel companies. This represents less than 0.1 percent of the university's endowment. Yet Harvard President Drew Faust, in an open letterto the community explaining her position on divestment, claimed that divestment would risk "significantly constraining investment returns."

At the City University of New York (CUNY), which is reportedly considering divestment, a political science professor also fell back on the same argument, telling The Wall Street Journal that divestment would come "at the expense of financial stability." CUNY has about $10 million of its $241 million endowment in fossil-fuel securities.

Fossil fuels are risky investments

Convention dictates that fossil-fuel companies should be part of an investment portfolio, just as convention dictates that U.S. taxpayers should subsidize the industry, at a rate that now adds up to about $8 billion every year. But financial experts have found that a strong investment portfolio doesn't need fossil fuels.

Impax, in two back-to-back reports, found that if fossil fuels had been removed from a global benchmark index fund for the past five and six years , performance would have improved. And if those holdings were replaced with renewable energy and energy efficiency stocks, the fund's performance would have been even better.

The global index provider FTSE Group, working with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the asset management firm BlackRock, developed the groundbreaking ex Fossil Fuel Index this year, which seeks to exclude companies that produce oil, coal and natural gas. When FTSE comparedthe historic performance of the new index to its benchmark index over the past eight years, the returns were very similar; the ex Fossil Fuel Index, however, showed less volatility than the benchmark.

Other analysts simply see fossil fuels as too risky. Oil and gas companies are pushing deeper into the ocean, operating in politically unstable areas, using environmentally harmful fracking methods in people's backyards and cutting corners on safety, just to keep their business model alive. John Streur, the president of Portfolio 21 Investments, which eschews fossil fuel companies in its investment strategy, wrote in his blog that he avoids these stocks "because our research tells us that these companies pose too much risk to the environment and society, and that they face too much risk based on their business operation profile."

In other words, investing in companies that base their profits on a risky, polluting, outdated energy system may not be financially prudent.

Rockefeller and others have committed to divestment

About 180 institutions have committed to divestment from fossil fuels in recent years, including colleges, philanthropies, pension funds and local governments. Hampshire College, the first college to divest during the anti-apartheid movement, also became the first to divest from fossil fuels. Just before the UN Climate Summit in September of this year, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund announced it would divest from fossil fuels. Stanford recently announced it would divest from coal; the University of Dayton, a Catholic university in Ohio, also committed to divestment, saying its "values of leadership and service to humanity call upon us to act."

As NRDC pursued our divestment strategy, our finance team — a hard-nosed bunch who don't like risky investments — wasn't about to put the organization's assets in jeopardy. One of the reasons NRDC worked with FTSE to help develop a new divestment tool was to satisfy those concerns.

With the advent of FTSE's fossil-free index (now a family of several indices), divestment is no longer an arcane process. Institutional investors, endowments, family offices and retail investors have an objective, transparent benchmark against which they can measure the performance, risk and return of their divestment strategies.

These recent developments demonstrate that divesting from fossil fuels is not only the morally correct action, but also one that need not compromise an institution's financial stability.

Other excuses for not divesting, in which university leaders echo arguments espoused by the oil and gas industry itself, have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere. The fact that only a handful of universities have committed to divestment shows just how strong the hold of the fossil fuel industry is not only on the global energy system, but also on the vaunted U.S. higher education system. Universities are the institutions the public trusts to light the way forward for the next generation — they should not be beholden to an industry that relies on the pollution of the past.

Divestment is about demonstrating there is another way forward. Universities should be the ones up front, holding the solar lantern.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Peter Lehner is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This op-ed will appear on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Lehner contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

The legendary migration of the monarch butterfly is at risk of disappearing forever. As many as a billion of the iconic black and orange butterflies once traveled 2,500 miles from Mexico, through the Eastern and Midwestern United States, to Canada and back. This year, however, the winter population of monarchs in Mexico numbered only 33 million individuals. Another group of monarchs, the west-of-the-Rockies population that winters in California, is also in steep decline.

The plight of the monarchs is just one of the stark consequences stemming from the industrialization of the U.S. food system. Monarch populations began to decline in the late 1990s, about the same time that biotech giant Monsanto introduced genetically modified (GM) corn and soybeans. According to scientists, this link is no coincidence, but a consequence of the skyrocketing herbicide use spurred by the popularity of GM crops. On Nov. 4, voters in Oregon and Colorado will have an opportunity to speak up for monarchs — and for increased transparency in the U.S. food system — as both states consider bills that require the labeling of genetically modified ingredients in food. [As Milkweed Disappears, Monarchs are Fading Away (Op-Ed )]

GM corn and soy, also known as "Roundup Ready" crops, were specifically engineered to withstand Monsanto's Roundup weed killer. The chemical, sold generically under the name glyphosate, effectively kills all the plants it touches, so it was used only sparingly when it first hit the market in the 1970s. Farmers used other methods to control weeds once their corn and soybeans began to sprout. 

When GM crops arrived on the scene, the game changed. Farmers in the Midwest quickly adopted the high-tech seeds, which now dominate the Corn Belt. With these new plants, growers could drench their fields in glyphosate. The use of glyphosate soared ten-fold, with two unintended consequences. 

First, the chemical wiped out vast swaths of milkweed, a native wildflower that monarch butterflies need to survive. Scientists now believe this wholesale destruction of habitat is the chief cause of the monarch crisis. Climate change and deforestation in the insects' Mexican wintering grounds are also hurting monarchs.

The rise of glyphosate also spurred the evolution of "super weeds" that are resistant to the chemical. Glyphosate didn't kill these weeds — it made them stronger. (Unfortunately for butterflies, milkweeds didn't turn out to be super weeds.) The appearance of these resistant plants is an ominous sign of an arms race between chemicals and weeds, a war in which GM crops are a dangerous catalyst. In this battle, farmers, and the environment, are on the losing end. 

Instead of restricting the use of dangerous chemicals and putting a stop to the war, the U.S. Environmental Protection agency (EPA) has approved the use of a new and potentially more harmful pesticide called Enlist Duo. 

Manufactured by another chemical giant, Dow AgroSciences, Enlist Duo is made of glyphosate and an older herbicide called 2,4-D, which is toxic to people. New strains of GM corn and soy are resistant to these weed killers, but the glyphosate in Enlist Duo will continue to harm milkweeds, and hence monarchs. And Enlist Duo raises concerns for human health, too. In people, 2,4-D exposure has been linked to infertility, birth defects and thyroid problems. The EPA approval of Enlist Duo could potentially increase the use of 2,4-D six-fold. This risky course of action will also spur on the arms race between superweeds and chemicals, spawning a new generation of super weeds that will require a yet more powerful pesticide. 

That's why NRDC immediately went to court to block the use of Enlist Duo the day the EPA approved it. The agency ignored the impact this new chemical cocktail will have on monarchs, and it seriously underestimated the risks to people's health. 

GM crops have a serious impact on pesticide use. That's why initiatives like Oregon's Prop 92 are so important. Labeling gives consumers the opportunity to make more informed decisions about the food they buy. Allowing consumers to vote with their pocketbooks can create an important new incentive for food producers and technology providers to bring the safest, healthiest products to market. 

Reuters recently reported that supporters of GMO labels in Oregon and Colorado have been outspent 3-to-1 by deep-pocketed industries campaigning against labeling measures, including food, chemical and seed companies. If the bills pass, it will send a powerful message to food producers and pesticide makers that the public wants healthy food that is produced in harmony with the natural environment — and that is safe for the remaining monarch butterflies that need help more than ever.

Read more from NRDC on its Op-Ed and features page. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Barbara Finamore is Asia director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Finamore contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

As President Barack Obama and Asia-Pacific leaders gather in Beijing for the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, climate change and air pollution will undoubtedly be on the agenda. This summit provides an important opportunity for these leaders to address one of the most significant, and largely unregulated, sources of toxic air pollutants and black-carbon emissions in Asia: ports and shipping systems. 

Nine of the 10 busiest and most densely populated container ports in the world are in Asia, seven of them in China. As detailed in NRDC's new report, "The Prevention and Control of Shipping and Port Air Emissions in China," container ships loading their cargo in China and elsewhere in Asia are free to run on dirty bunker fuel, a waste product of traditional fuel-oil processing. Bunker fuel contains a number of pollutants — such as diesel particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2) — that are known to cause cancer, respiratory illness and premature death, as well as exacerbate climate change and damage the oceans. 

For example, the sulfur levels in marine bunker fuel are 100 to 3,500 times higher than those permitted in on-road diesel fuel in China. As a result, in a single day, one container ship cruising along the coast of China emits as much diesel pollution as 500,000 new Chinese trucks.

Making the fuel switch

Yet thanks to increasingly stringent regulations outside of Asia, those same oceangoing vessels must switch to low-sulfur fuel before they reach the other end of their journey, when they reach North America, the U.S. Caribbean Sea, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. 

Starting in January 2015, the fuel-sulfur limit in these four regions (known as Emission Control Areas, or ECAs) will be lowered from 10,000 parts per million (ppm) to 1,000 ppm (basically, from 1 percent to 0.1 percent). Starting in 2016, new vessels traveling to any port in North America or the U.S. Caribbean will also be required to reduce by 75 percent their NOx emissions, another greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming and boosts levels of regional ozone and fine particulate pollution. As detailed in our report, these new pollution standards are driving the development of 21st-century ports and shipping emission-control systems, including alternative fuels and advanced emission-control technologies on ships. 

In China, joint regional and national efforts to control shipping emissions, such as establishing an ECA for major Chinese port regions or for the entire country, should be seriously considered as a way to address concerns over port competitiveness and achieve the greatest environmental and health benefits in China.

The impact of plummeting pollution

Controlling shipping pollution offers enormous, and cost-effective, public health and environmental benefits. According to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis, the public health benefits in North America alone are expected to be more than 10 times the compliance costs. Since China's port cities are among the most densely populated and busiest in the world, the benefits there would likely be even greater. 

Yet, rather than clean up their pollution for their entire journey, these vessels currently switch back to dirty bunker fuel before they return to China. Controlling emissions from ports and shipping would give China's war on pollution a much-needed boost. Some ports have begun to take initial measures. Hong Kong, for example, is the first to strictly enforce the use of low-sulfur fuel (500 ppm, or 0.05 percent sulfur content) by local vessels and plans to be the first in China to mandate ocean-going vessels use low-sulfur marine diesel. Shenzhen has followed Hong Kong, announcing a comprehensive list of measures for cleaning up ships, trucks and port equipment, including offering subsidies to encourage fuel switching and the use of shore power. Other port cities and regions like Shanghai, Qingdao and the provinces of Guangdong, Jiangsu and Shandong have also issued plans to promote shore power, electrification of port equipment, and trucks powered by electricity and natural gas.

Taking the next steps

Although those initial steps are encouraging, the measures adopted for the control of air emissions from shipping and ports, as well as related research, are still at an early stage in China. More work needs to be done to ensure that solid, port-specific analysis and detailed implementation measures back those plans. This is necessary in order to ensure cost-effectiveness, enlist the support of all stakeholders, and avoid merely shifting ships and their pollution to other, less-regulated ports.

NRDC has worked for over two decades to eliminate dirty diesel fuel and to clean port operations worldwide, including pioneering action plans to clean up the largest toxic hotspots, implement clean freight, and reduce port-related pollution in the United States and elsewhere. NRDC was also the only non-governmental organization invited to join the U.S. government delegation to the International Maritime Organization to create a North American Emission Control Area. We hope the information in our new report will help support the development of clean shipping and port initiatives in China. 

Unlike the factory closures and other temporary measures Beijing is planning for the APEC summit, tackling pollution from shipping and ports in China can help clear the air and protect the planet long after these world leaders return home.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.com.

Ralph Cavanagh is co-director of the Energy Program for NRDC. This Op-Ed was adapted from a post that first appeared on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Cavanagh contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

This isn't the first election season that energy prices, security and reliability have been featured in campaign attack ads, but this year's litany of complaints is perplexing given that a new Natural Resources Defense Council analysis of the latest available data from government and other sources shows the economic and environmental performance of America's energy systems has never been better.  

In fact, NRDC's report, "Positive Energy Trends Bode Well for U.S. Security and the Economy," contains an inventory of good energy news for the United States.

We've come a long way from the days when energy prices and shortages figured prominently in the presidential election of 1980 and helped elect Ronald Reagan, who took full advantage of public dissatisfaction over soaring energy bills and rationing of gasoline (driven by Middle East unrest) and natural gas supply constraints (traceable to a savage winter cold snap and poorly designed price regulation). Images of long lines of cars waiting to buy gasoline, a longtime staple of political commercials, trace to that era, when many who will be voting in 2014 had not yet been born.

But things are far different now, as the NRDC report shows:

• Total U.S. energy use peaked in 2007 and has trended downward since. Despite a small 2.8 percent uptick in 2013, the total still was below the level recorded a full decade earlier. Any lockstep linkage between economic growth and total energy use ended almost 40 years ago. 
• Forty years of sustained improvements in the energy-use productivity have made efficiency America's largest single-energy resource. When Americans are smarter about energy use, we don't need to generate as much of it or purchase dirty resources like coal and oil from overseas. 
• Americans rely increasingly on electricity to power their homes, offices and factories. Yet since 2000, for the first time in modern history, the U.S. national growth rate for electricity consumption dropped below that of the population for an extended period, thanks in large part to the nation's increased energy efficiency. From 2000 to 2013, electricity consumption rose by a total of less than 7 percent, with a minuscule average annual growth rate of about 0.5 percent, even as the population grew by about twice that rate during the same period. NRDC is working with the nation's utilities on new business models so they won't need growth in electricity use in order to prosper. 
• Wind power has dominated the nation's renewable energy growth since 2000, with a 30-fold increase in its share of generating America's electricity. By 2013, wind was providing more than 4 percent of U.S. electric generation, and the absolute increase in wind generation from 2000 to 2013 was almost five times greater than the increase in nuclear generation over the same period. 
• Solar is surging too, and in June 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy reported that for the first time in U.S. history, hydropower generation over a full year was less than the combined contribution of other renewable electricity sources (including wind, solar and geothermal). 
• The amount of oil used in U.S. vehicles, homes and businesses rose slightly in 2013 (about 1.5 percent), but is still down almost 12 percent from its 2005 peak. Surprisingly, 2012 oil use was lower than in 1973 (when the nation's economy was only about one-third its current size), as NRDC reported last year in "America's (Amazingly) Good Energy News." Lowering U.S. reliance on oil reduces our need to import it from unstable overseas locations, too. 
• In June 2013, President Obama set a goal of cutting 3 billion tons of carbon pollution by 2030 through his administration's efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings. We're already two-thirds of the way there, and the resulting reductions in U.S. energy bills will exceed $4 billion. 

Looking ahead

But the best is yet to come, in terms of mobilizing clean energy resources to reduce carbon pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed power plant standards in June 2014 that will keep more than 5.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) out of the atmosphere by 2030. Put differently, in just 16 years, the standards will reduce harmful emissions from America's power plants by 30 percent compared to 2005 levels. And because the EPA proposal calls for states to be credited for energy efficiency improvements in all sectors of the economy, EPA expects that electricity bills would drop as a result (by about 8 percent). For the average customer, that represents an annual savings of about $100.  

EPA's findings are one more reminder that progress toward a clean energy economy goes hand-in-hand with economic health more broadly, and America's success in linking them will help inspire worldwide progress toward stabilizing atmospheric CO₂ concentrations of greenhouse gases.

As our new NRDC report shows, fortunately we're already leading the way down the path to more stability in America's economy and security — despite the fear-mongering that many candidates want you to believe.  

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.  This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Peter Lehner is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This Op-Ed will appear on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Lehner contributed this article to Space.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

I was recently in San Diego with my daughter, and we used car-sharing services to get almost everywhere. She typed something into her phone, and a car was there in minutes. I'm partial to bike-sharing as a pollution-free way to get around a city, but I was amazed at how fast, efficient and hassle-free car-sharing was.

Sharing is one of those invaluable childhood lessons that tend to fall by the wayside as we grow older. But sharing seems to be making a comeback, and not just as an altruistic social nicety — it's a savvy financial strategy, too. The rise of the sharing economy — in which an individual rents out something she isn't using to another individual, typically through a website or an app — suggests that sharing makes economic sense. Sharing reduces the cost and obligations of ownership, and saves time and money for consumers. Sharing also makes tremendous sense for the environment, as a powerful tool for reducing waste, conserving resources and even cutting global warming pollution. [Benchmarking Carbon Pollution From 100 Top Power Producers (Op-Ed )]

Car and Bike Shares

Car and bike shares are the most obvious case-in-point. Car-sharing services, powered by mobile technology, are growing by leaps and bounds, seamlessly connecting passengers with rides. In many parts of the country, especially where public transportation service is poor, people need a car to get from A to B — sharing a car, or a ride, provides a more affordable option. (I have a colleague in California who's made $1,500 this year sharing her car on Getaround.) 

Sharing a car is a cleaner option, too. Researchers recently calculated that if New Yorkers traveling to nearby destinations were willing to share a cab, the city could reduce the size of its fleet by 40 percent, reducing traffic snarls and pollution. The percentage of New Yorkers actually willing to share a cab is somewhat less clear; in San Francisco, however, the smartphone-driven taxi companies Uber and Lyft recently launched ridesharing options, UberPool and Lyft Line, which allow passengers to link up and share rides for half the price. 

When I was a student, I did the low-tech version of ridesharing. At the airport, I would walk down the line and see if anyone was going to my neighborhood, and if they'd be willing to share a cab. I often found a ride this way, and because I was clearly on a student budget, the other person usually offered to pick up the tab. 

Making car-sharing and bike-sharing more widely available allows people to choose how they want to move around, making it easier to go car-free, or car-lite, and greatly reduce carbon footprints. In Helsinki, the Finns are working to create a software-driven mobility system — including bikes, cars, minibuses and ferries — that is so flexible and convenient people won't even want a private car.

Food Sharing

Food, you could argue, is meant for sharing — yet 40 percent of the food produced in this country goes to waste, at home, in restaurants, at grocery stores, even on farms. Food waste is a waste of resources all around: food, money, energy, materials and water. It's a considerable source of global warming pollution, as well. Food in landfills produces 25 percent of U.S. methane emissions. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and the planet's second largest source of global warming pollution.  

Several apps, such as CropMobster, Zero Percent and PareUp, have recently arrived on the scene to help link food producers who have excess supply to people and organizations looking for food, discounted or donated. They'll even help someone with a bunch of apple trees in their yard share with a group of gleaners who will come and pick the fruit. For the truly committed, there's Leftover Swap. This food-sharing app allows you to post a picture of your leftovers and share with someone nearby who finds them appetizing. Perhaps that extra pizza left over from the party doesn't need to go in the trash after all. 

Solar Sharing

Solar energy is also stepping into the sharing arena. Solar sharing, or community solar, is a creative way to finance solar projects and get more people a piece of the solar pie. Several companies are working on variations of this model, which essentially allows an individual to buy solar panels installed in another location — a large solar farm, or a smaller, neighborhood-based array, instead of on your own roof — and use that energy to offset his or her electric bill. Just as a community might share water from a well, a solar collective would allow everyone to dip into the sun's energy. 

Above all, sharing is an efficient way to make use of global resources. If a car is sitting empty in a garage for 23 hours a day, is that an efficient use of a vehicle? Or of the space used to park it? Does it make sense for a farmer to let food rot in the fields when there's a city full of potential customers an hour away? If you live under a hot sun, wouldn't you like to benefit from sharing your solar resource with your neighbor in the shade? 

Smart policies can help make sharing easier. (Let's face it — sharing doesn't always come naturally.) Chicago's new Divvy bike share has received funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation, and is on track to become the nation's largest bike-sharing program, improving the city's air quality and relieving congestion. 

Approximately 10 states, including New York, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Colorado, Washington and Utah either have community solar policies or are considering them.

In California, a new bill to promote electric vehicles includes a provision to pilot car-sharing programs in low-income neighborhoods. NRDC's Urban Solutions team is exploring how shared mobility can help cut global warming pollution, save money and reduce traffic congestion,  starting with some pilot programs in the Los Angeles. 

Farmers in California who donate excess produce to food banks get a 10 percent tax credit, helping ensure that food is shared with people who need it instead of rotting in the fields. 

As technology makes it easier for all of us to connect, and government policies adapt to encourage new economic models, the sharing economy just might help save the planet.

This post is part of the NRDC Wasteland series, featuring people, towns, businesses and industries that are finding innovative ways to cut waste, boost efficiency and save money, time and valuable resources. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.  This version of the article was originally published onLive Science.

Anjali Jaiswal, director of the NRDC India Initiative, and Meredith Connolly, NRDC Energy Law and Policy fellow, contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

On Monday, President Barack Obama meets with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in what could be one of the most significant events following the U.N. climate week. As leaders of the world's largest democracies and prominent entrepreneurial societies, the Obama-Modi summit is a considerable opportunity to accelerate climate action in economically advantageous ways for both countries. The United States, India, and the world will benefit enormously if the leaders agree to immediate action to curb climate change. 

Both leaders have set the stage for a productive meeting with big announcements on climate mitigation and adaptation. Prime Minister Modi is poised to announce a goal of installing a whopping 100 gigawatts (GW) of solar and wind energy in India within the next decade, seeking engagement with U.S. companies as well as direct investment to achieve that target. This would represent a huge increase from India's current installed capacity of 20 GW of wind and 2.6 GW of solar power as of March 2014. The U.S. currently has about 61 GW of wind and 16 GW of solar power installed. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Prime Minister Modi also highlighted his government's commitment to innovative clean energy technology to electrify Indian villages and pointed to the United States as the "natural global partner" for this cooperation.

Now is the time to see promises translate into action: Indian Prime Minister Modi ran on a platform of increasing energy access and energy security in light of India's skyrocketing energy demands, after establishing a climate-change department as chief minister of India's Gujarat state. President Obama's administration has unfinished business scaling-up clean energy and stemming the causes and impacts of climate change in the United States. This gives the pair of leaders a huge opportunity to partner strategically to address climate change and boost both countries' burgeoning clean-energy markets while building resilience in local communities. Decisions made in the next few years about climate policy and development will shape the planet's future for decades to come.

At the U.N. Climate Summit, President Obama explained that the United States is taking action through stronger fuel-economy standards for new cars and the first-ever national carbon pollution limits for power plants — the nation's biggest single source of greenhouse-gas emissions. President Obama also announced an expansion of international development programs, leveraging U.S. scientific and technological capabilities to strengthen climate resilience in vulnerable countries. This announcement signaled an important opportunity for the Obama-Modi summit on joint resilience planning to protect vulnerable communities from climate disasters, such as fatal floods and heat waves.

Together, the United States and India can accelerate bold climate action to the benefit of both countries and the world. To improve energy prosperity while stemming climate change, the following key items should be on the agenda during the Obama-Modi summit: clean energy finance, energy efficiency innovation and leadership on phasing down potent greenhouse gases.

Scaling clean energy and jobs

Energy access, clean energy development and economic livelihoods are national priorities for India's new administration under Prime Minister Modi. As President Obama said at last week's U.N. Climate Summit, "there does not have to be a conflict between a sound environment and strong economic growth." Recent reports confirm that limiting carbon emissions need not limit, and may in fact accelerate, economic growth. 

Simply stated, clean energy creates local jobs. Preliminary estimates show that India's emerging grid-connected renewable energy market has created nearly 70,000 jobs so far, and the United States boasted nearly 80,000 green jobs created by clean energy last year alone. In addition, many U.S. companies, such as First Solar, play an active role in India's growing clean energy market — which is eager to scale up and reach its potential.

A chief barrier to widespread deployment of renewable energy projects in both countries, but particularly in India, is the availability of low-cost financing. Interest rates in India currently hover around 12 percent. Innovative financing mechanisms, including green banks and green bonds, could support the growth of clean energy, including grid-connected renewable energy, off-grid and rooftop solar energy, as well as energy efficiency measures. The two countries should work to exchange knowledge on these financing instruments that leverage existing institutions, such as the National Clean Energy Fund and the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA) in India, and can expand emerging green bonds and green banks in the United States.

Constructing energy efficient cities

Advancing building efficiency efforts is critical to meeting escalating energy demand in the United States' and India's rapidly growing cities, improving energy security, and propelling both countries forward in the clean energy race. India's energy demand continues to soar, even as over 400 million people lack access to reliable electricity and power failures continue to be commonplace in both urbanizing cities and rural villages. The United States should work with India to turn these challenges into a clean-energy business advantage and national opportunity for both countries while combating climate change. [Energy Efficiency Making Good on its Promise (Op-Ed )]

As the fastest, cheapest and cleanest way to meet these voracious energy needs, energy efficiency is a central part of the solution. Building on recent U.S.-India discussions, the United States should partner with India to develop a joint building efficiency and electricity grid center in India modeled on the U.S. Flexlab (a Department of Energy building efficiency simulator at Berkeley Lab that tests individual measures and integrated systems before construction or retrofitting occurs). The center could serve as test bed for energy efficient infrastructure and know-how and as a center for training and the development of a robust building-science and smart-grid program. The two countries could also share experiences and develop models for compliance frameworks for energy efficiency building codes, leading to cleaner air and more resilient communities. 

Progress on heat-trapping HFCs

Advancing an international phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) has been a tenuous topic lingering between the two nations. HFCs are super-potent climate-changing chemicals used in air conditioning and refrigeration, insulating foams and aerosol products.  Air conditioner use is rising in India and is likely to grow with India's expanding middle class. This use is contributing to both rising energy demands and increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States and over 100 other nations are willing to move forward with discussing a global phasedown of HFCs under the Montreal Protocol. The United States and China are also making progress on a bilateral HFC working group, which is exchanging technological knowledge that coincides with the Montreal Protocol process. The United States and Europe are also taking domestic actions to phase down these dangerous gases. The new Modi government has yet to take a formal position on HFCs.  

A real sign on a strategic partnership during the Obama-Modi summit would be if the two leaders could make a breakthrough on phasing down HFCs. The United States and India should couple progress towards an international phase down of HFCs with bilateral cooperation to help meet India's concerns about the readiness of HFC alternatives. For example, the United States and India could exchange technical knowledge and develop concrete projects on climate-friendly coolants while discussing a phase down timetable and an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to start negotiations this fall. 

At this critical time, ahead of the global climate agreement expected in Paris in December 2015, the world needs leadership, cooperation and action — especially from two of the world's top energy consumers. A U.S.-India strategic partnership is essential for advancing low-carbon economies, increasing energy security and preparing for the worst effects of climate change in both countries. Strong joint action can help put us on a path to a more sustainable future that expands economic growth and improves the lives of millions. 

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Aliya Haq is the climate change special projects director at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Yesterday, Google's Chairman Eric Schmidt denounced the political non-profit American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its denial of climate change. His remarks are among my all-time favorite quotes about the secretive corporate-lawmaker cabal:

"They're just ... they're just literally lying."

ALEC's corporate members, many of which are heavily polluting industries, write model legislation for state lawmakers to introduce as their own bills. The organization has been behind activity in dozens of U.S. statehouses to oppose limits on carbon pollution and to obstruct U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) power plant standards. During its Dallas conference this summer, ALEC member Peabody Coal urged attendees to incite a "political tsunami" against EPA's proposal.

Schmidt indicated during the Diane Rehm show on NPR that Google would cut its ties because of ALEC's climate-denial positions, and Google confirmed it will not renew its ALEC membership at the end of this year. 

A huge kudos and congratulations go out to Forecast the Facts, Common Cause, and the other organizations who have been working for months to get Google to dump ALEC. In part because of such efforts, in August Microsoft also announced it had left ALEC because of actions that "conflicted directly with Microsoft's values."

In ALEC's statement responding to Google's announcement, they carefully sidestep — well, actually, they blatantly sidestep — Eric Schmidt's reasons for leaving. Instead of addressing their climate-denial actions, ALEC's CEO Lisa Nelson spins Google's departure as a misunderstanding about renewable-energy policies. The implication is that Google just got confused, and actually they, like, totally agree about stuff like opposing renewable energy.

In reality, Google and ALEC are not aligned at all. Eric Schmidt's declaration that ALEC is "just literally lying" is right on the nose. At their Dallas conference this summer, ALEC brought in the president of the Heartland Institute to present their newest fake-science report that denies climate change is a problem. The slides from the ALEC conference don't mince words: The bullet points claim "Carbon dioxide has not accelerated polar ice melt or sea level rise — these were all false alarms," and "There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so." [Industry Attempting to Defeat Pollution Standards Before They Emerge (Op-Ed )]

The real danger is not just in ALEC's slide decks. Once introduced as legislation, groups like Americans for Prosperity, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other polluter-funded lobbyists pile on to pass ALEC bills. 

Since the beginning of this year, ALEC has been pushing models in state legislatures to obstruct EPA limits on carbon pollution. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 16 states have adopted resolutions and seven states have enacted legislation regarding EPA's carbon-pollution standards. Many of the resolutions are carbon copies of ALEC's model. The bills that passed in Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri and West Virginia are also strikingly similar to one another. 

Although most of that legislation was "defanged" with amendments, the bills were originally intended to obstruct the state from using flexible, cost-effective methods to reduce pollution — a misguided attempt to protect coal use. 

Nearly all this legislative activity occurred months before EPA's June 2nd release of its power-plant proposal, so one can only imagine what's in store when state legislatures convene next year. During the Dallas conference, the ALEC Environment Task Force discussed new model language to continue their obstruction of EPA's carbon pollution limits. If I were a betting woman, I'd say several workshops will be dedicated to this issue at ALEC's policy summit in December, as well. [Turning the Tide on Corporate Disinformation (Op-Ed )]

Google was smart to drop ALEC now, as the group's& climate-denial activity will probably mushroom out of control in January. Let's hope more companies with a conscience follow Google's example. 

Author's Note: Within a day of Google's announcement, Facebook notified the San Francisco Chronicle that they will also let their ALEC membership lapse.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Peter Lehner is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This Op-Ed will appear onthe NRDC blog Switchboard. Lehner contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Tesla, the electric-car manufacturer, announced last week that it plans to spend $5 billion to build a factory in Nevada. The giant facility — they're calling it a "gigafactory" — will employ 6,500 people to manufacture batteries for Tesla's much-anticipated, low-cost, Model 3 sedan. 

Tesla's move comes on top of a spate of green job announcements this year, demonstrating that clean energy is surviving despite systematic attacks from the fossil fuel industry and its backers in the U.S. Congress. 

The broadsides keep coming, however, and the clock is ticking on key policies that will shape the fate of clean energy in this country — namely, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Clean Power Plan, which will cut carbon pollution from power plants nationwide , and a suite of clean-energy tax incentives.   

According to the report "Clean Energy Works for US" from E2, a business group affiliated with NRDC, clean energy and clean transportation job announcements in the 2nd quarter of 2014 doubled the first-quarter tally, with more than 12,500 new jobs announced in 29 states from April to June, and more than 18,000 already this year. Fortune, which cited the E2 report, said, "The growth spurt in green energy projects is partly a reaction to the [EPA's] Clean Power Plan." 

The new federal carbon-pollution standards, proposed by EPA in June, are expected to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in a variety of fields as states broaden their efforts to cut pollution. Wind technicians, solar installers, factory workers, roofers, HVAC technicians and thousands of others will all be needed to expand clean energy and make homes and buildings more efficient. 

Many of the new jobs announced this quarter stem from remnants of projects that qualified for a wind-energy tax incentive, a program which expired at the end of 2013. Clean-energy tax incentives, unlike many permanent oil and gas subsidies, have to be actively renewed by Congress — in some cases, every year. The last time these credits expired, thousands of jobs were lost and many clean energy projects sacrificed, according to a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency.

Solar-job growth, according to E2's analysis, has been spurred in part by a rising number of homeowners choosing to install solar panels on their roofs. Some states make solar installations even more attractive by allowing consumers to sell extra energy back to the grid. At my home in New York, my solar panels help make my meter run backward, lowering my electric bill. Residents of Arizona, California and Massachusetts can do the same, making solar a smart financial decision for many consumers in these states. 

In New York, solar will get another big boost thanks to K-Solar, a program that offers free solar assessments to all public schools in the state. If a school decides solar is a good fit, it gets help with the process — and discounts on solar systems — through a collective purchasing plan. And students get a chance to see clean energy at work first-hand. Some schools will even be able to expand or reinstate academic programs that were cut for budgetary reasons, thanks to the energy savings from solar. 

While state incentives like those can help accelerate the shift to clean energy, entrepreneurs play an important role, too. In St. Louis, Mo., an orthopedic surgeon launched his own solar company, StraightUp Solar, after discovering there were no licensed solar installers in the state. The company's business has grown by word-of-mouth, and StraightUp Solar now even counts an erstwhile coal miner among its team.

Clean energy is putting America to work, so why are threats to that success continuing to mount?

Big Oil's Congressional allies continue to block renewal of expired clean-energy policies, taking away incentives for wind, solar power and energy efficiency while allowing the oil industry to continue enjoying a century of taxpayer support. Some oil subsidies date as far back as 1916. 

Today, taxpayers fork over roughly $8 billion each year to subsidize dirty fossil fuels — and those are just the costs revealed in the federal budget. A report from the National Academy of Sciences estimates that the additional, hidden costs of burning fossil fuels totals $120 billion each year. That figure is considered conservative, as it's based solely on death and illness due to air pollution and damage to agriculture and forestry; it does not include billions of dollars in climate damages, national security costs, or other ecosystem damage. 

Continuing to subsidize dirty fossil fuels while pulling the rug out from under clean, renewable energy simply makes no sense. Studies show that clean energy and efficiency investments generate more jobs per dollar than fossil fuel investments. A single wind energy project can create more than 1,000 jobs and provide millions of dollars to local communities, as demonstrated in a recent NRDC report. And clean energy, unlike dirty fossil fuel energy, helps stabilize the climate and clear up air pollution. 

That's why it's important to keep moving forward with a framework that supports clean energy's success — smart policies that allow this industry to continue to grow and create jobs, that help consumers save money, and cut the harmful pollution that threatens our health and economy.

Dirty energy is yesterday's news. Don't let polluters turn back the clock. 

Author's Note: You can tell Congress to restore clean energy incentives via this NRDC link. 

Read more from NRDC on their Op-Ed and features page. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Kit Kennedy, director of the Energy & Transportation Program at NRDC, contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

For U.S. wind power, last year was both the best of times and the worst of times. That's the conclusion from the new Wind Technologies Market Report released last week by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and prepared by DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). 

Wind power does a number of things very well: It produces electricity without the carbon pollution that causes global warming (or the local air pollution that sends kids to hospital emergency rooms with asthma attacks), and it creates jobs in fields like manufacturing, construction and engineering. 

Here's where things are going well:

• The share of the nation's electricity supplied by wind power is higher than ever — 4.5 percent. That number might seem small in comparison some countries' — in Denmark, onshore and offshore wind power supply 34 percent, and in Spain, Portugal and Ireland, the percentage hits about 20 percent. These are numbers the U.S. could easily achieve and should definitely pursue. In fact, many states are on their way. Iowa and South Dakota currently get more than 25 percent of their electricity from wind power. Another seven states get at least 12 percent. For an economy as large as ours, though, 4.5 percent is an impressive milestone as we pursue numbers that are bigger still. 

• Thanks to government policies, the price of wind power bought under long-term contracts has now reached all-time lows. In fact, wind power is now cost-competitive with low-cost natural gas in some regions. Indeed, the LBNL researchers wrote in research-ese, "The sample of [wind-power power purchase agreements] executed in 2013 has an average price stream that begins below the range of natural gas fuel cost projections, and that remains below even the low-end of gas price forecasts for two decades." Translation: Over the next 20 years, wind power may well be cheaper than even low-cost natural gas.

• New wind turbines have the capacity to produce more power than ever, thanks to government and corporate investment in research and development. The average capacity of a newly installed wind turbine in the United States is 1.87 megawatts, an increase of 162 percent from 15 years ago. Total installed wind capacity in the U.S is now over 61 gigawatts, a 140 percent increase in just five years. Today's wind turbines  are more productive than ever, due  improvements in technology. As a result, the amount of electricity generated by wind power has doubled over the last five years and wind power in the United States now provides enough electricity to power 15.5 million American homes.

• Demand for wind power creates American manufacturing jobs. In the fiscal year 2012-2013, about 70 percent of wind power components used in the United States were manufactured here, compared to only 20 percent in the 2006-2007 year. That's an admirable increase. Moreover, exports of U.S. wind-power technology components are climbing, from only $16 million in 2007 to $421 million in 2013.

• New financial vehicles, called "yieldcos," are helping to finance more wind power projects. Yieldcos are publicly traded companies — spun off by more traditional parent companies — which own operating assets like wind or other renewable energy projects that generate predictable cash-flow. This allows a broader range of investors and can reduce the cost of financing for renewable energy projects. Though yieldcos are new to the renewable energy industry, similar vehicles, such as the master limited partnership, have long been used in other energy industries. 

• More transmission infrastructure came online in 2013. In fact, 3,500 miles of it. Much more is planned, too. It will help get wind power from the remote locations where it's produced to the population centers where it's needed.

• More than a dozen proposed offshore wind projects are advancing in the United States. Despite decades of growth in the offshore wind sector in Europe, the United States has yet to build its first full-scale offshore wind turbine. That's likely about to change. The LBNL report estimates that some 15 proposed offshore wind projects are now advancing in the United States. Two of them — Cape Wind and the Deepwater Block Island project — are close to putting steel in the water for the construction of the first U.S. offshore wind projects. 

Despite all that good news, the Wind Technologies Market Report contains some bad news as well. The LBNL researchers found federal and state policies that support wind power have a huge impact on the technology's continued expansion. That's why it's imperative for the U.S. Congress to extend the now-expired Production Tax Credit (PTC) for land-based wind power and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for offshore wind power when it returns for the lame-duck session in November. The expiration of the PTC and the ITC has put a pall over this otherwise promising industry. Congress has the power to change that.

For example: 

• Wind power jobs dropped from 80,700 to 50,500 in 2013. Quite simply, by failing to extend the PTC and the ITC last year, and by providing only short-term extensions in recent years, Congress served the wind power industry a blow. Some wind-power employment has picked up in recent months, thanks to the 2013 PTC extension. (It covers projects that began construction by the end of 2013.) But the LBNL researchers noted, "with the PTC now expired and its renewal uncertain…wind deployment beyond 2015 is also uncertain."

• 2013 saw a precipitous drop in wind power installation. Only about one gigawatt of new capacity was added last year, compared to more than 13 gigawatts in 2012. (The failure to extend the PTC in 2012 put on hold many promising projects that would have been developed in 2013.) Moreover, wind power "represented only 7 percent" of new U.S. electric capacity in 2013, compared to an average of 33 percent between 2007 and 2012, the report added.

• After leading the world in new installed capacity in 2012, the United States dropped to 6th in the world in 2013. That's behind China, Germany, India, the United Kingdom and Canada. This drop leaves our wind-power businesses and their employees vulnerable to international competition. 

The LBNL researchers in their report emphasized how important strong public policies are to wind power's continued success. State renewable-energy standards are an example. They've helped drive almost 70 percent of wind-power capacity between 1999 and 2013. "In 2013, this proportion was 93 percent," the LBNL researchers wrote. 

But the most important of the policies has been the PTC. We need Congress to extend it, and the ITC, as soon as the summer recess ends. These policies can help ensure next year's Wind Technologies Market Report will contain more good news, and continued success for the U.S. wind industry.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.  This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Joel Reynolds, based in Los Angeles, is the western director and senior attorney for NRDC. This article is adapted from one that appeared on Huffington Post. Reynolds contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

Three weeks ago, in the early morning of August 4, 2014, in the heart of the Fraser River watershed in central British Columbia, a major breach occurred in an earthen dam built to contain millions of tons of mining waste, called tailings, at the Mount Polley copper and gold mine. Previously pristine fishing, swimming, and summer vacation destinations like Polley Lake, Hazeltine Creek, and Quesnel Lake (including drinking water sources for the surrounding communities and residents) are now ground zero fortoxicity testing, government health warnings and clean-up — if indeed such a thing is possible.

In the disaster's wake, and even as recent tests confirm elevated levels of toxic copper and lead in aquatic life, a predictable progression is already underway.

Within days, the mine owner, the containment dam designer, and the British Columbia's Minister of Mines began to diminish the extent of the risks from, or their own role in, the massive spill of billions of gallons of contaminated wastes into surrounding, formerly pristine salmon-spawning streams and lakes. Not that bad, not my fault ... and from Mines Minister Bill Bennett, not much different than an "avalanche."

Across the border in southwest Alaska, where a long-embattled proposal is pending to build the largest gold and copper mine in North America in the headwaters of the largest wild sockeye salmon fishery in the world, the Pebble Limited Partnership moved quickly to distance its massive project from the spectacular failure at Mt. Polley. Like a ghost in the night, it quietly removed from its Youtube site a Pebble Mine TV commercial highlighting British Columbia's Fraser River copper mines — of which Mt. Polley is one — as a model of harmonious co-existence between mining and fisheries. [Huge Ponds Hold Tar Sands Sludge, and Great Risks (Op-Ed )]

Although the Partnership's spokesperson Mike Heatwole assured the media that it did so "out of  deference to the people affected  by this incident," there may be other more obvious, less compassionate motives for hiding a TV commercial framed around the phrase "[j]ust like the Fraser River . . . "

Maybe the commercial was deleted because the Pebble Partnership recognizes that Mt. Polley is now synonymous not with harmonious mining and fishing co-existence, but with mining and fisheries disaster.

Or maybe the Pebble Partnership doesn't want to remind anyone that the containment dam at Mt. Polley was designed by the same company hired to design the containment dams for the Pebble Mine.

Whatever the reason, the Pebble Partnership certainly understands, in the wake of Mt. Polley's huge tailings release, that the Fraser River mines are now "way off message" for their claim that no such thing could ever happen at the Pebble Mine.

This brief video just released by NRDC, tells the story. 

The Pebble Partnership made a bad decision when it hitched its massive Pebble Mine to a mining "death star" near the Fraser River — that is, a mine whose videotaped implosion has now made it synonymous with the industry's worst nightmare. It is a public-relations strategy now gone terribly wrong — a strategy built on Pebble's unquestioning faith in the ability of mining engineers to design and operate a containment pond that will contain millions of gallons (billions of tons) of wastes on a temporal scale of centuries. In the case of the failed Mt. Polley dam built in 1997, the containment lasted a mere 17 years.

While it's no surprise that Pebble now hopes to "unhitch" their Bristol Bay mega-mine from the Mt. Polley disaster, advocates for clean water can't let them get away with it. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe the Pebble Partnership's empty, self-serving, impossible promises that the Pebble Mine would never do to Alaska what the Mt. Polley Mine has done to British Columbia.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Pierre Delforge, NRDC’s director of high tech energy efficiency, previously worked for 20 years in the IT industry in software development, hardware integration, and energy efficiency and climate programs. He contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

All online activity — from email and Internet use to social media and business — streams through nearly 3 million data centers across America, from small closets and large server rooms to mammoth "cloud" server farms. The centers' explosive growth is gulping huge amounts of energy, and despite some efficiency improvements, much of it is still wasted.

Although well-known Internet brands like Apple, Facebook, Google and others rightly pride themselves on the ultra-high efficiency of their immense data centers delivering search, social networking and other digital services to consumers and businesses alike, according to a new report from NRDC and Anthesis, these cloud-server farms are responsible for less than 5 percent of total data-center energy consumption in the nation, and are not representative of how the average U.S. data center operates.

Our study shows that many small, mid-size, corporate and multi-tenant data centers still waste much of the energy they use. Many of the roughly 12 million U.S. servers spend most of their time doing little or no work, but still drawing significant power — up to 30 percent of servers are "comatose" and no longer needed, while many others are grossly underutilized. However, opportunities abound to reduce energy waste in the data-center industry as a whole.  Technology that will improve efficiency exists, but systemic measures are needed to remove the barriers limiting its broad adoption across the industry. 

How much energy do data centers use?

The rapid growth of digital content, big data, e-commerce and Internet traffic more than offset energy-efficiency progress, making data centers one of the fastest-growing consumers of electricity in the U.S. economy, and a key driver in the construction of new power plants. If such data centers were a country, they would be the globe's 12th-largest consumer of electricity, ranking somewhere between Spain and Italy.

In 2013, U.S. data centers consumed an estimated 91 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. That's the equivalent annual output of 34 large (500-megawatt) coal-fired power plants — enough electricity to power all the households in New York City, twice over, for a year. 

Meanwhile, our report projects data-center electricity consumption to increase to about 140 billion kilowatt-hours annually by 2020, requiring the equivalent annual output of 17 new power plants, costing American businesses $13 billion annually in electricity bills and emitting nearly 150 million metric tons of carbon pollution  annually.

Our last report, "Is Cloud Computing Always Greener?" found these smaller data centers have generally made much less progress than their hyper-scale cloud counterparts. Our latest analysis shows energy-efficiency advances are being hampered by persistent issues and market barriers, such as lack of metrics and transparency, and misalignment of incentives (i.e., the person who makes the decisions affecting efficiency is rarely the same person paying the energy bills).

Fixing the problem

While current technology can improve data center efficiency, we recommend systemic measures to create conditions for best-practices across the data center industry, including:

• Adoption of a simple, server-utilization metric. One of the biggest efficiency issues in data centers is underutilization of servers. Adoption of a simple metric, such as the average utilization of the server central processing units (CPUs), is a key step in resolving the energy-consumption issue. Measuring and reporting CPU utilization is a simple, affordable and adequate way of gauging data-center efficiency that could immediately drive greater IT energy savings. 

• Rewarding the right behaviors. Data center operators, service providers and multi-tenant customers should review their internal organizational structures and external contractual arrangements and ensure that incentives are aligned to provide financial rewards for efficiency best practices. Multi-tenant data center stakeholders — those served by a single facility where they lease space, power, Internet connectivity, etc. — should develop a "green lease" contract template to make it easier for all customers to establish contracts that incentivize, rather than stand in the way of, energy savings.

• Disclosure of data-center energy and carbon performance. Public disclosure is a powerful mechanism for demonstrating leadership and driving behavior change across an entire sector. In their corporate and social responsibility reports, industry leaders in data-center efficiency should voluntarily disclose operational performance metrics, such as fleetwide server utilization levels, and organizational performance (e.g., how they address split incentive issues internally and externally). 

If just half of the technical savings potential for data-center efficiency that we identify in our report is realized (taking into account market barriers), electricity consumption in U.S. data centers could be cut by as much as 40 percent. Today, that would represent a savings of 39 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually — equivalent to the annual electric consumption of nearly all the households in Michigan, improvements that would save U.S. businesses and their customers a whopping $3.8 billion a year.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Danielle Droitsch is director of the Canada Project for the NRDC. She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

On August 4, 2014, the catastrophic failure of a mining company's dam in British Columbia, Canada, released over 2.5 billion gallons of contaminated water from a containment pond into the upper Fraser River watershed. Only a few hundred miles east in Alberta, at least half a dozen dams containing the wastewater from the tar sands mining industry hold more than 100 times the volume of the British Columbia release and span over 43,000 acres of Canada's boreal forest. A breach from any one of these mine-tailings ponds would pose enormous risks to local communities and the surrounding boreal forest ecosystem.

And yet, Canadian authorities offer virtually no public information about the safety of these tailings dams, which already leak millions of gallons of wastewater — containing a suite of toxins, such as naphthenic acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phenolic compounds, ammonia and mercury — every day. Meanwhile, Canadian regulators have opted not to enforce existing laws meant to limit the volume of toxic waste produced during tar sands mining or confront the leaks. Canada's Pembina Institute projects that the volume of tailings will grow by at least 40 percent over the next two decades. By 2060, Pembina estimates that these mine-tailings ponds, which lie amidst the Canadian boreal landscape, will grow by another 120 billion gallons. [A Clear Signal Against the Use of Tar Sands ]

The tailings liability

The tar sands industry's tailings problem is a growing liability and it is getting worse. The mining operations generate massive volumes naphthenic acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phenolic compounds, ammonia, and mercury and other trace metals, and some of these compounds are carcinogenic. For every barrel of tar sands bitumen produced (the semi-solid substance from which tar sands oil is eventually refined), 1.5 barrels of liquid waste is added to the tailings ponds. According to the Pembina Institute, at current production levels, this means that every single day, mining operations have to store 6.6 million more gallons of tailings. 

Already, more than 200 billion gallons of this liquid byproduct is stored behind those massive tailing dams, covering an area larger than Washington, D.C. According to Pembina, because of weak and unenforced regulations, the volume of tailings could grow to 343 billion gallons by 2060. 

The risks from the ponds are well known. Last year, ecologist David Schindler of the University of Alberta, one of Canada's renowned water scientists, warned that a tar sands tailing breach was a huge threat. In 2013, the University of California’s Rosenburg Forum which convenes international water experts to tackle some of the world's most challenging water issues evaluated threats to the Mackenzie river basin (where the tar sands are located) and concluded, "… the largest single threat to the Mackenzie River Basin would be a large breach in the tailings ponds at one of the sites where surface mining bitumen is conducted."

Northern communities living downstream from these massive tailings dams are aware and concerned about risks presented by the tar-sands industry upstream. A larger spill could threaten not just the Athabasca river but the Peace-Athabasca delta, Lake Athabasca, the Slave river and delta, Great Slave Lake, and the Mackenzie river and delta, all of which empty into the Beaufort sea. Cleaning such a spill could cost billions of dollars.

Public information is lacking

Worldwide, major failures of tailings dams — like the recent one in British Columbia — occur at a frequency of two to five per year (there are approximately 3,500 tailings dams worldwide) while 35 smaller breaches occur annually. This is a much higher failure rate than experienced by water supply or hydroelectric dams. And Canada hasn't escaped this problem. 

Just last year, a massive breach of tailings pond dam from an Alberta coal mine operation dumped 177 million gallons of water and 9.8 million gallons of sediment into the Athabasca watershed (the same watershed threatened by tar sands tailings). Despite an ongoing investigation, the cause of the 2013 breach is still unknown, though critics claim that a lack of government oversight is partly to blame. 

Generally, a number of risk factors can lead to tailings dam failures. These include: 

• While public bodies often own conventional dams, tailings dam are often owned and constructed by private mining companies who view the dams as a money-draining part of their operations. 
• Unlike conventional dams, tailings dams can have a lifetime of hundreds of years and are considered permanent fixtures on landscapes. A conventional dam typically has a lifetime of less than 100 years.
• While conventional dams are constructed over a relatively short period, mining dams are constructed continuously over many years. As an example, the Suncor Tar Island tailings dam, originally intended to be 12 meters tall and be in use for only 3 years, has now risen to 91 meters and is more than 40 years old. 

Tailings dams information is lacking

Canadian authorities share little information about the safety of tar-sands-tailings lakes. According the Pembina Institute, key documents like emergency preparedness plans, emergency response plans, operations and maintenance manuals, tailings-dam performance reports, and dam safety reviews are kept confidential for proprietary reasons. But according to the institute, "The difficulty in acquiring information on tar sands tailings dams, combined with the government of Alberta not publicly addressing concerns on tailings dam stability, limits the possibility for fair public scrutiny and independent dam assessment. Thus, the public is left to trust that tailings dams are safely constructed and maintained and that adequate plans for emergencies are in place."

And to be clear, tar sands tailings dams haven't escaped problems. Three major accidents have been reported, all in the 1970s, due to factors such as slope instability and foundation weakness. However, there is no public information about these events or the volume of tailings that was released.

Tailings ponds are already leaking

While the public has little information about the risk of a breach, the regulation of tar-sands tailings dams is dismal. A 2008 study by Environmental Defence Canada, based on industry data, found that as much as 2.9 million gallons of water leaks from tar sands tailings ponds into the environment every day, with no enforcement by the government. New federal research by Environment Canada, released in February 2014, confirms that leaking tailings ponds are leaching into groundwater and then into the Athabasca river. 

Even the weakest regulations on the books, designed to limit the volume of tailings waste, aren't enforced. There are news reports on how the tar sands industry is not complying with these regulations and Alberta regulators have announced they will not enforce the regulations first introduced in 2009.

Canadian authorities looking the other way

Perhaps most distressing is how Canadian federal authorities treat the tar-sands tailings problem. A petition filed by NRDC and Environmental Defence Canada in 2010 with the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), a NAFTA oversight body, raised concerns about the leaking tailings ponds and the failure of federal government authorities to enforce its clean water laws. Recently, the CEC agreed to pursue an investigation, but in a shocking response, the Canadian government has not only refused to participate in the investigation but has announced it will fight to keep the investigation from happening.

And while the government has no plans to eliminate tailings from the tar sands production process, last year Alberta's premier traveled to Washington, D.C. to disingenuously claim that tailings dams would "disappear from Alberta's landscape in the near future." It is no secret the Alberta government has failed to enforce its tailings regulations but its communication materials suggest they are enforcing the law. And despite clear evidence to the contrary, the Alberta government denies there is even a problem with leaking tailings ponds. 

All of this leaves the public in both Canada and the United States with a strong impression that Albertan and federal Canadian regulators are, at best, ignoring the alarming growth of tailings waste and the fact that the ponds are leaking. This willful ignorance, coupled with the lack of public information about safety measures in place to prevent against a breach, does not inspire confidence that authorities are minding the store. It is in this atmosphere that the public has a right to demand information so they can learn about the risks of a catastrophic breach of a tar sands tailing dam and push for actions to prevent it from ever happening.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Ali Chase is a senior ocean policy analyst at the NRDC. She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

At the beach this summer, gazing out over the waves from the shoreline, it's hard to imagine the underwater world that lies just below the blue expanse: Partly because it’s so other-worldy, and partly because we just don't know very much about it. Scientific exploration into the ocean's depths reveals new discoveries every day, and researchers at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are at the forefront on this work. Take a look at the incredible images from some of their recent dives off the Atlantic Coast:

These amazing gardens of deep-sea coral communities, in Dr. Seuss-like shapes and colors, are a sanctuary for marine life. They serve as a nursery for young fish and crustaceans, and shelter a range of sea life seeking a safe haven from threats that lie in the open waters of the deep sea. 

However, the Atlantic's deep-sea coral communities are at risk. They are highly vulnerable to harm from fishing gear, such as trawlers that pull their fishing nets along the bottom of the ocean. Most deep-sea corals are very slow-growing, so once they're cut down, that habitat remains destroyed for a very long time. In fact, one pass of trawl gear can destroy corals that have been growing for hundreds, even thousands, of years.

The public now has an opportunity to help protect these ocean oases. On Monday, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, made up of federal officials and state representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, took an historic step forward to adopt protections for the region's unique, ecologically important and highly vulnerable deep-sea coral communities. The council released a full array of options for deep-sea coral protections and will soon ask the public to weigh in on the best ways to preserve these ecosystems. [New Hope For Corals?]

This is the moment to act on the issue. Because of their depth and rugged topography, the deep-sea coral communities off the Atlantic coast have been largely sheltered from harmful bottom trawling. But as traditional fish species become overfished or markets change, fishing will continue to move into deeper waters and more difficult terrain. 

We have a unique window to protect the deep-sea corals and the ecosystems they help support before irreversible damage is done. The council should protect against the use of damaging fishing gear in both discrete coral protection zones, which would safeguard particularly high-value coral habitat like submarine canyons, and broad coral protection zones, which would provide a level of protection for deeper areas in the region until it is determined that coral communities are not present in these areas. 

NRDC is working to ensure that these incredible resources are protected for the future. Public hearings to discuss the Council's proposed protections will be held this fall — it is important that every voice is heard.

Author's Note: To learn more about the corals off the Atlantic coast, view NRDC's site on ocean canyons.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Rocky Kistner is a communications associate for the NRDC.& This article was adapted from one that appeared in the NRDC publication OnEarth. Kistner contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

The sea-level rise that comes along with climate change won't only swallow far-flung, exotic islands  such as Kirabiti and the Maldives. The rising waters, fueled by melting icecaps, will also inundate America's fiftieth state — the land of hula skirts, mai tais, and most importantly, Hawai'ians. 

"I like to think about the islands as they once were … peopled by some of the most fearless and skilled ocean voyagers on the planet," says Jo-Ann Leong, director of the Hawai'i Institute of Marine Biology. "Now, their whole way of life is being threatened by climate change."

Leong is the lead author of the Hawai'i and Pacific Islands section of the National Climate Assessment — a four-year study compiled by 300-plus scientists that details the climate risk our country is facing. Now, don't worry if you missed that chapter on Hawai'i when the massive report came out in the spring. (We don't blame you. A Tolstoy novel would be a quicker read.) Thankfully, a multimedia outlet called The Story Group was nice enough to condense the report into a series of stunning short videos. 

Some of the world's poorest people — including those living in the territories of American Samoa and the islands and atolls of Micronesia — are most vulnerable to sea-level rise. And along with their ancient civilizations, climate change will wash away modern infrastructure such as seaside roads, airports, resorts, buildings and homes. Many Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders will be left with no choice but to evacuate.  

Charts and graphs aren't always enough to compel us to curtail our appetites for fossil-fuel-based energy. That's why The Story Group is busy fundraising and producing videos that introduce Americans to the people and places where climate risk has already become reality. From a farmer fighting floods in Iowa (VIDEO), to a fire chief battling blazes in the West, to native Alaskan fishermen struggling with the day's catch, climate change is a war with many fronts — and Americans are on all of them. [More on how climate change is affecting the World]

This article was adapted from "Hawaii: Climate Wipeout" in the NRDC publication OnEarth. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.  This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Peter Lehner is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This Op-Ed is adapted from one that appeared on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Lehner contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Prolonged drought is one of the hallmarks of a warming climate. Texas has been in the grips of widespread drought since late 2010. California, where my daughters used to live, is in its third year of drought, with 100 percent of the state experiencing "severe" to "exceptional" drought conditions — hillsides there are a dull brown instead of vibrant summer green.

One of the reasons drought hurts people so badly is that we waste a lot of water — not just by taking epic showers and being obsessed with grassy lawns, but by relying on outdated, inefficient water-management systems that are built to move water away rather than keep it where it's needed. 

Saving water helps towns and cities protect against drought, and it can help save you time and money. I love that I can claim water conservation as an excuse to avoid hand-washing dishes or the car. And that I can take advantage of all the rebates and incentives offered by many utilities for water-efficient upgrades like water-smart shower heads, or even landscaping with drought-tolerant plants. Expanding conservation and efficiency programs, according to a recent report by NRDC, can reduce water use in cities by one-third or even one-half.

Here are seven easy ways to save water this summer. You'll reduce your water bill, save yourself some time, and help reduce pollution, too.

1. Water your yard in the morning or evening

Water evaporates quickly when the sun is high, so run the sprinkler when water's more likely to stay in the soil. And make sure you're watering your yard, not the sidewalk or driveway. A drip irrigation system works better than sprinklers, as it sends targeted amounts of water exactly where you want. Check to see if you qualify for a rebate to make your irrigation system more water efficient. [EPA WaterSense Rebate Finder]

Upgrade: Remove your thirsty turf grass and replace it with a beautiful drought-tolerant garden that doesn't need precious drinking water, or mowing. You'll save money on your water bill — your water supplier might even pay you a rebate for every square foot of grass you remove.

2. Check for leaks with the "toilet test"

Put a few drops of food coloring or a dye tablet into your toilet tank. If the color shows up in the bowl, your tank is leaking — silently wasting up to 100 gallons of water each day. I tried this myself, and sure enough, found a leak. An inexpensive rubber flapper may be all you need to fix it; just be sure the replacement flapper is made to fit your toilet's make and model. [The Costs of Fresh Water in a Changing World (Op-Ed )]

3. Shorten your shower

Trimming just two minutes off your shower can save up to 1,750 gallons of water, per person, in your household each year. Another easy trick is to turn the water off while you soap and/or shave. You can also capture the water that's normally wasted while you wait for the shower to warm up by collecting it in a bucket — use it for watering plants. If you plan to re-use soapy water in your garden, make sure your soap is safe for plants.

Upgrade: Install water-efficient shower heads, toilets, faucets, or an Energy Star washing machine to eliminate thousands of gallons of water waste each year. Again, check the EPA WaterSense Rebate Finder — you might qualify for a rebate for making those switches.

4. Use the dishwasher

Hand-washing your dishes can use up to 27 gallons of water per session, compared to just 3 gallons for a new Energy Star-rated dishwasher.

5. Cover the pool

If you're fortunate enough to have a backyard pool, make sure the water stays in the pool instead of evaporating — cover the pool when you're not using it.

6. Go to the car wash

Washing a car at home can easily use 100 gallons of water, not to mention an awful lot of time and effort; commercial car washes often use only 40 gallons or less of fresh water. 

7. Get a rain barrel

Collect the water that streams off your roof when it rains by setting up a rain barrel underneath your gutter's downspout. Reuse that water in your garden instead of letting it push motor oil, pet waste and garbage from the streets into local rivers.

Upgrade: Rain barrels are just one of several smart strategies that catch or soak-up rain water where it falls. Green roofs, porous pavement, rain gardens and other water-saving techniques are called green infrastructure. More cities and property owners are choosing to invest in these strategies as a way to save water, reduce pollution, and save millions or billions of dollars over the cost of building new tanks, tunnels and traditional water infrastructure.

Lehner's most recent Op-Ed was "Food Additives 'Generally Recognized As Safe' Could Be Anything But." This post is part of NRDC's Wasteland series, featuring people, towns, businesses and industries that are finding innovative ways to cut waste, boost efficiency and save money, time and valuable resources. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Rocky Kistner is a communications associate for the NRDC. This Op-Ed originally appeared as an article in OnEarth magazine. Kistner contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

In West Virginia's largest newspaper this week, journalist Ken Ward Jr., a veteran chronicler of the coalfields, spotlighted poll numbers that might surprise the politicians in his state — most of whom are already bemoaning President Obama's new carbon pollution standards as a "war on coal."

"Americans living in coal-heavy states are supportive of limiting greenhouse gas emissions," Ward quoted from a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, pointing out that previous surveys have found similar results. Among those in states where a majority of electricity is produced by burning coal, 69 percent say the government should place limits on greenhouse gas emissions."

Ward used those results to pound West Virginia pols for being out of step with their constituents when they try to derail efforts — like the one announced by the Environmental Protection Agency in early June — to clean up coal-fired power plants and transition to a clean energy economy.

"More importantly," he asked, "what about the future of a state where a huge chunk of the coal industry is already expected to go away — regardless of what EPA does?" 

This isn't an idle question in towns that are already suffering from double-digit unemployment as coal mining gets replaced by natural gas and cleaner forms of power — and where the local populace is dealing with a rash of coal-related health problems on top of the economic downturn.

One of those towns is Williamson, West Virginia (population: 3,100), a place billed as "the heart of the billion-dollar coalfields," where the local chamber of commerce headquarters is literally made out of coal — 65 tons of it, to be exact. It's a place where some of the residents still trace their roots to the fabled Hatfield and McCoy clans, and where local tourism is based around exploring that famous family feud. It's a place where heritage runs deep.

And yet Williamson is also a place primed and ready to move past its coal-mining roots, if given the chance. As Ward's paper explained recently, many of Williamson's community leaders — the former mayor, a town doctor, educators, businessmen and others — got together five years ago in an effort to revitalize the community under the banner Sustainable Williamson.

The initiative started small, mostly focused on improving health (Mingo County, where Williamson is located, tops the state in residents with physical and mental health problems — many of them coal-related). But the group's efforts have since extended to replacing some coal-generated electricity with solar panels and making town buildings more energy efficient.

What makes Sustainable Williamson potentially groundbreaking is that it involves allies who bring very different interests and occupations to the table. Veterans of the coal and gas industry sit down with young clean energy activists in the local coffeehouse to talk strategy alongside city officials and the school superintendent. All are coming together with a common goal: improving the health and job prospects for a town long down on its luck.

Now, thanks to the common ground they've laid, there's a growing sense that things can be different. "It's a holistic approach," Dr. Dino Beckett, who was born in raised in Williamson and treats patients at the new health center (built in part with federal grants that incorporate solar and energy efficiency measures), told me.

"We will never abandon our coal heritage," Beckett said. "But we need to be more forward thinking and [diverse with] our economy." 

I've never been to Williamson, but I've visited many similar communities all over the country, in places like Louisiana and Iowa, where fishermen and farmers and the people who work in fossil fuels understand that change is coming — whether they accept the concept of climate change or not. They value their heritage and old way of life, and some are determined to cling to it. But many — if not most — seek a path toward a new way of supporting their families.

That's what motivates the leaders in Williamson. And it's what Ward argues that their state and federal representatives should be doing, too: embracing change, not fighting it.

"Before, people here just knew coal," said Charlie McCoy, president of the local chamber of commerce — the one housed in that building actually made out of the black rock. Changing things, he said, "will take an entrepreneurial spirit." And it means looking forward, not back — no matter what the politicians say.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Pierre Delforge is director of the High Tech Sector Energy Efficiency program at NRDC. This Op-Ed was adapted from a post to the NRDC blog Switchboard. Delforge contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

The latest game consoles — Sony PlayStation 4, Microsoft Xbox One and Nintendo Wii U — are on track to consume as much electricity in the United States each year as all the homes in Houston, the fourth-largest city in the country, and cost U.S. consumers more than $1 billion to operate annually. 

Unfortunately, much of that energy will be consumed when gamers are asleep.

Those findings are in NRDC's new study, “The Latest-Generation Video Game Consoles: How Much Energy Do They Waste When You’re Not Playing?,” which was released May 16. As video games have become a facet of life in the United States, with many people playing games on a daily basis, it is increasingly important to ensure the consoles don't waste large amounts of energy while still delivering the performance and functionality that users expect.

As a follow-up to our  2008 report on the energy use of video game consoles, NRDC performed extensive laboratory tests on the latest-generation consoles. We found that while they have incorporated many energy-saving features into their designs and offer greater performance, the Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox One consume two to three times more annual energy than the most recent models of the previous generation. 

However, the Wii U consumes less energy than its predecessor the Wii, despite providing higher definition graphics and processing capabilities, in large part thanks to its very low power in "connected standby mode." [New Device Gets a Better Grip on Gaming ]

Key findings from the study

After testing the devices and analyzing the data, we made the following observations regarding the consoles' features and energy use.

• The new consoles consume more energy each year playing video or in standby mode than playing games. 
• The Xbox One and PS4 consume two to three times more annual energy than the latest models of their predecessors, the Xbox 360 and PS3. 
• While the new versions are more powerful, the two- to three-fold increase in energy-use is due to higher power demand in standby modes, and in the case of the Xbox One, more time switched on due to its TV-viewing mode. In that mode, the console is used in addition to the current set-top box to access cable or satellite TV, adding 72 watts to TV viewing. Do you really want a 72-watt remote control, when a traditional battery-powered remote draws less than 1 watt? 
• The Xbox One draws less power than the PS4 to play games and video. However, the Xbox One consumes a lot more energy when not in use (connected standby mode). 
• Nearly half of the Xbox One's annual energy is consumed in connected standby, when the console continuously draws more than 15 watts while waiting for the user to say "Xbox on," even in the middle of the night or when no one is home. If left unchanged and all Xbox 360 models are replaced by Xbox One consoles, this one feature will be responsible for $400 million in annual electricity bills and the equivalent annual output of a large, 750-megawatt power plant — and its associated pollution. 
• Consoles have incorporated some good design practices, including better power scaling (drawing less power when doing less work) and well-implemented automatic power-down to a low-power state after an extended period of user inactivity. 
• The PS4 and Xbox One are very inefficient when playing movies from a streaming service, using 30 to 45 times more power to stream a movie than a dedicated video player, such as Apple TV, Google Chromecast or Amazon Fire TV. 

Recommendations and priorities for energy savings

NRDC's detailed report includes several recommendations for how manufacturers can bring down the energy consumption of those consoles. The recommendations focus on giving users a clearer choice between higher and lower energy modes, reducing power in standby to levels similar to the Amazon Fire TV (which offers voice command for less than 3 watts) and reducing power when the processing needs are light, such as streaming video and TV mode.

NRDC estimates those improvements could save another 25 percent beyond natural semiconductor-efficiency trends. This would save American consumers $250 million annually in electricity bills and conserve enough electricity to power all the households in San Jose, the nation's 10th-largest city. Some of these recommendations only require settings or user interface changes; they can be implemented rapidly on new products and even on existing products via software updates. 

Others require hardware design changes and will require more time, but work should start on them as soon as possible.

Game console manufacturers should leverage design best practices to reduce console energy consumption before too many units of the current models are sold and lock-in high-energy consumption for their owners for the next five years.

Author's Note: Testing was performed on launch units with system updates up to mid-April 2014. The effects of any system updates and hardware improvements released after that date are not reflected in the report. We just heard from Sony that new PS4s sold with the 1.70 software version released on April 30, 2014, reduce the default auto-power down time from two hours to one, and include a TV screen-dimming feature. We applaud Sony for these energy-saving improvements and encourage them to implement our other recommendations as soon as possible.

This Op-Ed was adapted from the NRDC post "The Latest-Generation Video Game Consoles: How Much Energy Do They Waste When You're Not Playing?" on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.  This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Dave Hawkins, director of Climate Programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

As U.S. President Barack Obama prepares to announce the country's new carbon pollution standards for existing power plants today, NRDC, the sustainable-business organization CERES, and a group of major electric utilities released our tenth report since 1997 benchmarking carbon and other air pollution from the nation's 100 largest power producers. 

Its catchy title? "Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States."

Here's the big take-away for utilities, especially as it pertains to the upcoming carbon rules: You can do this. 

In fact, the report shows utilities are well on their way now. Between 2008 (when U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions peaked) and the end of 2012, when the emissions in the report were tallied, power-plant owners cut their carbon pollution  by a sizable chunk — a full 13 percent. That's more than a third of the way towards the 35-percent cuts the President needs from the power sector to make good on his promise to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020. 

Emissions-wise, there's a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick. Let's start with all the energy we waste as a nation. Economy-wide, it's an astonishing 60 percent. Decreasing that waste and the unnecessary pollution that comes with it through energy efficiency  is almost always the least-expensive emissions-cutting option and a tremendous energy resource in its own right — far cheaper than any kind electricity. (Energy efficiency can be delivered at slightly more than 2 cents per kilowatt hour, a recent report on programs in 31 states found, while the average cost of electricity in the U.S. is 10.35 cents per Kwh.) Switching to more efficient light bulbs, adding weather-stripping or insulation in buildings, or installing more-efficient appliances and equipment reduces electricity bills and creates jobs that can't be outsourced to other countries. 

Energy efficiency's benefits are impressive. In fact, this March, NRDC updated our original 2012 proposal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on how to structure an emissions-cutting program, demonstrating that with moderate reductions, efficiency programs can cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 35 percent by 2020 at no additional cost.  (The benefits come in at a whopping $30 billion to $50 billion under the same scenario. That's quite the bargain.)

Though coal makes up 37 percent of total power production in the United States, it's responsible for 76 percent of the carbon emissions documented in the "Benchmarking" report. In the states most reliant on coal, there are huge energy-efficiency opportunities out there. In fact, about half the money U.S. ratepayers currently spend on efficiency through utility- and state-funded programs is spent in just five states: California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Florida, the report finds. Coal predominates in the Midwestern and Southeastern states that are notably absent from that list. 

Another noteworthy observation from "Benchmarking": Even as the power sector transitions toward a lower-carbon system, there are major polluters whose emissions numbers stand out. Their decisions about how best to deliver energy services to their customers, and how to spend their lobbying dollars, can have incredible impacts on the global climate and American lives. In fact, the five largest emitters are responsible for 25 percent of the sector's carbon pollution, and a total of 20 companies are responsible for 50 percent. 

Here's a list of the top 10, in descending order:

• American Electric Power
• Duke Energy
• Southern Company
• NRG Energy
• Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
• FirstEnergy 
• MidAmerican Energy
• PPL Electric Utilities
• Ameren
• Energy Future Holdings, which recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Some of these companies are doing important work to reduce their emissions, work that will be reflected in next year's update. 

The federally owned TVA is one example. Last November, CEO Bill Johnson announced it would close eight of its coal plants. "This will support our focus on cleaner energy," he told the TVA board. 

MidAmerican, now called Berkshire Hathaway Energy and owned almost entirely by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway company, in May of last year announced it would invest as much as $1.9 billion to expand its wind power resources  in Iowa by as many as 1,050 megawatts. In the process, it will create 1,000 construction jobs and 40 permanent ones. Once the project is complete, wind power will make up 39 percent of the company's generating capacity. 

And, NRG Energy is investing heavily in solar. "My company is one of the largest polluters in the U.S.," CEO David Crane told Institutional Investor in April. "But we're trying to get out of it."

Often, when new EPA regulations loom on the horizon, utilities imagine them as insurmountable obstacles. But once standards set in motion new improvements, they become points of pride. That's been the case with reductions in nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide that were occasioned by the 1990 amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act. In 2012, the "Benchmarking" report notes, power plant emissions of those harmful pollutants were down 74 percent and 79 percent, respectively, compared to 1990 levels. 

Electric power producers know how to achieve the cuts in carbon that the EPA's new carbon pollution standards will motivate. Today's "Benchmarking" report demonstrates, with carbon cuts of 13 percent between 2008 and 2012, many of those producers are well on their way to putting that knowledge into action. 

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.  This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Robert Friedman is the Youth Engagement Coordinator for NRDC in New York City. This Op-Ed was adapted from one on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Friedman contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.  

Of late, it seems as though a new report is coming out every day detailing how people are in serious trouble due to climate change. As scientists warn of impacts ranging from rising sea levels to human-health risks like disease, world leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu are calling for "anti-apartheid-style" actions to reinstate the delicate balance of the planet.

For several years, college and university students across the country have been at the vanguard of such a movement, focused on divesting from the fossil fuel industry. The divestment movement has become the "fastest growing corporate campaign of its kind in history," according to Archbishop Tutu, and it's already paying dividends in terms of increasing awareness around responsible investment in a climate-stressed world.

In recent weeks, calls for fossil fuel  divestment have escalated, with arrests at both Harvard and Northwestern University. Students are demanding their schools divest immediately from an industry that continues to develop and burn fossil fuels while simultaneously acknowledging how dangerous such behavior is for the planet. 

This escalation around investor responsibility could not be more timely. Despite widespread consensus that climate change is happening and being made worse by humans, fossil fuel companies continue to profit from recklessly emitting greenhouse gases. 

University presidents have claimed again and again at Harvard, Bates University and elsewhere that fossil fuel divestment would be quite difficult, or even impossible. Perhaps they made similar claims about divesting from apartheid South Africa, but many of them took a stand. It’s time for them to do so again. Fossil fuel divestment is about to get a lot easier, especially for many of those institutions that have said that fossil fuel divestment is not in their interest.

Recently, NRDC announced a historic partnership with two major financial institutions, BlackRock and FTSE Group, to create the first equity global index tool that will exclude companies linked to exploration, ownership or extraction of carbon-based fossil fuel reserves. 

The new investment tool will allow investors who claim to be socially conscious — including foundations, universities and certain pension groups — to align their investments with their missions.

So what does this mean for the divestment campaign being run at your alma mater? Previously, there was no mainstream investment index that was built for large-scale investments that was also low-cost, transparent and well-diversified. This tool is just that, and through partnerships with mainstream financial institutions, we  are sending a powerful message to Wall Street that there is market demand for a future free of fossil fuels.

So as an alum or a current student, the ball is in your court. Your alma mater now has a tool to divest from the fossil fuel industry. Will they choose to continue to invest in the fossil fuel companies, or will they choose join the growing number of institutions that have committed to building a more just, more sustainable future?

As someone who has worked on climate-justice campaigns for nearly a decade, it's gratifying to see my generation leading the charge for demanding meaningful and necessary climate action. Climate change   is an issue of intergenerational justice; it will impact my generation — and the ones that follow — even more significantly than any other living generation. It's also an issue that touches all of humanity — especially those with fewer means to deal with the harsh realities of the more extreme storms, droughts and health threats that scientists predict. Yet, politics and big moneyed interests have stifled meaningful action. The divestment movement has already begun to change that.

As Archbishop Tutu wrote recently: "It makes no sense to invest in companies that undermine our future. To serve as custodians of creation is not an empty title; it requires that we act, and with all the urgency this dire situation demands."

Young people are acting. We should all follow their lead and demand that our alma maters and other institutions we are associated with put their funds into investments that will protect our future, not destroy it. 

This Op-Ed was adapted from "Tell Your Alma Mater, Fossil Fuel Divestment Just Went Mainstream," on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.  This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Zak Smith is an attorney for the Marine Mammal Protection Project at NRDC. This Op-Ed is adapted from one that first appeared on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Smith contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Most people don't know that Canada is the only country where polar bears are still hunted and killed to supply the world trade in polar bear skins and other parts (teeth, claws, skulls, etc.). But Canada's practice of allowing polar bears to be killed for profit when their very existence is threatened by climate change is now going to be scrutinized by the international community, which is expressing concern that such trade is not sustainable.

This critical issue came into focus at a meeting I recently attended in Veracruz, Mexico, of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) — the international organization tasked with managing trade in endangered species.

The proposal to review Canada's trade in polar bear parts came at the urging of the United Kingdom and Norway, both of which raised questions as to whether the killing of polar bears from vulnerable populations may be detrimental to the species. Their concerns are well founded. The European Union already bans imports from two Canadian polar bear populations (Kane Basin and Baffin Bay) — believing that Canada's management of these populations is unsustainable — and the United States' listing of polar bears under the Endangered Species Act in 2008 bans all commercial and trophy imports from Canada into the United States.

In the review, Canada will have to show two things. First, how the killing of polar bears for profit is not harming threatened polar bear populations. And second, that the nation controls exports in a way that maintains polar bears throughout their range at levels consistent with their role in the ecosystem. But, with climate change impacts bearing down on vulnerable populations, paired with rising demand and prices, it will be difficult for Canada to justify trading polar bear parts. Canada's own experts have questioned whether Canada's management can withstand scrutiny. Andrew Derocher of the University of Alberta, a leading polar bear scientist, stated in February of this year that Canada's management is out of step with the rest of the world as hunter groups seek to increase harvest. He said, "There's very strong pressure across the Canadian populations to increase harvest levels," noting that, "[I]t is going to be a challenge to convince the international community that our science is strong enough to support these increases." [Is a Rhino Hunt Really Conservation? (Op-Ed )]

The international community's review procedure is designed to identify species that may be subject to unsustainable levels of international trade — as was done here in the case of polar bears — and to identify problems and solutions concerning effective management of trade. Recommendations can range from requiring the gathering of additional data (for example, many polar bear populations are "data deficient") to identifying specific export quotas to limit trade. Sometimes the process works and sometimes it doesn't. It can be unwieldy and disappointing. A lot depends on how aggressively the Animals Committee — the CITES committee that conducts the review — pushes back on self-serving submissions from states seeking to defend their management practices. Here for example, Canada's submission may be wanting. Canada's record on climate change has been rightfully criticized and reports continue to surface of territorial wildlife managers rejecting evidence that climate change is harming polar bears as they set quotas for how many polar bears can be killed.

It will be important for other polar bear states — like Norway, Russia and the United States —to push back on these kinds of unsubstantiated assertions and management decisions that veer from accepted conservation standards. Canada has a lot to answer for and the United States and Russia — strong advocates for polar bears at CITES — must continue pushing for greater polar bear protections through the review process, demanding that any trade is not detrimental to the survival of polar bear populations threatened with extinction from climate change.

Smith's most recent Op-Ed was "A Side of Dolphin with Your Shrimp Cocktail." This Op-Ed was adapted from the post "Serious Questions about Canada's Trade in Polar Bear Skins Trigger Review by International Body" on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Bobby McEnaney is senior lands analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and deputy director for their Western Renewables Energy program. He contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

I was born and raised in Montana and Idaho, two states with unparalleled beauty that lie in a region now under assault from gigantic truckloads of oversized oil-processing equipment heading to the tar-sands oil fields of Alberta, Canada.

For several years now, NRDC has helped local groups fight the transport of massive truckloads of tar sands mining equipment through one of the nation's most remote and scenic parts of the United States, shipments the oil industry continues to push for as tar sands processing operations expand in Canada.

In 2012, NRDC challenged ExxonMobil's plan to truck "megaloads" of mining equipment up to Canada through one of the most scenic mountainous highways in the country — U.S. Route 12, which winds through Idaho and Montana. These megaloads shipments are prefabricated mining components, and they are preposterously large — approaching 400 feet long, 22 feet in width, and over 20 feet high. To put that in perspective, one could place five typical diesel semi-trailers lengthwise, and three deep, to approximate the relative footprint of a typical megaload truck shipment.

At that time, ExxonMobil was unable to find a route on the U.S. interstate system that could accommodate those monstrous loads due to overpass height restrictions. So instead, the company came up with a plan to send hundreds of these megaload trucks up U.S. Route 12 through the Clearwater Wild and Scenic River passage in Idaho and the Lolo Pass through Montana — transforming a winding and isolated two lane highway surrounded by the largest wilderness area in the lower 48 into an industrial corridor that would serve the tar-sands industry.

Thanks to local groups and activists who fought this scheme — including All Against the Hall, Fighting Goliath, and Idaho Rivers United, along with the Nez Perce Nation — state and federal courts intervened last year to stop the use of the U.S. Route 12-Lolo Pass route until additional environmental analyses could take place.

The notion that pervasive megaload shipments would harm the solitude and pristine qualities that define the Clearwater corridor was further reinforced last month by an assessment released on April 8, 2014 by the U.S. Forest Service; "There are many places in the Northern Region and Pacific Northwest where the quality of the resource is recognized by a formal designation such as National Historic Trail, Wilderness, or Wild and Scenic River, but nowhere are there so many within the same area with such quality access as there is here … many perceive that use of the Highway 12 corridor as a frequent route for oversize hauling could affect the unique setting, recreational experiences, and cultural meanings, and special designations found here and nowhere else."

Picking up the pieces

Since 2012, other tar sands providers have picked up where ExxonMobil left off. With Lolo Pass off the table, tar sands producers enlisted the primary shipper, Omega Morgan, to formulate an alternative, more circuitous, route through Oregon, Idaho and Montana. This time, the megaloads shippers have targeted U.S. Route 93, which travels along a no-less-pristine and isolated 7,000-foot Lost Trail Pass that intersects the borders of Idaho and Montana. These new shipments are making their way through some of the most rugged country to be found anywhere. The route includes the incomparable Craters of the Moon National Monument, the Salmon River corridor, Idaho's unique Camas Prairie (home to the some of the largest intact cold freshwater springs in North America) and Montana's Blackfoot River corridor. [All Yours: 10 Least Visited National Parks ]

In the last few months, oil-industry equipment truckers have committed between eight to ten megaloads to test out Route 93. What is notable is how similar the actions of the shippers are to what transpired in the ExxonMobil experience. When Exxon committed to Route 12, the Clearwater National Forest Service Supervisor Rick Brazell supervisor sent a letter to the state of Idaho signifying concerns about the hastiness of allowing megaload shipments given the lack of analysis and consideration of how key environmental resources, tribal concerns, and important recreational activities might be impacted, "[u]ntil we have clear understanding of these potential impacts, I cannot support authorization of such oversized loads through the National Forest or within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor."

Despite that declaration, the state of Idaho "ignored that request" and allowed further transportation of the loads, with the Forest Service ultimately backing down. But on the behest of business owners, the Nez Perce, and regionally environmental organizations, U.S. Chief District Judge Winmill ruled that the Forest Service "acted unlawfully" by not managing for the potential impacts to federal resources caused by these shipments, and further halted shipments until a robust environmental and socioeconomic analysis of the impacts was conducted.

This same pattern exhibited by the shippers and the states for the Lolo Pass route is seemingly being repeated for this latest trance of shipments. For instance, in Oregon, Headman Chief Carl Sampson of the Walla Walla Tribe noted in concert with legal action being initiated on his behalf, that the Walla Walla Tribe did not have an opportunity to comment about a permit that was issued for three megaloads shipments that traversed the reservation, "And now here we are in the middle of winter, with no formal notification, no tribal consultation, no information to our tribal members at our monthly council meetings, let alone our elected officials of the board of trustees or general council…"

Megaloads won't work

I find it incredulous that tar-sands producers have convinced themselves that the megaloads plan is even logistically feasible in the rugged and isolated region of the Rockies. And with that ruggedness comes inherent hazards in attempting to transport hundreds of megaloads through narrow mountain passes.

The initial experiences with these shipments are already proving that theory true. As reported by numerous observers, the first ExxonMobil shipments along Route 12 on the Clearwater River knocked down trees and utility poles, causing power outages to the nearby northern Idaho towns of Pierce and Weippe. The more recent shipments through the southerly Highway 93 route have been plagued by a host of problems and delays. For instance, one test shipment became stuck on Lost Trail Pass when the tires became iced in. Linwood Laughy, a resident on US 12, who along with his wife Borg Hendrickson, were some of the first to take note of the megaload situation, has been tracking the latest shipments: "Now 70 days from Umatilla [Oregon], the mega-load has traveled 900 miles, averaging 13 miles per day. In another 300 miles it will reach Canada, and then in 600 more, its tar sands destination. In November Omega Morgan predicted 20 days for the entire trip."

As these megaloads make their way up Highway 93, I remember a popular bumper sticker in Montana that morosely joked "Pray for me, I drive Hwy 93!" This was such a common catchphrase, even the Montana Department of Transportation played off 93's reputation by highlighting the bumper sticker on its website, the same agency now in charge of permitting megaload shipments.

These are extremely dangerous roads, where snowstorms and icy weather can turn nasty at the drop of a hat. This is no place for megaloads of truckloads of oil-processing equipment to travel in the first place. It is yet another example of why we need to reign in the climate-threatening operations of the tar sands industry — not shipments of oil equipment through our nation's environmental treasures. [The Time for Wind and Solar Energy is Now (Op-Ed )]

It's time we stopped jeopardizing our precious nation's natural resources for the sake of tar-sands industry profits and invested instead in clean energy — and our children's future. That is something everyone who cares about the wild and scenic river areas of the world should eagerly embrace.

Reports from the Edge, a companion series to This American Land on PBS, produced the video about the "megaloads" fight along a scenic road in Idaho. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Julene Bair is the author of "The Ogallala Road, A Memoir of Love and Reckoning." Her first book, "One Degree West: Reflections of a Plainsdaughter," won Mid-List Press's First Series Award and a WILLA Award from Women Writing the West. Bair's essays have appeared in venues ranging from the New York Timesto High Country News. This article was originally published by OnEarth magazine. Bair contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

If, like me, you grew up on family land, then you will know what I mean. The land contains you, and you can't really differentiate between what it is and who you are. Yet you can leave, because your family will always be there, keeping you one with the land. You don't realize they are performing this service or that you need them to.

I left Kansas when I was 18, headed for excitement, I suppose. But the most exciting thing I did in San Francisco was to leave it 12 years later for the Mojave Desert, to live alone in a remote mountain cabin surrounded by more than a million acres of wilderness. As for thrills, nothing beat taking icy dunks on hot afternoons in a big windmill-fed tank where a rancher stored water for his cattle. Although I didn't realize this at the time, I fell into that water-worshipping, desert-loving groove because I'd been born in it.

My family's western Kansas farm may not have been as dry as the Mojave, but the 1820 Stephen H. Long expedition across the High Plains dubbed the region the Great Desert for good reason. Were it not for the water our windmills pumped, we couldn't have survived there. And to make a living, my father had to practice "the science of farming where rainfall is deficient." The historian Walter Prescott Webb should have added the words art and obsession to his definition of dry-land farming. My father nurtured the moisture in his wheat fields so deftly and assiduously that, until I grew up, I didn't even know we'd had a drought during my 1950s childhood that rivaled the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

After jumping into 60-degree water on 100-degree days, the most thrilling thing I did in the Mojave was marry this charming cowboy with a drinking problem. I thought I could reform him. When it proved I couldn't and I became pregnant, I left him for the safety of home. Suddenly, instead of floating on the crystalline waters of that stock-water storage tank, I found myself standing waist-deep in my father's tailwater pit, a bulldozed hole in the ground where he caught runoff from his flood-irrigated fields. I did that only once. The tepid water was ecru, the color of dirt, and, as I would soon learn, saturated with farm chemicals.

Although our entire history in that place depended on farming within the climate's limits, my father, like his neighbors, had grasped on to new technology allowing him to irrigate out of the vast but virtually non-renewable Ogallala Aquifer. I did the math and figured out that in less than a century, if our family continued pumping nearly 200 million gallons every growing season, the water under our land would be gone.

I may have gotten over the cowboy, but I hadn't forgotten the desert's wild beauty or Kansas when it was still wild enough for me to imagine Indians chasing buffalo across the prairies. Aridity had given the grass that stretched beyond our farmhouse this transfixing blue-green cast that had perfectly complemented our pale blue, overarching skies. And although I didn't have to live in the desert to know this in my bones, I now knew it in my head: water is precious.

My father wanted to train me as his successor — a great honor in a place where ideas about men's and women's work had always been rigid. But if my land ethic were a line in the dirt like the ones my toddler son loved to draw with a stick, it would be exactly perpendicular to the one representing my father's: Make all the money you can, no matter how much native grass you plow or how much poison you spray or how much water you pump.

Though it saddened my father when I told him I wanted to go back to school, he forked over quite a few irrigation dollars to help. And though it saddened me that he was farming unsustainably, I thought I could accept his aid and leave once again without a backward glance, still confident that, because our land would always be there, I would always be me.

A little more than a decade later, my father died, leaving me part-owner of what he'd considered a lucrative paradise and what I considered a travesty against the land's natural gifts and character. Who was I now?

If you were raised on a farm, then you probably know this too: The chickens always do come home to roost.

Follow the author @JuleneBair. This article first appeared as "The Great Green Desert" on OnEarth.org. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Frances Beinecke is the president of NRDC — an environmental advocacy organization with 1.4 million supporters nationwide — served on the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, and holds a leadership role in several environmental organizations. Beinecke contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

You might start seeing some changes at the grocery store this spring. The price of lettuce is expected to jump 34 percent. The cost of an avocado is likely to increase from 35 cents to $1.60, and meat prices are also likely to climb as well, since wholesale beef prices have hit record highs this year.

Many of these price spikes can be traced back to the record-breaking drought in California. But California farmers aren't the only ones struggling in the face of extreme weather.

According to the National Climate Assessment released on Tuesday, many crops are expected to decline as a result of the drought, heavy rains and pest outbreaks made worse by climate change. That means higher prices at the store, but also greater challenges for the farmers producing our food.

"Scientists have been telling us what climate change looks like," said Matt Russell, a fifth-generation farmer in Lacona, Iowa. "As farmers, we're living it."

Ohio farmers, for example, saw corn yields drop by up to 60 percent, and first hay harvests by up to 70 percent, during the long drought of 2007 . In Iowa, hazardous weather between 2010 and 2012 caused losses totaling $4.34 billion — mainly in crop damage. And an unusually early and warm spring spurred rapid plant growth at Michigan fruit farms in 2012, but then a return to normal spring weather resulted in a series of freezes that destroyed the cherry crop and at least 90 percent of the apple, peach and juice grape crops.

"We don't know what normal is anymore," added corn and soybean farmer Arlyn Schipper in this video by my NRDC colleague Rocky Kistner.

The stakes are high for all of us. As Russell explained, "We are already experiencing the effects of climate change. It's going to be very difficult for us to continue to feed a growing population if the agriculture systems we have in place now are no longer viable with the climate that's changed."

Many farmers are concerned about what it will take to farm in these altered conditions. Extreme weather may require expensive new machines to handle rain-drenched fields or a shift in crops and planting cycles. NRDC is calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to support farmers who are trying to become more resilient in the face of extreme weather. But our nation must also tackle this crisis at its root: We must reduce the pollution that causes climate change.

Power plants are the largest source of U.S. carbon pollution . The United States limits mercury, arsenic and soot from power plants, yet astonishingly there are no national limits on how much carbon these plants can dump into our atmosphere. [National Climate Assessment: Agriculture chapter ]

This June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will propose the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. NRDC analysis shows that strong carbon limits would yield up to $60 billion in health and environmental benefits by 2020. NRDC also found that energy efficiency provides the cheapest way for utilities to meet carbon limits — and utility investments inefficiency also help reduce household electric bills.

If America acts now to reduce carbon pollution, we can help protect our communities from unchecked climate change — and we can ensure our nation's farms and food remain secure long into the future.

Author's Note: Through our site, you can tell the EPA you support strong limits on dangerous carbon pollution.

Beinecke's most recent Op-Ed was "Cutting Power-Plant Carbon Could Save U.S. $60 Billion by 2020" The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Zack Strong is an NRDC wildlife advocate in Bozeman, Mont. This op-ed was adapted from one that appeared on The Wildlife News. Strong contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Each year Wildlife Services — a little-known agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) — shoots, traps and poisons millions of animals, including about 100,000 native carnivores, ostensibly to resolve conflicts between people and wildlife. However, thousands of these animals are killed unintentionally, and many more are killed before any conflict has even occurred.

How can that be?

As NRDC's recently released film Wild Things explains, the short answer is because federal — and most state — laws still allow the agency to use indiscriminate methods that often kill "non-target" and "non-problem" animals and species. The film (which continues its national tour with a screening in Bozeman today!) carefully documents the non-selective nature of many of the lethal devices and methods used by Wildlife Services, and interviews former Wildlife Services agents who explain that, inevitably, these practices kill many wild animals by mistake.

For example, Wildlife Services uses spring-loaded devices called M-44s that shoot cyanide into the mouth of whatever animal happens to tug on the baited head. According to the agency's data, in 2012 alone, these devices were used in 16 states to poison more than 14,600 animals. Of these, more than 330 were killed unintentionally, including wolves, foxes, skunks, opossums, raccoons, bobcats and black bears.

Wildlife Services agents also use a variety of traps and snares. These devices often capture non-target animals, including rare and threatened species such as wolverines, lynx and grizzly bears . According to Wildlife Services' own data, in 2012, the agency mistakenly caught and killed more than 520 animals in leghold traps and more than 850 in neck snares, including mountain lions, river otters, pronghorn antelope, deer, badgers, beavers, turtles, turkeys, ravens, ducks, geese, great blue herons and even a golden eagle.

Frustratingly, these non-selective methods continue to be used, even though their indiscriminate nature has been known for decades. For example, in 1975, a former government-employed trapper testified before the U.S. Congressabout the non-selective nature of leghold traps, as referenced in the book "Cull of the Wild: A Contemporary Analysis of Wildlife Trapping in the United States":

"Even though I was an experienced, professional trapper, my trap victims included non-target species such as bald eagles and golden eagles, a variety of hawks and other birds, rabbits, sage grouse, pet dogs, deer, antelope, porcupines, sheep and calves . . . . My trapping records show that for each target animal I trapped, about 2 unwanted individuals were caught. Because of trap injuries, these non-target species had to be destroyed."

And scientists continue to describethe indiscriminate nature of snares. While studying the impacts of wolf snares on moose, Alaska biologist Craig Gardner reported in the journal Alces:

"Wolf snares can be even less selective than snares set for smaller furbearers because cable diameter and loop circumference are larger, set height is higher, and the size and strength of a wolf require that minimum breaking forces must be high. . . . Based on my 15 years of experience releasing nearly 40 moose from snares and discussions with other Alaskan biologists, I concluded that most moose restrained in wolf snares die either at the capture site or from frozen limbs or nose subsequent to release."

Another particularly ugly method employed by Wildlife Services is shooting predators from planes and helicopters — sometimes killing them, sometimes just catastrophically wounding them. In 2012, more than 3,000 coyotes were killed this way in my home state of Montana alone.

Although it targets specific species, this practice is also indiscriminate because it does not differentiate between problem and non-problem animals (i.e., those that are habituated or have preyed on livestock versus those that have not — and may never). Instead, this type of "aerial gunning," as it is called, has a single goal: to wipe out as many predators in an area as possible, in the hopes of artificially inflating big-game populations that humans like to hunt, or in the words of one agency official, to "clear swaths of land of predators" before livestock arrive to graze.

Of course, in the absence of large carnivores, ungulate populations may grow too large, destroy vegetation, and more easily transmit diseases. And scientists such as Robert Crabtree with the Yellowstone Ecological Research Center have found evidence that predators like coyotes respond to lethal persecution by producing more pups, thus potentially increasing the risk of livestock predation (because most depredating coyotes are adults trying to feed pups).

Perhaps most egregiously, Wildlife Services is largely funded by taxpayer dollars, and many of its operations occur on federal and state lands. But much of the trapping, poisoning and aerial gunning is done to benefit livestock and hunting interests. This means that in many instances, the federal government is using public funds on public lands to kill publicly owned wildlife — to benefit a private few.

In the end, there is simply no justification for "accidentally" poisoning, maiming and destroying thousands of native, wild animals year after year — animals that are not bothering anyone, not causing any harm; the exact animals we should most want to keep alive. These creatures are more than just "mistakes" to be chalked up as regrettable tallies on some bureaucratic spreadsheet. They are important contributors to ecosystems, providers for their mates and litters, and great sources of awe and appreciation for millions of Americans.

In today's world, where selective technologies exist for the occasional problem animal that might need to be removed, and effective, nonlethal alternatives are available to protect livestock, there is simply no place left for outdated, brutal and indiscriminate traditions of lethal control.

That is why NRDC recently supported a ban on body-gripping traps and snares in the City of Los Angeles. It's why we've opposed the trapping and snaring of wolves in the northern Rockies. It's why we've pushed for federal legislation prohibiting the use of poisons to kill wildlife. And it's why we'll continue to work toward reasonably reforming Wildlife Services — particularly its program of "predator control" — by banning the use of indiscriminate poisons, requiring prioritization of nonlethal prevention measures, and mandating more transparency about the reasons, regions and dollars spent on killing wildlife — especially the "mistakes."

The author's most recent op-ed was "Montana Landowners May Soon Shoot, Trap More Wolves." This op-ed was adapted from one that appeared on The Wildlife News. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Peter Lehner is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This Op-Ed is adapted from one that appeared on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Lehner contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Americans consume more processed and packaged food than just about anyone else in the world. Processed foods, many of which contain added sugar , preservatives and chemical additives, are hard-wired into our food system, and make up the majority of the American diet. In her upcoming documentary Fed Up, headed to theatrical release on May 9, co-producer Laurie David explores the roots and consequences of this diet, and how the U.S.industrialized food system could be a major contributor to the national obesity epidemic .

How did the way we eat become so unhealthy? Our food system is dysfunctional, all along the chain from farm to fork. The way we eat now is not good for our bodies — and it's not good for our planet. Eating processed and packaged food might be even more risky than most of us realize. In a recent report, NRDC focused on a single legal loophole that allows hundreds, if not more than a thousand, chemical additives into the U.S. food supply — those unpronounceable ingredients on the back of the box — bypassing safety review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

When we pick up a package of food at the store — cereal, frozen pizza, chips, an energy drink, a nutrition bar, cake — we assume that everything in it is OK to eat. Companies wouldn't be allowed sell those foods otherwise, right? But because of a giant loophole in food safety law — the "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS, loophole — chemical manufacturers can decide for themselves if the product they've created is safe to consume.

Their safety assessments don't have to be reviewed or approved by anyone else, and often manufacturers don't even have to disclose the name of the additive, or how it's used, to the FDA or to the public. Often, the agency isn't even notified when chemical additives enter our food supply.

All this adds up to a serious lack of oversight intowhat goes into Americans' food. And that oversight is sorely needed to protect our health. Some additives which manufacturers claim to be generally recognized as safe have been linkedto fetal leukemia in human cell tests, or testicular degeneration in animal tests, or according to FDA scientists, may trigger an allergic reaction in people with peanut allergies.

Despite these potential risks, these additives are already in our food supply. NRDC found these additives listed as ingredients in at least 20 food products.

The FDA can't do its job and protect public health if it doesn't know the identity of these chemicals in the first place, or if it can't review the evidence demonstrating that their use in food is safe.

Ultimately, the U.S. Congress needs to close the GRAS loophole that allows manufacturers to leave the FDA and the public in the dark about the safety of chemical additives in food. But the FDA can, and should, move now to end the inherent conflict of interest in the current system for reviewing the safety of chemical additives in food — and when the agency does review a manufacturer's safety claims, the concerns noted by FDA scientists should be made available to the public.

The widespread use of chemical additives is just one of several deep-rooted problems in our industrialized food system. Our food system encourages the consumption of processed and packaged foods over fresh, healthier, locally grown foods. We end up craving the sugar that sneaks into processed foods, and so we keep buying more of it — and we assume that it's safe to eat.

The impacts of our food system are chronic, not just in our bodies, but throughout the natural systems that sustain our health and the planet. Our food system encourages food waste on a massive scale — about 40 percent of the food in this country never gets eaten. It gets thrown away, wasting not only the food itself but all the resources that went into producing it, including 25 percent of our fresh water and 4 percent of our oil. Food waste also produces about one-quarter of U.S. methane emissions, making it a source of climate pollution that needs to be addressed. [Sell-By Labels Send Edible U.S. Food to the Dump (Op-Ed)]

The industrial livestock operations that produce the vast quantities of meat consumed in this country pollute the air, the water and atmosphere. The abuse of antibiotics in the livestock industry — where animals that aren't sick are fed low doses of antibiotics day after day to try to compensate for unsanitary conditions — risks impairing the effectiveness of those essential medicines when we really need them.

Our industrialized agricultural system relies heavily on the intensive use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, which pose serious threats to human health and wildlife, pollute water, and deplete nutrients in the soil. Excess fertilizer from agriculture is a significant source of global-warming pollution. So industrial agriculture adds to climate pollution while also bearing the brunt of its effects, such as extended droughts and heat waves that wither crops in the field, and heavy rains that drown out spring plantings.

We are paying dearly for the way we eat. But while our food system may be unsustainable, it's not unfixable. By raising awareness of these issues, ensuring that strong, health-protective standards are being enforced by the agencies responsible for protecting the public, not profits, and encouraging business and industry to shift toward more sustainable practices, our nation can begin to create a healthier, more sustainable food system for all.

Lehner's most recent Op-Ed was "Closing Clean Water Act Loophole Will Protect Drinking Water and Benefit Bathers and Breweries Alike." This Op-Ed is adapted from "Fed Up with Our Dysfunctional Food System," which appeared on the NRDC blog Switchboard. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Noah Horowitz is a senior scientist and director of the Center for Energy Efficiency at the NRDC. This Op-Ed is adapted from a post to the NRDC blog Switchboard. He contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Earth Day 2014 is the 44th birthday of the modern environmental movement, and it provides a great opportunity to take small, easy steps to shrink your carbon footprint at home and put money back into your pocket year-round. Not only will you lower your utility bills, you can help the planet by implementing these simple steps in eight areas of your home for minimal, or no, cost.

1. Adjust your TV

Although today's flat-panel televisions use far less energy than previous models, you can easily increase the savings even more. Go to your TV's picture set-up menu and choose the "home" or "standard" screen setting — the "vivid" or "retail" settings are unnecessarily bright and burn up to 20 percent more power. Don't forget to disable the "quick start" function that allows your TV to boot up a few seconds faster, but eats significantly more power during the 19 hours or so your TV is in standby mode and not being used.

2. Check your set-top box

The set-top box hooked up to your television to deliver pay-TV services from cable and satellite companies may well use more energy than your big screen TV alone (especially true for DVR set-top boxes). But the industry is working hard to bring more-efficient options to the market. Ask your service provider for an ENERGY STAR™ version 3 box, and if you have multiple TVs, request a whole-home DVR for your main TV and a thin client box (which uses far less power than a DVR, but still allows you to watch live or recorded shows) for the others. [New Agreement Slashing Set-Top Box Energy to Save $1 Billion Annually (Op-Ed) ]

3. Change your computer settings

A typical desktop computer and monitor running 24/7 wastes $40 a year more in electricity than when the devices are off. Adjust control-panel settings for the screen to turn off after 15 minutes of inactivity and for the computer to power down after 30. Be sure to set the screen to turn off, not to display a continuously running slide show or screen saver, because these use a lot of energy.

4. See the light (bulb)

Replacing old, inefficient light bulbs with new energy-saving versions can lead to big savings. To select the best one for your needs, consult NRDC's updated Light Bulb Buying Guide. Choose "warm white" for the same yellow-white color as an old incandescent bulb; "daylight" produces a bluish-white light. Try each before switching out all your bulbs. LED bulbs, now less than $10 at big-box stores, are a good investment because they can save $100 or more over their lifetime. With 3 billion screw-based sockets still containing an inefficient incandescent or halogen bulb, switching to LEDs and CFLs would add up to a whopping $3 billion in savings for U.S. consumers and businesses while avoiding the electricity equivalent of 30 coal-burning power plants and preventing 100 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.

5. Ensure your game console doesn't guzzle energy when it's supposedly off

Approximately half of U.S. households have a video-game console, and while the latest models are better at reducing power when idle, they could still consume as much electricity as your refrigerator if left on when the TV is turned off. With the new Xbox One and PS4, go into the unit's menu to ensure the automatic power-down feature is enabled and set for one hour of inactivity or less. Even then, Xbox One's "Instant on" and PS4's standby mode are configured by default to remain connected to the internet, which can represent half their total energy use, so consider disabling those features. With older consoles, also set the menu to power down after one hour of inactivity or less. And don't stream video with your game console because it requires up to 30 times more energy to play a movie than such devices as a smart TV or an external box like Apple TV, Roku or Amazon Fire TV.

6. Dial back the water heater

Water heating is typically a home's third-largest energy expense. Lowering the temperature setting from 140 degrees to 120 degrees Fahrenheit saves money and still gets the water plenty hot. If you're going to be away for days, drop the setting even more.

7. A programmable thermostat is your friend

Why run your central air conditioning or furnace at the same temperatures round-the-clock when you're not home most of the day? Program your thermostat to reflect your schedule. Most models have a temporary override if that schedule changes. If you can't program your thermostat, get a new one, and if you want to splurge, buy a Nest model that learns your schedule and can provide even greater savings. (Don't forget to regularly clean or replace your A/C and heating filters to save additional electricity and money.)

8. Watch that washer and dryer

With new detergents designed to work in cold water, select that setting for all but the dirtiest loads. If you have an electric water heater, and a slightly older washer, you'll save up to 50 cents a load, or around $175 a year, because most washer electricity goes toward heating the water. Choose maximum spin speed on your front-load washer and your clothes won't come out as wet, requiring less drying time and energy. If you're only doing one load and not in a hurry, pick dryer settings like Eco mode or energy saver — they typically save energy by using lower temperatures but take a little longer. With a large load of different fabrics, pop open the door about two-thirds through the cycle and pull out dry items: Thinner fabrics won't get wrinkled, and more warm air circulates around the heavier ones. Also don't forget to clean the lint off the screen before each load so your dryer can run more efficiently.

These easy steps, highlighted in our infographic, can turn your whole house into a year-round celebration of Earth Day. And if everyone else takes them, too, these small changes could add up to big financial, energy and pollution savings for our planet.

Horowitz's most recent Op-Ed was "Saying Goodbye to Inefficient 60-Watt Incandescent Bulbs." This Op-Ed was adapted from a post to the NRDC blog Switchboard. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Susan Freinkel is the author of "Plastic: A Toxic Love Story" and "American Chestnut: The Life, Death, and Rebirth of a Perfect Tree." She has also written for the New York Times, Discover, Smithsonian, Mindful and other publications. This article was originally published by OnEarth magazine. Mahony contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

When I was a kid walking the family dog, I never once thought about picking up her poop. It wasn't something people did in the 1960s and '70s — perhaps because the plastic bags that now overflow our kitchen cabinets had yet to be invented. Today, cleaning up after your dog is the urban norm, so much so that as California considers passing the first state ban on plastic bags, one of the loudest concerns comes from pet owners asking: How will we scoop our dogs' poop?

It's not an idle question. America's 83 million pet dogs produce some 10.6 million tons of poop every year.

That's enough to fill a line of tractor-trailers from Seattle to Boston, one waste removal service has calculated. Add in litter from our more than 90 million cats, and you've got enough pet waste to fill more than 5,000 football fields ten feet deep, according to another poop-scooping company. Indeed cleaning up after our pets has spawned an entire industry with its own professional organization, the Association of Pet Animal Waste Specialists, complete with pun-filled newsletter ("What we doo").

This probably wasn't one of the issues that biologist Eugene Stoermer and ecologist Paul Crutzen had in mind when they coined the term "Anthropocene" to refer to the human impact on the planet. But there's no question that our heavy footprint includes the paw prints of our pets.

True, poop is not exactly an environmental threat on the order of carbon pollution, nuclear waste or a Superfund site. Still, the risk from poop can be more than just a mess on your shoes. Dogs can harbor lots of viruses, bacteria and parasites — including harmful pathogens like e coli, giardia and salmonella. (A single gram contains an estimated 23 million bacteria.) Studies have traced 20 to 30 percent of the bacteria in water samples from urban watersheds to dog waste. Just two to three days of waste from 100 dogs can contribute enough bacteria, nitrogen and phosphorous to close 20 miles of a bay-watershed to swimming and shellfishing, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It also can get into the air we breathe: a recent study of air samples in Cleveland, Ohio, and Detroit, Mich., found that 10 to 50 percent of the bacteria came from dog poop.

So while the stakes may be lower than say, radioactive waste, the question remains: What do we do with this s**t?

It's a question that has nagged me for years as I've followed my dog on walks, plastic bags at the ready. Aimee Christy, a shellfish biologist in Olympia, Washington, has also been grappling with it. She's a dog owner herself, but her real concern stems from her work at the Pacific Shellfish Institute. She helps to safeguard the region's clam, oyster and mussel beds, which can be polluted by dog poop. Christy was part of a decade-long campaign in Olympia and surrounding Thurston County to encourage people to "SCOOP IT, BAG IT, TRASH IT." It helped, but not enough. For one month last year, Christy spent many of her lunch breaks picking up dog poop in public parks. She counted her bounty: 1,200 piles of poop. "It was everywhere," she says.

That's because only about 60 percent of dog owners pick up after their pets, according to surveys. Among the excuses offered by the 40 percent who don't pick up: "Because eventually it goes away;" "too much work;" "small dog, small waste;" "it's in the woods;" or, in a reverse NIMBY: "It's in my yard."

Socializing dog owners is the front end of the problem. The back end is what do we do with the poop once it's collected. In most places, it goes to a landfill. There's something unsettling, if not downright disgusting, to think of tons of plastic-wrapped dog turds being entombed underground. What will future civilizations make of our dedication to preserving dog crap?

That unease has helped fuel a booming market in biodegradable dog waste bags. Market leader BioBags sells more than 19 million a year. I've seen dog parks stocked with them. Unfortunately, this seemingly green solution can backfire. The bags are designed to be composted, not landfilled. But in the absence of composting programs — I'll come back to this — many will end up in landfills, where they are more likely to degrade than a conventional plastic bag. "Anything that goes into the landfill and degrades is worse than something that goes in and doesn't," says Jack Macy, commercial zero-waste coordinator for San Francisco's Department of Environment. A compostable bag of poop that degrades in that circumstance would start producing methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

San Francisco has an ambitious goal of achieving zero waste by 2020 — the city already diverts 80 percent of its garbage from the landfill. Dog poop, at four percent of the waste stream, is one of those vexing fractions standing in the way of getting to zero.

Most commercial composters are already processing dog and cat waste that gets swept up in municipally collected yard trimmings.

Flushing it could be an option — the EPA even recommends it. You can buy special bags designed to be flushed down the drain. But as Macy points out, sewage treatment facilities use a lot of chemicals and energy to remove contaminants from human waste; adding our pets' waste could burden some systems and would pose an extra drain on water when there's a drought, as Californians are currently suffering.

Maybe the problem is that we are looking at poop as waste, rather than what it really is: a resource that could — and should — be recycled for compost or energy. (Cat waste is a more complicated matter because felines can harbor a hardy toxoplasmosis parasite you wouldn't want in your compost, and many kinds of kitty litter aren't degradable.) Dog poop, like many other kinds of manure, can be composted — but rarely is. Even cities with curbside programs that compost food scraps and other organic waste discourage people from putting dog waste in their compost bins, because commercial composting facilities don't want it. Toronto's program for composting pet waste (as well as dirty diapers) is a forward-looking exception.

Composting dog waste in a backyard bin can be iffy. It's hard to achieve the temperatures needed to kill off pathogens, so you should never use composted pet waste on plants you'll be eating. But commercial composting facilities are required to keep the compost at hot enough temperatures, for a long enough period of time, to get rid of harmful pathogens. If properly treated, the resulting compost is "perfectly safe," says Will Brinton, president of Woods End Laboratories, a compost research lab in Mount Vernon, Maine. In fact, most commercial composters are already processing dog and cat waste that gets swept up in municipally collected yard trimmings. But none of them like to trumpet the fact, says Brinton. "It's bad for marketing."

A handful of private companies are stepping in to fill the void. GreenPet Composting, a poop-scooping service in Portland, has begun trucking the poop it collects up I-5 to a composting facility in western Washington. In Boulder, Colo., retiree Rose Seeman started EnviroWagg to address the waste "twilight zone that no one is doing anything about." She is currently processing about three tons of poop a year into her "Doggone Good Compost" but hopes to expand the operation. "It's very, very potent."

The same biology that makes poop good for compost also makes it a potential source of energy. It can be anaerobically digested — a process that breaks down organic materials, producing a biogas that can be used for energy and a residue that can be used as a compost on plants. That's what Toronto does with the dog waste it collects through the curbside bins. There have been several experiments with anaerobic digesters at dog parks in the United States. Arizona State University students teamed up with the town of Gilbert to place an underground methane digester in a dog park that draws about 200 animals a day. (They call the project e-TURD.) Eventually, says Macy, San Francisco plans to build an aerobic digester to handle the city's organic waste — including the droppings of its 120,000 dogs.

After researching the options, Christy (the shellfish biologist) is hoping to persuade county officials where she lives to make the investment in aerobic digesters. (You can find her excellent report outlining various options here.) Meanwhile, she jerry-rigged a system to encourage better scooping habits. She set out a trashcan in front of her house where people could deposit their bags of poop every day. For awhile, the system worked wonderfully — the can filled up every week. But even the simplest solutions can go awry. "Somebody stole it," she said.

"Teenagers," she added with a mix of amusement and irritation. "They just can't resist a can of poop."

OnEarth Editor's note: This is the first in a new monthly column exploring the problems, dilemmas, and opportunities posed by the stuff we (or in this case, our pets) make. Follow the author @SusanFreinkel. This article first appeared as "The Poop Problem" on OnEarth.org. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Michael Jasny is director of the NRDC Marine Mammal Project. This Op-Ed was adapted from one that appeared on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Jasny contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

On April 1, while the U.S. and other navies played war games somewhere offshore, Cuvier's beaked whales began stranding along the southern coast of Crete. Those on the scene knew right away what they were dealing with, for the strandings were only the most recent in a line of similar calamities in the region, going back two decades. And in this case, as in the previous ones, all signs pointed to the U.S. Navy and its allies.

Cuvier's beaked whales are a remarkable species. They have the deepest recorded dives of all marine mammals, some descending an astonishing 9,500 feet (3,000 meters) below the water's surface before coming up for air. Favoring deep water, they don't strand nearly as often as coastal species, and they don't strand in large numbers, and they don't strand alive. 

Yet, that is exactly what happened on April 1. Beginning around noon, three Cuvier's beaked whales came ashore in one spot along the Cretan coast, two others beached some 10.5 miles (17 kilometers) further west, and two more turned up another mile or two from there. All were alive when they stranded; rescuers managed to return most to the water, but, based on past experience, biologists in the region fear that they stranded again or perished at sea. 

For Greece, none of this is new. In 1996 and again in 1997, dozens of beaked whales of the same species turned up along the Peloponnesian coast; in 2011, they stranded on the island of Corfu as well as the east coast of Italy, across the Ionian Sea. In each case,navies were training with high-powered sonar in the area. Indeed, according to the Smithsonian Institution and International Whaling Commission, every multi-species beaked-whale mass stranding on record everywhere in the world has occurred with naval activities, usually sonar exercises, taking place in the vicinity.

For the last week, the U.S., Greek and Israeli navies have been running a joint military exercise off Crete known as Operation Noble Dina. The exercise includes anti-submarine warfare training, which requires the use of high-powered military sonar.

Each of these events is tragic in its way, but this one feels particularly cruel. Just last year, the Scientific Committee of the Agreement for the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black and Mediterranean Seas (ACCOBAMS), drew a map where sonar training should be avoided. One area on the map is off southeastern Crete — exactly where the new mass stranding occurred — around a highly sensitive marine area known as the Hellenic trench. But Greece fought the recommendation, and it wasn't adopted. 

Now experts are despairing that, with stranding after stranding, the region's beaked whale populations are being decimated. 

Beaked whales that have died from sonar exposure — at least the ones recovered in time for investigation — have suffered from a suite of severe, telltale pathologies, similar to those seen in decompression sickness, or the bends. Sonar is believed to kill them by disrupting their dive patterns. The ones that reach shore are considered the tip of an iceberg. [Military Sonar May Hurt Blue Whales]

Stranding responders, including Alexandros Frantzis, the Scientific Director of the Pelagos Cetacean Research Institute, have asked the Greek authorities to intervene so that military sonar will not be used in the area in the days ahead. The same urgent request must be made of the U.S. Navy, which appears to have participated in this exercise without undergoing environmental review under the Marine Mammal Protection Act or Endangered Species Act.

This event, and others like it, keep driving home a simple fact: Military sonar and marine mammals don't mix. How many more whales must die before navies agree to avoid important and vulnerable marine mammal habitat, like the area identified off Crete? When the principals continue to operate as they have in this instance, they approach something like reckless indifference, like barrelling a truck down a crowded city street. Our oceans are large enough to accommodate whales and military training, if our navies had the will to do the right thing.

Jasny's most recent Op-Ed was "Groups Sue Feds to Protect Blue Whales and Dolphins Off California." This Op-Ed was adapted from "U.S. Navy Implicated in New Mass Stranding of Whales" on the NRDC blog Switchboard. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This article was originally published on Live Science.

Emily Davis is an attorney for the Clean Air Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This Op-Ed was adapted from one that appeared on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Davis contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Air pollution problems worldwide are even worse than previously thought. Updated science in a recent report from the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 7 million people died as a result of air pollution in 2012, the most recent year for which there is data.

An earlier analysis by more than 400 experts worldwide examined health data from 2010 and concluded that outdoor air pollution contributed to "[more than] 3.2 million premature deaths worldwide" in that year alone. A WHO report examining data from 2008 placed the number of outdoor air pollution-related deaths that year at approximately 1.3 million.

So why are those numbers increasing? One reason is air-pollution science continues to improve. The 2014 reportnotes that its new estimates are based not only on more knowledge about air pollution-related diseases, but also on better tools with which to study our exposure to air pollution.

For example, the data now "reveal[s] a stronger link between both indoor and outdoor air pollution exposure and cardiovascular diseases, . . . , as well as between air pollution and cancer." The data also confirms that air pollution contributes to respiratory diseases like respiratory infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases.

The data are clear — according to the 2014 WHO report, "air pollution is now the world's largest single environmental health risk," killing millions of people every year. [Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 8 Deaths Worldwide]

This scientific consensus stands as a resounding rebuke to Republicans in the U.S. Congress. They have attempted to question the causal link between air pollution and mortality in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Clean Air Act requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) base national air-quality standards on health and scientific factors alone when determining what amounts of air pollution are harmful for humans to breathe. Congressional Republicans have tried to undermine the science behind these standards in an attempt to undermine the standards themselves. The WHO's report makes those attempts all the more outrageous.

Among those attempts, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology committee, claims the science supporting EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is somehow "secret science." In reality, scientists used confidential patient data to conduct important medical research on the health impacts of air pollution. Chairman Smith also claimsthat the science on air pollution has not been adequately reviewed. This too is incorrect — the studies underlying EPA's standards have been extensively reviewed by independent authorities.

EPA's analyses, just like the WHO's, show that the more people learn about air pollution, the more we learn just how dangerous it is to our health. No amount of hearings, subpoenas, or ad hominem attacks can change that.

With the 2014 WHO report, the international scientific community has now concluded that "[t]he risks from air pollution are now far greater than previously thought or understood" — 1 in 8 deaths worldwide are the result of air pollution exposure."

Americans can do much more nationally, and internationally, to clean up this deadly pollution and reduce millions of deaths each year. And EPA is working to do just that. Right now, EPA is in the process of updating standards for smog pollution that have the potential to save thousands of lives annually.

Protecting the health of our families should not be a partisan issue, but so far opposition to EPA's sensible rule have come from only one side of the aisle. It's time for Congressional Republicans to stop ignoring the science and work with EPA to protect our health from the dangers of air pollution — millions of people stand to benefit if they do.

This Op-Ed was adapted from "New Report: 7 Million People Died from Air Pollution in 2012" on the NRDC blog Switchboard. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Peter Lehner is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This Op-Ed will appear onthe NRDC blog Switchboard. Lehner contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Like millions of Americans, I love the water. I love to swim, boat and fish, as do many of my family and friends. We all recall swimming in dirty water; it wasn't all that uncommon a few decades ago. I even recall being told I would need a hepatitis shot if I fell into the nearby river. At the same time, the wetlands and small streams that fed our drinking water supplies were vulnerable to being buried and destroyed.

Fortunately, our waters are cleaner and more protected today than they were 40 years ago. We can thank the Clean Water Act for that. This law transformed our rivers, lakes, coastlines and streams from private garbage dumps for industry into valued public resources that sustain communities.

However, big polluters opened a loophole several years ago that made it easier to dump waste in many waters without fear of repercussions. In hundreds of cases, the loophole has rendered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — and its sister agency on clean water matters, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — unable to protect communities and go after those polluters. Today, the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama proposed long-awaited safeguards that would close this loophole and protect millions of miles of threatened streams and millions of wetland acres, and the millions of Americans who depend on them for drinking water.

Natural water systems are complex and interconnected; large or small, steady or intermittent, they all play an important role in the way we live. Near my family's home in New York, I walk past little streams and wetlands that feed our drinking water supply and the lake where we love to swim. Nearly 2 million miles of little streams like these, even if their flow is seasonal, help provide drinking water for 117 million Americans; wetlands help filter water, even if they appear to be "isolated" on the surface, as are 20 percent of all the wetlands in the continental United States. Yet lawsuits filed by polluters and weak policies adopted under the previous administration have left these streams and wetlands without adequate protection. When a polluter dumps waste in these seemingly isolated or impermanent waterways, the EPA and the Corps often cannot hold the perpetrator accountable.

This has happened in thousands of cases across the country. When crude oil spilled into a small stream in Talco, Texas, for example, the EPA was forced to let the incident slide, despite the fact that streams like these help supply the drinking water system that serves more than half the residents of Titus County. The agency was similarly hamstrung in Lake Blackshear, Ga., where swimmers and boaters had to contend with manure in the water following a discharge from a factory farm upstream.

Under the new safeguards proposed by the Obama administration, hundreds of communities previously left at the mercy of the polluters will now enjoy the full protections of our clean water laws. Bringing these streams and wetlands under the umbrella of the Clean Water Act will help protect drinking water for 117 million people. It will safeguard natural flood protection — wetlands and streams help catch and soak up rain. This is no small benefit: 9.6 million homes and $360 billion dollars-worth of properties lie in flood-prone areas. Similarly, brewers rely on clean water to sustain their businesses and are cheering the new protections, as are hunters, anglers and wildlife-lovers.

I've worked to protect the quality of our waters for many years. Polluters will claim that this proposal is rooted in politics. In fact, it is law and science. The Supreme Court decisions that led to this rollback actually permitted the EPA and the Corps, based on scientific evidence that smaller waters significantly influence water conditions downstream, to close the gap in protections. They're using strong, solid science, together with the venerable 41-year-old Clean Water Act, to protect and safeguard our waters and thus our health. It's thrilling to see the agencies do exactly what the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court expect them to do.

We all have a right to clean water. Protecting that right means protecting our natural water systems as a whole, and not just some individual bodies of water. Pollution doesn't stay put— whatever gets into a small stream or wetland will have repercussions somewhere else in the system, in the creeks that feed drinking water supplies, in the rivers that flow into our oceans, and in the breeding grounds for birds and fish. The proposal from President Obama's administration will help keep pollution out of vital streams and wetlands, protect drinking water supplies, and help ensure that our water resources remain safe and healthy for people and wildlife.

Lehner's most recent Op-Ed was "EPA's New Car Emissions Standards Will Clear the Air." The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Darby Hoover is a senior resource specialist for NRDC. This Op-Ed was adapted from one that first appeared on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Hoover contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Recycling is one of the most common of all environmental activities, and it's also a great way to save natural resources. Recycling keeps useful materials out of landfills and incinerators, and using recovered materials to make new products and packages saves energy, water and resources such as trees and metal ores.

Recycling reduces global warming pollution, too. A 2011 report prepared by the Tellus Institute, "More Jobs, Less Pollution," found that if Americans can increase the national recycling rate to 75 percent by 2030, we would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 515 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent, which is equal to shutting down about 72 coal-fired power plants or taking 50 million cars off the road.

And recycling helps the economy as well as the environment — recycling is more labor-intensive than landfilling or incineration, which means that building the recycling industry is a way to create more jobs . The Tellus report found that moving from the current 34 percent national recycling rate to a 75 percent national recycling rate would create 1.5 million new jobs.

California is already a national recycling leader, with a 2010 recycling rate of just under 50 percent.Yet California still sends half of its solid waste to landfills or incinerators, missing the opportunity to recover valuable material resources. In 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB341, which requires that "75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020." In order to better understand the economic potential of increasing recycling in California to 75 percent, NRDC commissioned the Tellus Institute to create a report, "From Waste to Jobs: What Achieving 75 Percent Recycling Means for California," which was released this month.

The NRDC report finds that more than 110,000 jobs could be created as a result of California's recycling goal. Meeting the 75-percent recycling goal would create more than 34,000 jobs in materials collection, 26,000 jobs in materials processing, and 56,000 jobs in manufacturing using the recovered materials. And in addition to the 110,000 jobs directly created, there would be an additional 38,600 indirect jobs created in sectors providing equipment and services to recycling-related businesses, as well as induced jobs from additional spending by the new employees.

Improved recycling of plastic is especially important, both in terms of jobs and for environmental benefits. Twenty-nine-thousand new jobs can be created from plastic recycling alone, and it can help reduce the amount of material that ends up in rivers, beaches and oceans.

In order to achieve the 75-percent recycling goal, California will need to recycle an additional 23 million tons of waste in 2020, which means creating additional policies and infrastructure to help increase recycling. And if Californians want to ensure that as many of those jobs as possible end up in the state, they need to develop incentives and policies that help keep new infrastructure, and the associated new jobs, in-state.

CalRecycle is currently developing recommendations for lawmakers to achieve the 75-percent target, including recommendations on expanding recycling facilities and markets — hopefully those recommendations will help guide the needed incentives and policy shifts. A critical piece of the strategy will be enacting and expanding product stewardship or extended producer responsibility programs that require producers of packaging to help support expansion of recycling infrastructure.

Working toward achieving California's recycling goal will benefit the environment, and it is also a great opportunity for the state to revitalize its economy by recapturing the value of recyclable materials and by creating green jobs. Throwing out useful materials like plastic, paper and metals is like throwing out money — by reconceptualizing waste as materials, and optimizing how materials are managed for the greatest utility, Californians can grow their green economy while helping preserve the natural environment.

More information is available at NRDC California Recycling Web Page, the NRDC Report "From Waste to Jobs: What Achieving 75 Percent Recycling Means for California" and the NRDC California Recycling Fact Sheet.

This Op-Ed was adapted from "From Waste to Jobs: Growing California's Economy through Recycling," on the NRDC blog Switchboard. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Frances Beinecke is the president of NRDC — an environmental advocacy organization with 1.4 million supporters nationwide — served on the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, and holds a leadership role in several environmental organizations. Beinecke contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

This week, another group of esteemed scientists said that climate change poses a dire threat to our communities. New evidence also confirmed that one of the best tools for defusing this threat is within reach. Today, NRDC released a report showing that the United States can cut more carbon pollution from power plants, at less cost, than previously thought.

This latest analysis shows that firm limits on power-plant emissions can eliminate up to 700 million tons of carbon pollution per year in 2020. That's equivalent to taking up to 130 million cars off the road. The U.S. can also save up to $60 billion in avoided carbon pollution and medical costs in 2020. Those are major savings, and they can't come soon enough.

Power plants kick out 40 percent of the carbon pollution in our country. The United States limits mercury, arsenic and soot from power plants. And yet, amazingly, there are no national limits on how much carbon these plants can dump into our atmosphere. That's not right, and we need to fix it.

In June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will propose the first-ever carbon limits on power plants. NRDC's report shows that strong limits can save money, protect health, and stabilize the climate. We owe it to future generations to rein in this dangerous pollution.

How do we do it? NRDC's analysis shows that deep carbon cuts can be made by expanding energy efficiency , wind power and pollution-control measures. These solutions have been put to work in communities across America, confirming that many states are already on the path toward meeting the EPA's forthcoming standards.

I recently met with Governor Jerry Brown of California, and he spoke passionately about the state's enormous success with low-carbon energy. California passed a law to curb carbon pollution eight years ago, and it is now on track to generate 33 percent of its electricity from renewable resources like wind and solar. California's clean tech companies have attracted $27 billion in venture capital since 2006, and 360,000 Californians have jobs in the clean economy.

Nine Northeastern states, meanwhile, have a joint program to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, and 30 states require that a percentage of electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar. Cities are also making major progress.

Several weeks ago, I met with mayors of 10 major cities that have made a unified commitment to expand energy efficiency. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said efficiency measures helped drive down the city's climate-change pollution by 19 percent and made the air cleaner than it's been in 50 years. Now, NRDC is helping 10 other cities adopt similar measures, and together they could cut the same amount of climate change pollution every year as taking 1.5 million cars off the road. They could also lower energy bills by nearly $1 billion annually.

Fossil-fuel companies want us to believe that clean-energy solutions are out of reach. The truth is they are right in front of us — bringing jobs, clean air and economic activity to communities across the country.

Now America can use those solutions to meet the EPA's carbon limits for power plants. And according to NRDC's latest report, the benefits will be even greater than expected.

NRDC recently updated our 2012 blueprint for reducing carbon pollution to reflect the latest trends in the electricity industry, including lower electricity demand and reduced costs for wind turbines and natural gas. We found that for a compliance cost ranging from zero to $15 billion in 2020, the United States could unleash $50 billion to $120 billion in energy efficiency and renewable investments in the next six years. The nation could also save thousands of lives and prevent 17,000 asthma attacks and other health problems in 2020 alone.

Many states have already started moving toward this cleaner, more sustainable future. Now it's time for the entire nation to get there.

Click here to tell the Obama Administration to set strong limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

Beinecke's most recent Op-Ed was "In a Warming Arctic, Oil Drilling Brings Disaster" The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Leila Monroe is a senior attorney in the Oceans Program at NRDC. She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

From camping trips to work meetings, I bring my refillable steel water bottle just about everywhere I go, because switching to reusable containers is one of the easiest ways to keep waste out of landfills and out of the ocean. But sometimes, I crave a frosty soda or iced tea, and then I take comfort in knowing that I can still do the right thing by recycling the bottle when I'm finished.

Although recycling is one of the oldest and easiest environmental activities, there are many places in my state of California — from beaches to shopping malls to scenic parks — where recycling is limited or not available. We need to prioritize expansion of recycling infrastructure, not just to keep waste out of the environment, but because it can help grow our economy.

More than 110,000 jobs could be created as a result of California's goal to achieve 75-percent solid-waste recycling by 2020, according to a new report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, "From Waste to Jobs: What Achieving 75 Percent Recycling Means for California." Twenty-nine thousand new jobs would be created from plastic recycling alone, and recycling this plastic can help reduce the amount of the material that ends up polluting rivers, beaches and oceans.

Plastic waste now contaminates marine and fresh water around the globe with serious consequences for marine life, and possible grave consequences for the food chain and human health. According to one recent estimate, 20 million tons of plastic waste enters the marine environment every year. An estimated 60 percent to 80 percent of marine litter originates on land, and the majority of that waste is plastic. From the scourge of micro plastics — particles of plastic smaller than 5 mm, derived from the breakdown of large pieces of plastic or resulting from exfoliants in facial cleansers and personal care products — to the omnipresence of plastic water bottles, new information is revealing the negative impacts that plastic pollution is having on the marine environment.

The best way to prevent marine plastic pollution is to stop it at its source. Single-use plastic that proliferates as part of Americans' "to go" lifestyle makes up the largest category of waste cleaned off our beaches, according to International Coastal Cleanup Data.

To stop plastic pollution at its source, people need to do a number of things. First, we need to incentivize companies to reduce the use of wasteful, difficult-to-recycle plastic packaging in favor of reusable, easily recyclable and compostable options. One way to incentivize this innovation is to require the companies to internalize the costs that their products create for society and the environment. This means asking them to help cover the costs of recycling infrastructure, street and beach cleanup, and storm-drain maintenance, often as part of "extended producer responsibility" or "product stewardship" programs.

With more corporate support for expanding recycling, the United States can accelerate the job-creation and environmental benefits of recycling, which is good for our economy, good for our communities, and good for the oceans.

For more information, visit the NRDC California Recycling Web Page, NRDC California Recycling Fact Sheet and NRDC California Recycling Infographic. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This Op-Ed will appear on the NRDC blog Switchboard. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Rob Moore is a senior policy analyst for NRDC where he is part of a team devoted to protecting U.S. water resources. Moore contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with helping evaluate the nation's vulnerability to flooding and storm surges, and providing maps that reflect the best scientific understanding of where flooding is most likely to occur.

FEMA maps guide people out of harm's way, helping homeowners make informed choices about where they live; aiding cities as they decide where where to build critical infrastructure, schools and hospitals; and assisting business owners as they decide where to set-up shop.

But FEMA's flood maps have never accounted for the future impacts of climate change on flood risk.

Hurricane Sandy served as a wake-up call for New York and New Jersey — and the nation — to become better prepared for flooding and the other impacts of climate change. As Sandy illustrated with fearsome efficiency, flooding is among the biggest risks the nation faces from climate change — as the climate warms, sea levels rise while extreme weather and storm surges raise the likelihood of floods.

Given that it can take two decades or longer for FEMA to update flood maps for an area, it's important that those maps start providing a more realistic look at both present and future risk.

In fact, doing so is now required by law. In 2012, Congress passed legislation that required FEMA to factor in future climate risks, as part of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act.

Given the impact of Hurricane Sandy it was hoped that new maps for New York City might be the test case for how to account for sea-level rise and climate-related impacts. But when FEMA released updated maps recently, these risks were still not accounted for.

NRDC filed formal comments on the new maps with FEMA today, raising the fact that FEMA did not factor-in future sea-level rise and other climate factors, as it is now required to do. Our analysis also shows that the past decade, or so, of sea-level rise (about 2-3 inches) was not accounted for in the maps, nor were the computer models calibrated against data from Sandy. Instead they were calibrated to earlier, less extensive floods. While the new maps are a big improvement over the previous ones, there are areas inundated by Sandy that still lie outside the newly mapped 100- or 500-year flood plains — and the impact of sea-level rise on future flood risk isn't accounted for, at all.

When Hurricane Sandy flooded parts of New York City many residents never expected to be underwater because flood maps did not show their neighbored as being in the danger zone. In the aftermath, it became all too clear how out of date FEMA's maps of flood zones were, having left communities in the dark about the risks they actually faced, as illustrated in the image below.

Residents of New York will likely find that FEMA's newly proposed maps are similarly obsolete in coming years. As sea levels continue to rise , the areas susceptible to flooding will also increase. The New York Department of State, using data from FEMA's new flood maps and storm-modeling data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, assembled an interesting set of Risk Assessment Maps that show how flood risks change in response to sea level rise. Below is a comparison between those maps and FEMA's.

As you can see, the area at risk in the future is far more extensive than FEMA's new maps indicate. New Yorkers may not feel the impacts of this in the short-term, but the last maps were not updated for 30 years. If New York has to wait another 30 years, FEMA's proposed maps seriously underestimate the risk of flooding for the city.

New York is not alone. All across the country, river- and coastal-flood maps are woefully out of date. New Yorkers know firsthand the importance of making sure FEMA's updated maps reflect real flooding risks. We are counting on the agency to revisit their updated maps and give New Yorkers — and ultimately the entire nation — a real assessment of what's at stake, and how to better prepare for the future.

Moore's most recent Op-Ed was "After Sandy, Lessons from Historic 1993 Flood Resurface". The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Peter Lehner is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This Op-Ed will appear onthe NRDC blog Switchboard. Lehner contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Last week, at a coffee farm in Costa Rica, I stumbled upon hundreds of butterflies, probably some kind of Heliconius species, all fluttering around a particular spot. At first it was hard to tell if they were coming or going. It's like that with butterflies. But as we stood and watched, they eventually settled on almost everything around. It looked like they had come to spend the night, but I did not stay to find out. It was quite beautiful.

For many butterfly species , finding a good place to stop and rest isn't easy. Deforestation, drought and shifts in global temperature are all altering butterfly habitat. Monarch butterflies in particular face a highly specific threat from humans: the weed-killer commonly known as RoundUp, or glyphosate. In the past decade, as the use of this potent chemical has skyrocketed, monarch populations have plummeted. This week, NRDC petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to urgently re-examine how and where glyphosate is used, and find ways to help protect monarch butterflies.

Over the past decade, RoundUp has become the most popular weed-killer in the country. Today's farms use it to grow Monsanto's genetically modified "RoundUp Ready" corn and soy, engineered to tolerate the herbicide, which the company also manufactures. Highway and utility crews use glyphosate to control plant growth along roadsides and along utility lines. If you use weed-killer to stop grass from sprouting in your driveway, it might contain glyphosate. Anyone can buy it at the store.

Glyphosate isn't a selective weed-killer — it harms a lot plants. One of the plants it's wiping out is milkweed, the sole source of food for monarch butterfly larvae. The only plant on which a monarch will lay its eggs.

From 1999 to 2010, roughly the decade after glyphosate use took off, milkweeds declined 60 percent in the Midwest, and monarch populations fell about 80 percent. Last winter, researchers counted an all-time low of 33.5 million monarchs at their Mexican wintering grounds. This is well below their 1997 high of 1 billion, and 10 percent of the running average over the past 15 years. [Is It the End for the Monarch's Cross-Continent Migration? (Op-Ed)]

Monarchs are in trouble. Scientists announced this year that the monarch migration — a near-miraculous event, spanning multiple generations over 3,000 miles in a single season — is in danger of disappearing. And there is broad agreement in the scientific community that glyphosate is a major part of the problem. Monarchs reproduce several times over the course of a migration. Without milkweed to sustain each new generation, the migration will fail.

Many of us are sensing the loss already. At a recent meeting, NRDC trustees from Minnesota, Vermont, New York and Texas told me they had seen almost no monarchs last year. And I know I've seen fewer, myself.

My wildlife expert colleagues at NRDC are recommending several steps that the EPA can take to protect monarchs. Limiting or banning the use of glyphosate and other harmful weed-killers along roadsides and utility lines, which tend to stretch along migration pathways and could provide important egg-laying habitat for monarchs, would be a relatively quick and easy first step. Milkweed is a pretty short plant and is unlikely to hinder maintenance work if it's allowed to flourish.

The EPA could also consider requiring safety zones, free of herbicides, in and around farms, to protect monarch-friendly habitat. The agency should also assess how the use of glyphosate for cosmetic purposes is affecting monarchs. There are other herbicides which are just as harmful, however, so the EPA needs to ensure that whatever replaces glyphosate isn't just substituting one harm for another.

I'm not sure what particular plant attracted the butterflies at the coffee farm, but there are a number of sweet-smelling plants around the area. Perhaps there was something they liked. Their visit made me more appreciative of the science that goes into figuring all this out.

In the case of monarchs, the science is clear. Monarchs need milkweed, and the widespread use of glyphosate is wiping it out. This knowledge gives the EPA an opportunity to muzzle a direct threat to butterflies. Immediately limiting the use of glyphosate and other herbicides and encouraging a more sustainable approach to farming can help ensure that the monarchs' astonishing migration will be an event that every generation can witness.

Lehner's most recent Op-Ed was "Cold Winters, High Bills, and a Need for Energy Efficiency." This Op-Ed will appear on the NRDC blog Switchboard. This post is part of the NRDC Wasteland series, featuring people, towns, businesses and industries that are finding innovative ways to cut waste, boost efficiency and save money, time and valuable resources. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Peter Lehner is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This Op-Ed will appear on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Lehner contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

In a brutal winter, high energy bills can feel like a slap in the face. One reason energy bills get so high is that homes waste a lot of energy. The entire volume of air in a house, according to Steve McCarty, director of Customer Energy Management at Pacific Gas and Electric, can escape every half hour through air leaks. That means you need to completely replace all the air you just heated, twice, every hour. Does it make sense to keep producing more hot air, and call on power plants to churn out more dirty energy to do so, or to make your home more snug and retain all that heat you're paying to generate?

We can stay just as warm using far less energy. Energy-efficiency improvements, such as sealed ducts, tuned-up equipment and more effective insulation can slash home energy use by about a third; what's more, expanding energy efficiency efforts reduces deadly air pollution from power plants and puts thousands of people in our communities to work.

Most of us can start to plug air leaks around doors, windows and pipes with a visit to the local hardware store for weather stripping and caulking material. My colleague Becky Stanfield has some great low-cost ideas for keeping your home warmer this winter, including simple fixes like using a humidifier, which can make a 64-degree room feel like 71 degrees simply by increasing the amount of moisture in the air.

I've done a lot of weatherizing in my own home, and it really works. I've put sealer around old windows and also replaced some. I've gone around very carefully checking for drafts, following them to their source, and plugging leaks. I've also had a contractor come in with an infrared detector, which quickly shows where leaks are, and plugged more.

Many homes could benefit from more thorough weatherization that can drastically improve energy efficiency, reduce pollution and keep bills down for the next 20 or 30 years. And that's where people like Amanda Godward come in.

Godward, a former auto industry engineer, launched an energy-efficiency business in Farmington Hills, Mich., three years ago. Godward started out as an independent home-energy auditor, and then expanded her business to commercial energy audits and installations. She's helping businesses, homeowners and municipal governments save thousands of dollars in energy bills by improving the energy efficiency of their buildings.

Because energy efficiency requires hands-on work, whether it's replacing windows, upgrading an HVAC system, or putting in new insulation and lighting, Godward's business, and others like it, are creating jobs. According to listings tracked by Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2), 1,100 clean-energy and efficiency jobs were created in Michigan in the third quarter of 2013 alone.

An energy-efficient home can save homeowners hundreds, or even more than a thousand, dollars each year on energy bills. Efficiency helps clear the air, reduces the carbon pollution that is fueling dangerous extreme weather and creates good, green jobs in the expanding efficiency industry. But kickstarting these changes requires investment and commitment — not just on the part of consumers, but by government, as well.

The government sets energy-efficiency standards for equipment and appliances, including products like refrigerators and water heaters, and those changes have boosted the baseline efficiency of products and given consumers more choice. The standards have already saved consumers $40 billion, and are on track to save consumers $1.7 trillion in energy costs by 2035. However, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s new efficiency standard for furnaces — the key piece of equipment related to heating efficiency — has been delayed by a legal challenge from the heating industry, leaving consumers with essentially the same equipment that's been around since the 1980s. Since 40 percent of the energy used in a home goes towards heating, a strong, new standard for furnaces could spell big energy savings for consumers.

The federal government has also been encouraging the expansion of energy efficiency and clean energy through policies such as tax incentives, which can give consumers and businesses the nudge they need to make investments in efficiency. But recently, the U.S. Congress allowed tax incentives for clean energy and efficiency to die. This pulls the rug out from under efforts to install more energy-efficiency improvements in homes and buildings. Every drafty door and window, every leaky pipe and duct, and every piece of inefficient equipment represents a vital opportunity to cut carbon and reduce toxic air pollution, save money, and create more jobs in the growing energy-efficiency industry.

This is an opportunity our nation cannot afford to miss. The costs are simply too high.

Congress needs to move quickly to reinstate these credits and resume America's progress toward a cleaner, more efficient energy future. Weatherization alone, according to the DOE, creates $2 in benefits for every dollar invested, and far more jobs per dollar than operating power plants. The consulting firm McKinsey & Co. estimates that energy efficiency projects could create 900,000 jobs by 2020, while saving consumers $1.2 trillion.

The energy we don't use is the cleanest — and cheapest — energy we have. Continuing to push for more energy efficiency, through tax credits, efficiency standards, weatherization assistance and other policies is a smart way to see this nation through many cold winters — and hot summers — to come.

Lehner's most recent Op-Ed was "When Winter Kills Power Plants, Clean Energy Can Help Pick Up the Slack." This Op-Ed will appear on the NRDC blog Switchboard. This post is part of the NRDC Wasteland series, featuring people, towns, businesses and industries that are finding innovative ways to cut waste, boost efficiency and save money, time and valuable resources. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Melissa Mahony is a senior editor at OnEarth.org, published by the Natural Resources Defense Council. This article was originally published by OnEarth magazine. Mahony contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

The "polar vortex" that froze North America in its tracks isn't exactly new. Cyclones of frigid air swirl around the Arctic all the time. What's different is that this latest polar vortex dipped far enough south to send Floridians scrambling for their mittens.

The term also showed up all over my Facebook feed. Granted, I run with a lot of science journalists, but this time even my let's-take-a-picture-of-my-breakfast friends (no offense, guys) were discussing the rare and strange interaction of the polar vortex with the jet stream and its possible relation to melting Arctic sea ice … driven by climate change.

Thanks to wacky weather (and social media hashtags), meteorology geekspeak has hit the mainstream. Once obscure atmospheric patterns are now thrown into everyday conversations with only the slightest hesitation to make sure "derecho " is pronounced correctly. As global warming ("global weirding," anyone?) primes the planet for even more extreme weather, expect to encounter more lab-coat lingo and science slang in your everyday life. Here's a crib sheet for the climapocalypse.

Blocking pattern

Wow, the jet stream sure is curvy — possibly as a result of a warming Arctic — but don't let its good looks fool you. During a blocking pattern, the jet stream is slow, boring and prevents other weather patterns from getting on with their lives. So when it rains, it pours … for days, as it did in Colorado last September. Derecho If you pronounce this one right on your first try, those high-school Spanish classes are paying off. "Derecho" means "straight," as in a straight line of fast-moving thunderstorms that is beautifully terrifying, like the one from June 2012. That devastating derecho left 23 people dead and more than 4 million people without electricity between Illinois and Washington, DC. Derechos are also known as "land hurricanes." Firenado/Firewhirl

When convection heat rises off a wildfire (which are becoming more common due to climate change) and begins sucking and swirling in towers of flames, a "fire tornado" can occur. A huge one occurred last August during Alaska's Tetlin Junction Fire.

Flash freeze

Somebody get Lake Michigan a hot toddy. During the recent polar vortex, when temperatures dropped as much as 50 degrees in a matter of hours, cities from Ontario to northern Georgia issued flash freeze warnings.

Frost quake

Sugary breakfast cereal? Nope. Also known as cryoseisms, these usually innocuous "ice quakes" occur when water penetrates soil or rock formations, freezes, and then rapidly expands, as it did in Canada this week. Pressure builds up underground and then ... BOOM!

Haboob

Haboob is a Sudanese word for sandstorm, but could be an American word for "go inside right now!" Haboobs are dry microbursts that occur during drought conditions and bring a wall of dirt, dust and sand with them. You know how much it sucks to get sand in your iPhone at the beach? A haboob's like that but covers everything. One recent sandstorm was 100 miles long and hit Phoenix at 60 mph. Heat burst

Did you know it can actually rain heat? When a mass of dry air plummets toward the ground during a weakening thunderstorm and compresses, a sudden, dramatic increase in temperature can occur — along with some very strong, hot winds. During a 2011 heat burst in Wichita, Kansas, the mercury rose from 85 to 102 degrees in 20 minutes. Megafire

Exactly what it sounds like: a massive wildfire. Drought conditions due to global warming are making them more common across the globe.  

Snow drought

A ski resort's worst nightmare, when a lack of precipitation during winter months shrinks the snowpack and makes skiers and snowboarders cry into their cocoa. It's not fun for farmers, either. Less snow in winter means less meltwater for agriculture and aquifers come spring.

Polar vortex

After the recent #DeepFreeze media blast, you should be a pro on polar vortices by now. If not, click here.

Bonus points: Ice balls

Hey, Lake Superior ... duck! Looks like Lake Michigan's preparing for a massive snowball fight.

Follow Melissa Mahony @mahony128. This article first appeared as "WTF, Weather?" on OnEarth.org. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Laura Wright Treadway is a regular contributor to OnEarth magazine, published by the Natural Resources Defense Council. This article was originally published by OnEarth magazine. Treadway contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

In his 2005 book "Last Child in the Woods," which introduced the world to the term "nature-deficit disorder," journalist Richard Louv argued that children need to unplug from computers and smartphones and reconnect with the original way of learning about the world: by wandering around outside.

Louv's book, naturally, was a big hit with environmentalists (the National Audubon Society and Wilderness Education Association were among those who gave him awards). But now that I have a child of my own and read as much about parenting and child development as I do about the environment, I'm increasingly aware that it's not just the eco-minded who are calling for more mud pies and fewer LeapFrog computers for preschoolers. It seems that everywhere I turn, there's another reminder that our children need less time in front of screens and more time figuring things out for themselves.

So this past summer, I enrolled my then year-and-a-half-old daughter in a parent-child class at the Brooklyn Forest School in Prospect Park, just a couple of blocks from our home. We walked to the park once a week and met up with other families to pour some water on dirt to make mud, share a snack, poke a stick in the water and sing songs. The forest school, one of many across the country that takes the place of traditional preschools and kindergarten classrooms, isn't a new concept. The first forest kindergarten opened outside Seattle in 2007, but programs like this one are becoming increasingly popular.

Parents are clearly willing to pay to get their kids outside more, and with good reason. Forty percent of U.S. school districts cut recess or physical education programs after the U.S. Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, partly in response to pressure to improve test scores. But the benefits of getting outside to play are manifold, particularly in natural settings. Studies show that exposure to nature can help reduce ADHD symptoms; in schools with an environmental education component, students score higher on standardized tests in math, reading, writing and listening than their non-nature-exposed counterparts. Other positive effects include improved critical thinking, problem solving and cooperation. And there are health benefits, too: Kids who play outside more often are less likely to develop nearsightedness, obesity, diabetes and vitamin D deficiencies.

On some days last summer, usually when it was blazingly hot and my daughter seemed more interested in testing her foot speed in a dusty open field than mixing water into the dirt under a shady tree canopy, I told myself we could just do this on our own without paying for it. After all, many of our activities mirrored those of my own childhood: walking through the woods, poking sticks in the water (streams in my case, a pond in my daughter's), and making imaginary forts out of hollow trees.

It seems that everywhere I turn, there's another reminder that our children need less time in front of screens and more time figuring things out for themselves.

Learning to build shelter in the woods might be a forgotten kids' game but it's also a survival skill, even today. The quest to avoid spending the night wet and freezing required the ability to work creatively to solve a problem as a team, then as it does now. And although many of my peers grew up building forts in the woods, fewer kids are doing that today. Now children enter kindergarten having watched, on average, some 5,000 hours of television — that's more than a full day's worth each week — according to a 2009 report from the A.C. Nielsen Company. Television, plus iPads and iPhones, and the push to show early academic achievement by memorizing shapes and colors from the age of two, has pulled us away from our roots in creative play and the outdoors.

After our forest school session ended, the feeling that I could simply make the time to do this sort of stuff with my daughter on my own kept nagging at me. But the thing was, as the fall wore on, we didn't find nearly as much time as I thought we would to simply slow down, sit in the grass, and just check things out.

That is until one day this fall. As we walked through the park, I accidentally spilled some water and I thought to employ a lesson from forest school: make mud. I turned over leaves looking for sticks and she grabbed some large pieces of mulch and started mixing. We took turns squishing the mud, spreading it on the bark of a nearby tree, and picking out leaves to stick to our "sculpture." A half hour passed and Barrett was still focused on her work.

Since then, she increasingly stops while we're walking the dog in the park and sits down to get dirty, idle in leaf piles, and generally lead the way a little more often. I don't always have water handy, but we dig down a bit to see if the ground is wet and what else we find. There's a lot of pasting clumps of dirt onto exposed tree roots, and a lot of curious glances from passers by. It's often hard to get her to leave her mud creations behind, and we're both happier for it.

Follow Treadway @lwrighttreadway. This article first appeared as "The Benefits of Digging in the Dirt" in OnEarth magazine. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Hetty Chin is a program assistant with the NRDC. This post is adapted from one that appeared on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Chin contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

For the past several years, instead of New Year's resolutions, I've given myself overarching annual mantras. My mantra for 2014 is "Do it, Hetty!" — meaning I should take action in the areas that are important to me.

One of these is helping find a solution to the world's current nutrition issues, and to address them, I've adapted a tool that some of you may have seen before: the problem tree.

In high-school, I identified poor nutrition as a problem — this was my trunk. My overweight grandmother used to babysit me and I witnessed her struggling with a myriad of nutrition-related ailments. I also saw that fast food and junk food were staples for youth in my community.

The symptoms — or branches — of my tree included the issues that my grandmother suffered with, in addition to the effects diet had on the youth around me: poor self-esteem from difficulties with weight management, diabetes, hypertension, difficulty focusing and much more.

The cause, I decided, was very personal — this was a problem for individuals to fix. The lack of health knowledge, driven by social pressures and limited accessibility to information, was at the root of the problem. My plan was to make dietary changes for myself and then help others, so I majored in nutrition science during my undergrad years at the University of California, Davis. Through my studies, I learned about diet, food regulations, food toxicology, metabolic pathways and nutrition standards, but I also began learning about agriculture.

While sitting in a campus hallway, reading L.T. Evan's "Feeding the Ten Billion" I was struck by a revelation: The tiled floor that I sat on, the building where my next class was held, the laptop that I had just turned off — they were all made possible because of agriculture.

As opportunistic, omnivorous human beings, we figured out a way to secure a food source through farming, allowing us to move from mobile hunter-gatherer societies to ones that settled. This allowed our populations to develop specialists — those who could create tools like the ones I mentioned, but also specialists who could create the means for people to populate vast expanses of the earth. This, in effect, led to a dynamic shift, and the resulting unprecedented effect we humans now have on the earth and our own species.

I realized then how reductive my original problem tree was, so I reassessed and now here's my new problem tree. I moved nutrition from being at the core of the problem to a symptom of my new one: our current conventional food system.

I don't mean to ignore symptoms — they too, need to be addressed.

For example, let's look at dehydration. If you take a painkiller to alleviate the headache that may come with dehydration, this might leave you with a clearer mind to figure out what ails you, but if you don't find a cool location to rest and rehydrate yourself, your headache will come back, and you may suffer even more dire symptoms.

Ameliorating a symptom is helpful, but focusing on it alone may mask the real issue at hand. To really address an issue you have to get to the root of it — figure out what causes it, and how you can deal with whatever it is that keeps this problem growing.

So, although I now understand much about nutrition, I must recognize poor nutrition as a symptom and take my actions a bit further. I want to figure out how we can strike a balance between agricultural demands and environmental conservation, and improve community health in an economically viable way.

This is my 2014 mantra: I am going to understand our current food system, learn about what drives industrial agriculture and how to pacify these drivers. I'm going to do it!

Thinking about a problem more holistically may leave you with a daunting new problem tree like mine, but rather than grow jaded and apathetic by this impression, break the issue down into various levels of solutions.

Map out the levels of solutions to your problem.

You don't run before you crawl, so start off small by educating yourself and making individual changes, then reach more people by sharing your knowledge, and eventually work to influence even more people. I learned about nutrition and I made personal life changes, I've worked with students and influenced their choices, I've worked with school policies and influenced school districts — and now I am learning how to raise it up another level.

I've primed myself well for this by working here at NRDC where we have a multi-pronged approach to this issue. NRDC also has a high success rate on many problem trees that it has encountered, so I am interviewing senior staff members and learning how to elevate my capacity in the environmental movement to be at par with what they do, or have done. I am also committing myself to learn about agroecology from the soil level, through a farm apprenticeship where I will gain in-depth knowledge as to what is actually feasible.

So, I ask: What inspires you to feel? What inspires you to act? What's your problem tree this year?

I implore you to explore that problem further and not reduce it to the mere symptoms. And though you may come to realize the grandeur of your problem — here's a quote from Hawke's Green Beret Survival Manual (which I am currently geeking out on) on the psychology of survival that I think may help in times of uncertainly:

"Always make a plan, and have a plan, but […] never expect that plan to work out exactly the way you expect. Do your best and do all that you can, rest and relax when you must, and things will be alright. There is nothing more you can do than all you can do, then let go and be flexible."

There's always some action you can take, no matter what the level. All you need to do is set a goal and do it!

The author's most recent Op-Ed was "After Burning Man, Leaving No Trace." This Op-Ed was adapted from "My 2014 Mantra: Do it! Take Action on Food Issues. Yours?" on the NRDC blog Switchboard. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Sylvia Fallon is a senior scientist for the NRDC. This Op-Ed was adapted from a post to the NRDC blog Switchboard. Fallon contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

I was sitting in the tattoo shop getting inked for my first and (so far) only time with a design I had thought long and hard about, when the tattoo artist received a call from a friend who asked him what kind of tattoo he was currently working on.

"Oh, just a butterfly," he said dismissively. I just smiled to myself, because unlike him, I knew that this wasn't just any butterfly — it was a monarch butterfly.

Yes, it is beautiful, but it's so much more than that. It's a complex product of evolution that packs a powerful combination of delicate beauty and poisonous self-defense. Its bright colors send a message to potential predators warning them of the danger they'll find within. It carries this protection with it as it traverses the entire country from the forests of Mexico to the wildflowers of Texas through the prairies of the Midwest and back again. With each flapping of its wings it sends the message, "I am vibrant, I am powerful — and I am free."

Or at least, this is what the monarch means to me — which is why it is so heartbreaking to hear that the number of monarch butterflies that migrate across the United States each year and overwinter in the forests of Mexico has dropped to an all-time low. News out of Mexico puts the population at 33.5 million individuals. Although the number of butterflies varies from year to year, this estimate is a precipitous drop from a high of 1 billion in 1997 and down from a long-term average of 350 million over the last 15 years. Furthermore, it represents the 9th consecutive yearly measurement below the long-term average. In other words, this year's news follows a continuing downward trend. It signals a species in crisis.

The decline of monarch butterflies over the last decade or more has coincided with the wide-scale adoption of genetically modified crops that are resistant to the weed-killer glyphosate, also known as Round Up. This change in our agricultural system has led to the near extermination of milkweed from huge swaths of our country. The problem is that monarch butterflies are dependent on milkweed. It's the only type of plant that they use for laying their eggs.

Since the introduction of genetically modified "Round Up Ready" corn and soybeans in the late 1990s, their adoption level has reached as high as 70 to 90 percent. As a result, the use of glyphosate in these crop fields skyrocketed. Scientists now estimate that in the span of about 10 years (from 1999-2010) there has been a 60 percent decline in milkweeds across the Midwest (in both agricultural and non-agricultural areas) and an 80 percent decline in monarchs in the Midwest. Past studies have shown that monarchs from the Midwest comprise 50 percent of the overwintering population in Mexico. This explains why the loss of butterflies from a specific region could have such a large impact on the overall population size.

There are, of course, other contributors to the monarch's decline. Drought, particularly in Texas, is believed to also be posing a threat to these butterflies as they try to make their way from Mexico across the United States to Southern Canada and back in the span of a year. Climate in general (including drought, but also extreme temperatures) is contributing. And deforestation of the butterflies' wintering habitat continues to be a concern.

However, given that the widespread adoption of "Round Up Ready" crops has largely eliminated the monarch's most essential "habitat" by removing milkweeds from the landscape, it's time to reconsider whether its continued large-scale use makes sense. Today's news reminds us just what is at stake.

Besides its beautiful appearance and usefulness as a pollinator, the monarch's long-distance round-trip journey is a unique phenomenon that scientists still don't fully understand. If we continue blindly along the current path, ignoring the unintended consequences of our actions, we risk losing the monarch's migration — one of the true natural wonders of our planet. So much more than 'just a butterfly.'

This Op-Ed was adapted from "Monarch butterfly population hits a new low" on the NRDC blog Switchboard. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Anjali Jaiswal, director of the NRDC India Initiative, and Meredith Connolly, NRDC Energy Law and Policy Fellow, contributed this article to LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Last week as I was driving through Delhi, dense clouds obscured the roads, making me feel almost like I was home in foggy San Francisco. Traffic nearly came to a standstill as visibility fell so low that my colleague and I could barely see the vehicles just a few car lengths ahead. Much like in the Bay Area, folks were going about their business as if this was a common occurrence. The difference, of course, is that the streets of Delhi are blanketed not in fog, but in dangerous particulate-filled smog. In fact, the capital city's air has been called "among the world's worst" by the New York Times.

The combination of rapid urbanization, a high density of cars and industrial emissions, and other environmental factors have made the smog in Delhi worse even than Beijing. However, despite India slipping down to a staggering rank of 155 in the global Environmental Performance Index this year, on-the-ground awareness of how bad the air truly is remains low overall. While the thick smog is hard to miss, widespread information linking environmental impacts from pollution to health effects is currently lacking in India. Many Delhi residents are unaware of the growing body of scientific evidence that shows direct links between increasing automobile use and emissions of harmful PM2.5 emissions — the kind of particulate matter (PM) that is so small that it can enter the human bloodstream. The question is, will the international spotlight on the country's air pollution shine through the smog to spark action?

Despite low awareness, the serious health effects of Delhi's poor environmental quality are harder to ignore. The dangerous air pollution threatens a literal chokehold on the population as asthma and other respiratory ailments affect two in five Delhi residents, according to the International Harvard Review.

But as communities throughout the country can attest, harmful particulates in the air are not just Delhi's problem — air pollution is the sixth biggest killer across India, according to the Lancet Global Health Burden of Disease report. Finding cleaner ways forward, including shifting to energy sources that pollute less than fossil fuels, is key to improving India's air, water and environment, as well as combating the global problem of climate change.

Although more than half of India's electricity currently comes from coal, domestic sources are depleting and the country has to rely more and more on imports as energy demand increases. Dependence on foreign fossil fuels makes bad economic sense and compromises energy security, in addition to polluting the air and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Moreover, the diesel back-up generators many Indians rely on to keep the lights on during regular power cuts also spew harmful sulphur and particulate matter into the air.

Renewable energy sources can power India's future, offering the country a cleaner, more sustainable way to supply its communities' growing energy needs. Energy-efficient buildings across India's cities are beginning tocut energy demand dramatically, also reducing the need for polluting diesel back-up generation. The state of Andhra Pradeshand its booming city of Hyderabad, recognizedthese benefits and locked-in enormous energy savings by adopting an Energy Conservation Building Code for its commercial and high-rise residential buildings this week.

The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) recently reported that India added more than 1 gigawatt (GW) of solar energy to its grid last year, nearly doubling the country's cumulative solar capacity to 2.18 GW. The growing thirst for solar energy was highlighted again this month by the Indian National Solar Mission's successful bidding process for its first batch of Phase 2 projects. Bids for projects between 10-100 megawatts (MW) in size were more than three times oversubscribed by solar developers for the 750 MW of available photovoltaic capacity. In order for the Solar Mission to meet its ambitious target of 20 GW of solar energy by 2022, this second phase is essential for scaling-up solar installations across the country.

This high level of interest is an encouraging sign that the still nascent solar market is maturing and expanding during this critical time. NRDC's India initiative and our partner, the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), are working with MNRE, developers and financiers to support the growing solar market both on the economic policy front and in overcoming financing barriers.

Additionally, MNRE announced plans this month to launch a National Wind Mission in 2014, breathing new life into the wind sector. Although India is the fifth largest wind producer globally and has a high potential for wind energy, new incentives are needed to continue encouraging new investment. With MNRE in a "facilitator" role, this National Wind Mission is expected to reintroduce accelerated depreciation (a valuable tax benefit that reduces current taxable income), strengthen grid infrastructure, ease land issues and regulate tariffs.

Much remains to be done to mitigate the severe air pollution across India's cities and rural areas. Raising awareness of the often-fatal health impacts of poor air-quality and ways the country can move towards a cleaner future — including through greener transportation fleets, energy efficient buildings and clean energy — are necessary to spark action on all levels. By prioritizing less polluting, renewable energy sources domestically, including wind and solar, India's communities will begin to breathe easier.

This Op-Ed will appear on the NRDC blog Switchboard. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Christina Swanson, is director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)'s Science Center and past president of the Western Division of the American Fisheries Society. She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

As a fish biologist who has worked for years to protect and restore California's beleaguered salmon fisheries, I have always been awed by — and a bit envious of — Alaska's Bristol Bay watershed. It is truly one of the last places on earth where pristine aquatic habitats, robust salmon populations and thriving commercial and recreational fisheries still exist.

But the future of this unique region is at a critical crossroads from a proposal to develop a huge, open-pit, gold and copper mine in the watershed's headwaters. True, a mine like the Pebble Mine planned by Northern Dynasty Minerals would create some jobs, incrementally add to the global metal supply and yield profits for the Canada-based company. But it will also have damaging impacts on land, water, fish and wildlife, and people in southwestern Alaska and beyond. It's a big decision, so the more information we have to inform our deliberations, the better.

Fortunately, last week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided the information Americans need to help us make a wise choice, releasing the final Watershed Assessment of the potential mining impacts on aquatic ecosystems and salmon fisheries of Bristol Bay.

EPA asked two questions: What is the condition of the watershed and its fisheries resources now? And, what will happen to them if a large-scale mine like the Pebble Mine is developed?

Their assessment was an exceptionally careful and rigorous process, exceeding academic and industry standards: more than three years of analysis by mining engineers, salmon biologists, aquatic ecologists, aquatic toxicologists, hydrologists, wildlife ecologists and experts on native Alaskan culture; two rounds of independent review by a panel of 12 scientists; public meetings and consideration of more than 1.1 million public comments; and complete transparency of their responses to comments from the independent peer-review panel, mine-proponents Northern Dynasty Minerals and the public. Their findings are comprehensive and couldn't be clearer.

The Watershed Assessment makes four key points.

• First, the aquatic ecosystems and fisheries of the Bristol Bay watershed are an irreplaceable resource of global significance. The wild salmon fishery — the region's mainstay industry — produces nearly half of the world's wild sockeye salmon catch, supports 14,000 local jobs, attracts tens of thousands of tourists each summer and generates hundreds of millions of dollars each year ($480 million in direct economic expenditures in 2009, and according to another study, $1.5 billion in 2010). Salmon also sustain the culture and traditions of Alaska Natives, who have relied on subsistence fishing for thousands of years.

• Second, development and operation of an open pit mine in the watershed's headwaters will destroy or degrade many miles of streams and thousands of acres of wetlands, pollute pristine waters, create massive amounts of toxic waste, and put the salmon fishery and Alaskans who depend on it at "significant risk." Because of the mine's proposed location in the watershed's headwaters and the high degree of interconnections between surface and groundwater in the region, these impacts will extend downstream and far beyond the footprint of the mine itself. Worse, a failure of the dams holding the toxic mine tailings would be "catastrophically damaging" to the ecosystem and fisheries.
• Third, this damage from a large-scale mine is unavoidable and permanent. It can't be eliminated even with the best mine design and perfect operations, it can't be remediated by restoring habitat after the mine's lifecycle ends, and it can't be mitigated by creating compensatory salmon habitat elsewhere.

• And finally, the toxic waste generated by mining operations, and the massive dams built to confine it, will have to be monitored, managed and maintained to prevent leaks and catastrophic spills — forever.

As a scientist committed to the application of science to guide sustainable environmental management, I am deeply appreciative of the careful and comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of a large-scale mine in this sensitive area, and I am persuaded by EPA's evidence, analyses and conclusions.

Do we now have enough information to make an informed decision about whether or not to allow a mine in the Bristol Bay watershed?

I think we do. So, as a citizen with a stake in the process, I think the enduring value of the land, water, and the fishery — and the people, jobs and culture it sustains — are greater than what can be created by another mine. I choose to protect the Bristol Bay watershed and I ask EPA — which can use its authority under the Clean Water Act to prevent destruction of water, fisheries and recreational resources — to act to preserve this national treasure.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Michael Jasny is director of the NRDC Marine Mammal Project. This Op-Ed will appear on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Jasny contributed this article to LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

What do you do when an agency entrusted with protecting the environment seems incapable of doing its job?

Last month, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the agency that the U.S. Congress charges with protecting whales and other marine life, gave the U.S. Navy permission to harm marine mammals on an unprecedented scale. Off Southern California and Hawaii alone, the Navy is now allowed to kill 155 marine mammals outright, permanently injure another 2,000, temporarily deafen hundreds of thousands more, and cause widespread disruption of feeding, nursing and other behaviors that are essential to the animals' survival — a total of more than 9 million incidents over the next five years.

These are staggering numbers, the product of a massive ramp-up in training on the Navy's Pacific ranges. And the stats raise serious questions about the ability of some species to sustain all of this damage, to cope with the tens of thousands of detonations and hours of high-powered sonar use that the Navy has planned each year. Yet, remarkably, the Fisheries Service gave its blessing — allowing impacts to rise more than ten times above previous authorizations — without requiring any additional steps to reduce the harm. It will surprise no one that a number of conservation organizations, including my own, filed a lawsuit against both agencies today.

Ironically, the Fisheries Service's passivity comes at a time of heightened scientific concern over the Navy's long-term impacts on marine mammals. On the Navy's Bahamas range, sensitive beaked-whales that are repeatedly exposed to sonar have far smaller numbers and comparatively far fewer calves and juveniles than whales that live elsewhere in the islands. Biologists believe that the Bahamas range has become a population sink, making it difficult for the whales to reproduce or bring their calves to maturity. And that is exactly what government scientists suspect may already be happening off Southern California, where Navy training is even more intensive and beaked whale populations have declined precipitously over the past 20 years.

At the same time, researchers have discovered that Navy sonar disrupts blue whale feeding cutting off their deep-foraging dives, displacing them from krill patches and silencing their feeding calls over great distances. It's a significant problem since the Navy's Southern California range contains globally important foraging habitat for this endangered species. Blue whales, which vocalize deep down in the low registers, often below the limits of human hearing, were previously thought to be fairly impervious to higher-frequency sonar. Now biologists have concluded that Navy training may significantly risk the animals' recovery in the Pacific.

Reducing harm in this case isn't rocket science. The most effective available means of protecting marine mammals from Navy sonar and explosives training is to protect important habitat, as numerous expert bodies and agencies, including the Fisheries Service itself, have recognized. And yet, on a military range the size of the state of California itself, the service has not safeguarded a single jot of habitat for blue whales or other species.

Ultimately, the problem comes down to governance. Conservationists expect government agencies to maintain an arms-length distance from the entities they regulate, but that's hard to do when the entity has the power and sway of the U.S. Navy. In 2006, when the Navy first asked for permission to harm marine mammals during training, the Fisheries Service studied the request, deemed the Navy's analysis faulty and its mitigation inadequate, and pushed back, only to get overturned by President George W. Bush's administration. The service has become more and more deferential in the years since. While it has eked out some valuable research from the Navy, the service has given its bigger brother a pass on measures that can actually reduce harm. As for the Navy's Pacific Fleet, it is reluctant to make any concessions for any area on the grounds that it may be asked to do the same elsewhere.

Marine mammals receive special protection under the law not only because of their cultural and ecological significance, but also because they are difficult to study in the wild. The odds of detecting even a catastrophic decline in most whale populations remain alarmingly poor. The National Marine Fisheries Service does many positive things for whale conservation, but on Navy training, it is whistling past the graveyard.

Jasny's most recent Op-Ed was "Report Reveals Cause of Massive Madagascar Whale Stranding." The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This article was originally published on LiveScience.

Peter Lehner is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This Op-Ed was adapted from a post that appeared onthe NRDC blog Switchboard. Lehner contributed this article to LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

When frigid temperatures recently caused the unexpected shutdown of two power plants in Texas, wind energy stepped in to help keep residents warm. According to Reuters, the state was able to avoid rolling blackouts and keep heaters running with the help of a critical boost of energy from West Texas wind farms, which turned the high winds of the bitter arctic front into clean electricity. Renewable energy isn't just about cutting pollution. It also helps keep our homes heated and the lights on during extreme weather.

Clean, renewable energy and efficiency helped stabilize strained electric grids around the country during the recent, bizarre polar vortex, because early government and private investment in clean technologies has helped diversify the nation's fossil-fuel dominated energy economy. Americans need more clean energy — not just to build a more resilient energy supply, but to power our economy, cut pollution, revitalize communities and stabilize global climate. That's why the government and the private sector have invested, and should continue to invest, in this young industry.

Unfortunately, Congress just pulled the rug out from under the clean-energy sector by allowing a suite of clean energy incentives in the tax code to expire at the end of 2013. At the same time, century-old giveaways to oil and coal companies remain intact, bestowing billions of dollars in subsidies upon a mature, polluting industry.

Federal support for energy innovation helps attract critical private-sector investment that allows clean-energy projects to scale up and begin to make a real difference in the economy, the energy industry and in people's lives. Across the board, clean energy investment has been a successful strategy, bringing down energy costs, creating jobs, and moving this country closer to a 100-percent-clean-energy future.

We now have a solid, domestic wind industry that didn't exist a decade ago. An estimated 72 percent of wind turbine parts for U.S. wind farms are manufactured domestically, a drastic turnaround over the past six years. According to a forthcoming analysis by Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2), more than 186,500 clean energy and clean transportation jobs have been announced in every state in the past two years alone.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee program, which helps secure funding for innovative clean-energy technologies, has an impressive track record that would please any investor, and has created 55,000 jobs, to boot. Projects the program helped fund include the world's largest solar-thermal-power plant, one of the world's largest wind farms, and the first two all-electric vehicle factories in the United States.

In addition to job growth, investing in clean energy has brought about a major reduction in energy costs. The price of solar panels is down 75 percent from 2008, and the cost of wind power has been cut in half over the past two decades.

The U.S. government has a history of supporting new technologies that are in the national interest, including defense technologies like GPS, and communication technologies like the Internet. Supporting clean energy technologies that help create good jobs, improve the reliability of our energy supply, and reduce pollution is clearly in our national interest. Credit Suisse recently projected that renewable energy will meet 85 percent of new energy demand in America. On the other hand, continuing to pour money into a wealthy, established industry responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths every year from air pollution — and which helped fuel $100 billion in extreme weather disasters in 2012 alone — poses serious risks to our health, our economy and our environment.

The United States needs a more reliable, less polluting, energy system that can see us through more extreme weather, and usher us into an era of energy security and climate stability, with good, green jobs for American workers. Clean energy is a smart investment that will continue to pay dividends for our health, economy and environment for decades to come.

Lehner's most recent Op-Ed was "5 Huge, Efficient Wins for the Environment in 2013." This Op-Ed was adapted from a post on the NRDC blog Switchboard. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Christine Xu is a program assistant in the China Program and Energy & Transportation Program for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This post is adapted from one that appeared on the NRDC blog Switchboard. Xu contributed this article to LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Beijing is once again blanketed by record-setting air pollution — the highest since last January's "airpocalypse." Levels of PM2.5 (the kind of particulate matter, PM, that is most harmful to human health) reached 671 micrograms last Thursday morning, dramatically reducing visibility and prompting commuters to don industrial-strength face masks. In the past year, severe air pollution has increasingly plagued cities not just in the north, but all around China. Last month, reports of off-the-chart pollution in Hebei, Henan and Shaanxi Provinces, and Shanghai — traditionally a city with clean air — all made headlines.

My colleagues at NRDC and I have blogged extensively on China's air-pollution issues, but I had never experienced it personally — until now. Don't get me wrong. I have seen plenty of days in China with grey skies and no sun, but never has air pollution made my sinuses burn.

I travelled to Xi'an in Shaanxi province from Dec. 21 to Dec. 25, 2013, for vacation, hoping to bike along the historical city walls, climb the pagodas for a towering view of the city, and visit Mount Hua, one of China's Five Great Mountains.

Instead, I was greeted with a thick blanket of grey air that enveloped our plane as soon as we landed. When the smell of faint smoke filled my lungs upon exiting the aircraft, my friend from Beijing swiftly pulled out two face masks. She had been checking the daily Air Quality Index for Xi'an prior to our trip (a habit many Beijingers developed last year) and warned me about the severe pollution. But as the saying goes: seeing is believing.

The worst day was December 24, when PM2.5 levels neared 800, compared to the standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter set by the World Health Organization. On that day, being outside without a face mask smelled like being near a forest fire or in a smoke lounge, so even though the masks were rather uncomfortable (imagine wearing swimming goggles around your cheeks), we didn't dare take them off.

Xi'an is a city with an incredible amount of history. It was the eastern terminus of the Silk Road, the capitol of China for many dynasties, and home to the Terracotta Army. It is also home to thousands of Hui people, an ethic group in China that is predominantly Muslim. The cultural intersection of Muslim, Buddhist and Chinese, and its influence on food and architecture, was fascinating to see. But frankly, with pollution this severe, it left us with few sights to truly appreciate, and a sour impression of the city.

That is a tragedy. What good is it if all of the historical cities and natural beauty in China are covered by haze? What good is staggering economic growth if the air is unbreathable, the cities unlivable?

The consequences of pollution are staggering. Environmental degradation costs an equivalent of 9 percent GDP for China. But even more startling is that air pollution reduces life expectancy by 5.5 years in northern China. After last January's "airpocalypse" thrust China's air pollution woes onto the world stage, tourism has been declining, expats have been leaving, schools have been closing (to protect vulnerable children), and air and vehicular traffic have been regularly stalled by low visibility.

While China's government has passed a host of aggressive regulations in response, recent news reported China to be behind in reaching its pollution reduction targets set under the 12th Five Year Plan, while skeptics question the efficacy of the measures taken to tackle air pollution. Peng Sen, Vice Minister of China's top economic planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), said that China should try "all possible means" to reach those targets in the next two years.

We will see in 2014, and beyond, what types of concrete steps China takes to achieve its pollution reduction goals — though, a major challenge will continue to be setting effective political and economic measures to incentivize local officials to develop their economies without exploiting natural resources. In the past, local officials' promotions were based primarily on two things: economic growth and curbing social unrest. Now, President Xi is trying to steer them away from pursuing economic growth at all costs. Yet, details are lacking on how this will be implemented and how an official's conservation record will be measured; meanwhile, the Ministry of Environmental Protection remains understaffed and largely toothless.

Another major challenge to bear in mind is that a portion of China's emissions is directly tied to manufacturing goods for export to the United States. A new report published by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that air pollutants associated with China's export industry can travel across the Pacific to the western United States within days, leading to "dangerous spikes in contaminants." Thus, the importance of a concerted international effort on global pollution control, in addition to domestic action, cannot be overstated.

When I asked locals in Xi'an what they thought of the air pollution, their responses were unanimous: "Yes, the pollution is really bad, but nowadays, it seems like all of China suffers from it." Indeed, air pollution is not just a problem for Beijing anymore.

In fact, pollution has become the main cause of civil discontent and protests in China.

One positive trend already taking place in the new year is that China is adding an additional 87 cities to provide hourly air quality data, which the media, government and public will all be watching closely. Additionally, China is now requiring 15,000 of its biggest factories to publicly and continuously report their air emissions and wastewater discharges.

These are critical steps taken by the Chinese government at improving transparency and pollution-information disclosure. The challenge now is for China to make noticeable improvements quickly enough before public patience runs out.

The author's most recent Op-Ed was "Shark-Fin Soup Losing its Status as Shark Populations Decline." This piece is adapted from the post "A Vacation Tainted by China's Toxic Air" on the NRDC blog Switchboard. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This article was originally published on LiveScience.