Climate Break

The Global Transition

As the global transition to clean energy accelerates, scaling solar infrastructure has emerged as one of the most critical pathways to achieving a net-zero future. However, this rapid buildout could bring an increasingly large amount of waste as solar panels reach their end of life. To avoid this, recycling offers a dual climate solution: it significantly reduces the greenhouse gas emissions associated with primary mining and provides a supply of pre-refined, low-carbon materials that can be used to make new panels.

The Role of Solar Panels

Transitioning away from fossil fuels and achieving net-zero carbon emissions at a global scale requires rapid deployment of renewable technologies. For solar energy specifically, the amount of solar infrastructure needed on Earth to meet climate goals is about 16 times what has already been built. This buildout demands large quantities of raw materials, including glass, silica sand, silver, copper, and aluminum. While these resources are traditionally mined from the Earth, they can also be recovered directly from solar panels once they reach their end-of-life.

Extracting and processing raw materials for solar panels through primary mining is resource-intensive, and recycling those materials significantly reduces the panels’ manufacturing emissions. Similarly, integrating recycled solar glass cullet into manufacturing lowers furnace operating temperatures, cutting energy consumption by 2.5% to 3% for every 10% of cullet added and reducing the overall energy and emissions needed to produce new glass.

If solar panels are taken to traditional e-waste recycling facilities, these sites typically rely on bulk shredding, a process that destroys material purity and scatters valuable metals. In contrast, the solar recycling process from SOLARCYCLE uses a step-by-step “reverse manufacturing” sequence in which the company strips away the junction box, removes the aluminum frame, and isolates the specialized glass to recover up to 97% of a panel’s material value. Furthermore, because solar manufacturing has evolved to generate more energy using fewer materials, the elements recovered from decommissioned panels can be the basis to build newer, higher-efficiency arrays that generate even more clean power.

The Impact on Energy and Raw Materials

Solar panel recycling requires dramatically less energy input, potentially avoiding up to 95% of the CO2 emissions and 95% of the energy needed to mine and process raw aluminum for new solar panels. What’s more, this technology can recover up to 99% or more of key materials like glass and metals.

Likewise, because this solution recovers critical resources like silver and copper from existing infrastructure, the technology can be used to mine materials from what has already been produced and collected rather than extracting new minerals from the Earth. This means the technology has the potential to eliminate up to 25% of manufacturing emissions for specialized solar glass, while diverting toxic chemicals like lead and cadmium away from landfills to protect environmental and human health.

Challenges: Recyclability and Economics

Currently, panels have not been designed for recyclability, making the process of separating their tightly sealed layers a technical challenge. Because solar manufacturers operate on very thin or negative profit margins, they have rarely prioritized design-for-recyclability features, leaving decades of panels that will need specialized, intensive processing when they decommission. Scaling this technology also presents operational challenges because, while recycling thousands of panels is manageable, processing the millions of units at scale will require tooling that a supporting industry cannot yet provide.

Solar panel recycling currently struggles to compete economically with traditional waste disposal depending on local geography. In countries like the United States, landfill remains the cheaper option, creating a financial gap that can deter asset owners from recycling the panels. Moreover, the process cannot yet achieve a fully circular loop for all components. Certain materials, like thermoset plastics, are unrecyclable and must be diverted to waste-to-energy processes. Finally, the industry faces regulatory risks from “sham recycling”, where bad actors take upfront payments but fail to manage the materials properly, creating an environmental hazard by exposing toxic lead or cadmium to the soil.

The Guest’s Take

Pablo Dias sees solar panel recycling as an essential part of the energy transition. For him, this process closes the loop on a true circular economy by allowing discarded panels to be mined for valuable resources like aluminum, silver, and copper instead of extracting raw materials from the Earth. This is part of a broader vision for a waste-free solar industry, turning end-of-life solar panels into a tool to drastically reduce the industry’s emissions and eliminate the environmental and social risks of heavy metal leaching.

About the Guest

Dr. Pablo Dias is the Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of SOLARCYCLE, a recycling platform designed to build a circular economy for the solar industry.

Further Reading

• SOLARCYCLE
• Resources on Solar Panel Recycling (SOLARCYCLE)
• ScienceDirect: High yield, low cost, environmentally friendly process to recycle silicon solar panels: Technical, economic and environmental feasibility assessment
• Wiley Online Library: Recycling Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Modules
• Grist: What happens when solar panels wear out?
• Personal Website – Pablo Dias

For a transcript of this episode, visit https://climatebreak.org/recycling-solar-panels-with-pablo-dias/

Electrifying Freight Corridors

Freight corridors are designated pathways used for the transportation of commercial goods. Billions of tons of cargo are transported around the world via freight corridors each year and this number is continuing to climb with the increasing popularity of e-commerce and home delivery services. Currently, freight transportation makes up 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and this number is expected to double by 2050. Switching from powering freight transportation with diesel to electricity can help cut down on these emissions.

More About Freight Trucks

Compared to other freight transportation methods, like ships and trains, trucks create the most emissions. They can emit more than 100 times more carbon dioxide than ships that carry the same amount of goods and travel the same distance. Due to this, trucks are the cause of 65 percent of freight emissions, despite carrying less than a fourth of the world’s cargo.

Other than carbon dioxide, diesel trucks also emit black carbon, which is the black plume of smoke that comes from a truck’s tailpipe. Black carbon is another kind of climate pollutant and is linked to the fast melting of ice-covered areas, like glaciers, as well as health problems in humans. These health issues disproportionately impact low income communities and communities of color due to their proximity to major highways, freight depots, and ports.

The Benefits of Electric Trucks

In 2019, approximately 91 percent of America’s transportation was dependent on oil and transportation was responsible for 70 percent of all U.S. petroleum consumption. Oil prices tend to be more susceptible to fluctuations than electricity, which has historically had lower and more stable prices. Electric trucks also have zero tailpipe emissions, like carbon dioxide and black carbon. This can play an important role in helping the environment and improving air quality, especially around major cities, highways, and ports.

Despite common misconception, electric trucks are now able to meet the demands of freight operations as stated by the North American Council for Freight Efficiency. A battery electric truck can drive 465 miles on a single charge and can cover 3,676 miles in 18 days while spending only 13 percent of its time charging. Many companies, like Volvo, Daimler, and Scania, are continuing to work on improving electric trucks for long-haul transportation and private investors, like Kabisa, have been installing more charging infrastructure for freight fleets. Since 2022, large operators like Amazon, UPS, and FedEx have begun successfully rolling out thousands of electric delivery vans and freight movement trucks and in 2025 sales of electric heavy freight trucks almost tripled.

This real-world performance data establishes that electric trucks are suitable for freight use. Electric trucks also have lower operational costs than diesel trucks, with heavy-duty electric vehicles reducing operating costs by 25 percent when compared to diesel and medium-duty electric vehicles reducing operating costs by 50 percent.

The Challenges

Despite the benefits, the adoption of electric trucks remains slow, with electric trucks only encompassing 1.1 percent of new heavy-duty trucks sold in Europe as of 2024. According to the Hewlett Foundation, high upfront costs for new electric vehicles and charging infrastructure are the biggest barriers to electrification. The initial investment in electric trucks can be two to three times that of traditional diesel trucks. This high cost is largely due to expensive batteries. Luckily, the prices of batteries are dropping and have decreased by approximately 87 percent from 2010 to 2019. The cost of batteries is projected to decline even further over the following years while their changing speeds are continuing to improve.

Various components other than batteries, like electric motors and system management devices for electric trucks, also pose cost challenges. However, their prices are also predicted to decrease as manufacturing efficiency of electric trucks continues to increase. On top of the high cost of new electric vehicles, the U.S. also has a 12 percent excise tax on the sale of new heavy-duty trucks. This can add an additional $21,000 to the cost of purchasing new trucks and trailers.

Electric charging infrastructure is a second major barrier to the adoption of electric trucks. Installing new charging stations takes a lot of time, money, and careful planning. The creation of electric charging infrastructure is currently much more complex than installing diesel fueling stations. Without sufficient charging infrastructure, demand for electric trucks remains low and with low demand, investment in charging infrastructure is slow to increase. Charging larger class vehicles can also require several hours, which is inconvenient and impractical.

The trucking industry and freight operations have long been designed with diesel trucks in mind. The diesel truck market is also a lot more mature than the electric truck market, which means there are more diesel truck options on the market to choose from than electric trucks. Electric trucks can also require more specialized equipment and technicians for maintenance and repairs than diesel trucks, although electric trucks tend to have lower maintenance requirements and experience fewer mechanical failures than their diesel counterparts.

Lukas Lukoschek’s Take

Lukoschek co-founded Kabisa to address some of these challenges facing the electrification of freight transportation. Kabisa is a company that operates in East Africa, in countries like Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda, and specializes in the sale and lease of electric vehicles. Kabisa is also working on installing more public charging infrastructure and provides specialized maintenance services for electric trucks. With Kabisa, Lukoschek hopes to create a reliable public charging network in East Africa to push the region towards electrification and sustainability.

About Our Guest

Lukas Lukoschek is the co-founder and CFO of Kabisa and is passionate about tech solutions that help achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. He has an MBA from Harvard University and has worked as an Engineer and Entrepreneur in the Energy industry. Previously, Lukoschek founded a solar mini-grid company operating in Africa and Asia.

Resources

• MIT Climate Portal, Freight Transportation
• International Energy Agency, Electrifying Freight: Pathways to Accelerating the Transition
• LOTS Group, Decarbonizing Transportation
• Center for Sustainable Energy, The Electric Truck market is Gaining Speed
• Rocky Mountain Institute, Electrifying Freight Transport
• The Future List, Lukas Lukoschek, Founder of Kabisa

Transcript

Ethan : I’m Ethan Elkind, and you’re listening to Climate Break – climate solutions in a hurry. Today’s proposal? Transitioning East Africa’s diesel freight trucks to battery electric models. We caught up with Lukas Lukoschek, co-founder and CFO of electric truck company Kabisa, at New York City Climate Week.

Lukas : In East Africa, you have two main freight corridors, the northern corridor and central corridor, where over 15,000 diesel trucks are currently operating, and we are working on electrifying all these trucks.

Ethan : Freight corridors like in East Africa move commercial goods, and globally make up about 8% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. But the high costs of imported fossil fuels in this region are now making electric trucks cheaper to operate than diesel alternatives.

Lukas : The biggest challenge we have to overcome is just the perception of EVs. People are worried about battery degradation, people are worried about, uh, charging times, um, of course, range anxiety is still a big topic. Even though a lot of these, um, sort of fears are not founded in reality. And so, we are working, um, with early adopters to actually showcase that sort of the move to electric transport is a much easier step than they think.

Ethan : Long term, Lukoschek hopes to expand outside of East Africa.

Lukas : What really sort of made the East-African e-mobility market explode is, having a very clear, sort of policy that, uh, incentivizes EV adoption. So across East Africa, we have lower importation costs of electric vehicles as well as low electricity costs when charging electric.

Ethan : To learn more about Kabisa and electrifying Africa’s diesel trucks, visit http://climatebreak.org.

For a transcript of this episode, please visit https://climatebreak.org/electrifying-freight-with-lukas-lukoschek/

Background and Context

For roughly 15 years, http://climate.gov was the federal government’s public face for climate science. Launched by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2010, the site translated NOAA’s climate research into expert blogs, data visualizations, and curriculum resources for educators.

But in 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cut hundreds of jobs across NOAA, including most of the ten-person http://climate.gov team. With no one left to maintain it, the site stopped publishing new content. And by June 24, 2025, http://climate.gov’s URL redirected to a stripped-down NOAA webpage.

Rebecca Lindsey, http://climate.gov’s former program manager and editorial lead, was one of those laid off. Rather than let over a decade of public climate education disappear with the site, she and two former colleagues spent months rebuilding it. The result, launched in June 2026, is http://climate.us– an independent nonprofit now led by Lindsey as project director. The new site carries over much of http://climate.gov’s content, including data visualizations, teacher resources, and a collection of Q&As that debunk common climate misinformation. “We try to help people see that [climate change] matters to everybody,” says Lindsey.

The Solution

The idea that climate science should be accessible to everyday people, not just scientists and policymakers, traces back to the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The Act directed federal agencies to coordinate climate research and make it available for public use. http://climate.gov, and now http://climate.us, were built with the same mission in mind.

Lindsey argues that “learning about climate and being comfortable talking about it is an important action” for the public to take. She points to a pattern called the “spiral of silence”-- most Americans believe in human-caused climate change and want to act on it, but each assumes, wrongly, that this view is unpopular and therefore stays quiet. Breaking that silence is the first step in shifting the broader public conversation on climate. “No one has to become an expert,” Lindsey says, “but people need some basic facts.”

And operating as an independent nonprofit, rather than as part of a government agency, allows http://climate.us to limit political interference. As Lindsey asserts, the new independent nonprofit model allows her and her colleagues to “tell stories and share information without anyone… telling us what we need to say to be consistent with someone else’s policy, view, or position.”

Challenges

Rebuilding the site hasn’t been easy. http://climate.gov once had a staff of ten, and now http://climate.us runs on three people full-time. Lindsey says rebuilding the website itself has proved a challenge, as none of the three are web developers. Instead, they’ve had to rely on the expertise of outside contractors. The original site also had teams dedicated to interacting with specific audiences, including the general public, educators, and local and tribal decision-makers. Now, those roles fall to the same three people, meaning less capacity to engage with each group.

Fortunately http://climate.us crowdsourced enough funds– roughly $280,000– to get the project off the ground. But Lindsey says existing funding will likely run dry in early 2027. Still, she sees the project as worth fighting for: “I’m not going to let this investment that the government made for 15 years… go without a fight”

How to Get Involved

http://climate.us relies on a volunteer network of subject-matter experts to review content before it's published. Lindsey encourages scientists interested in joining to reach out to info@climate.us. The public can also support the project by engaging with the site or donating through its ongoing crowdfunding campaign.

About Our Guest

Rebecca Lindsey is the project director of http://climate.us. Based in West Virginia, she holds a biochemistry degree and a master’s degree in journalism.

Further Reading

Climate.us, About Us

NPR, Ex-NOAA employees re-create a valuable climate data site shut down by Trump

Grist, The plan to make climate science harder to erase

National Archives, Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the U.S. Global Change Research Program

For a transcript of this episode, please visit https://climatebreak.org/preserving-public-access-to-climate-information-with-rebecca-lindsey/

Heat Pumps

Traditional heating and cooling systems are the largest sources of emissions in a home. Heat pumps have lower carbon emissions than any other home heating system and can even be carbon neutral when run by renewable energy sources, like solar panels. They are also safer, more efficient, and cheaper in the long run. What keeps many homeowners from installing them, despite the benefits, is the high upfront costs. Heat pump group-buy programs can help with that.

How It Works – Heat Pumps and Group-Buys

Heat pumps work in a similar way to refrigerators and air conditioners. They extract heat from the air, ground, water, or from waste heat generated by factories or data centers and amplify it. Then, this heat is moved into the home with the help of a liquid called a refrigerant. The refrigerant changes from liquid to gas and back again, transferring heat throughout the process. When the refrigerant changes from liquid to gas, it absorbs heat, and when changed back to liquid it releases the heat. Then, the heat is delivered throughout the home through forced air or via a hydronic system (using water, steam, or glycol solution as a medium for heat transfer).

This way of transferring heat allows heat pumps to be more efficient than other heating technologies, like boilers or electric heaters. The energy output of a heat pump is typically 4 times greater than the electrical energy used to run it. This can be up to 5 times more energy efficient than gas boilers.

Installing a heat pump has a high upfront cost but group-buy programs can help make it more budget-friendly. To participate, homeowners fill out an interest form through a coordinator like Heat Pumped. Interested households are then grouped together by region and offered a deal that can save each household $3000 to $6000 dollars. This deal works similar to Costco, where installers can negotiate discounts from manufacturers on equipment due to buying and installing in bulk.

The Advantages and Disadvantages

Since heat pumps are more energy efficient than conventional heating systems, heat pumps can reduce homeowner’s energy bills and stay unaffected by price increases from extreme weather or high energy demand. On average, homeowners in the US can save $370 per year by switching to a heat pump, or up to $1000 per year when switching from an especially inefficient heat system, like those run on oil or propane.

Heat pumps don’t only heat, they can also cool, and they can replace not only heaters but also traditional air conditioners. They also have more temperature control and allow each room in the home to be heated or cooled individually. Heat pumps don’t require the combustion of fossil fuels or carbon monoxide emissions, like other heating sources, making them safer. Furthermore, despite the common myth, heat pumps are effective even at very cold temperatures, working well at temperatures as low as -20° Fahrenheit.

Installing heat pumps is a difficult project and requires more planning and preparation than traditional boiler installations. Detailed calculations and a thorough analysis of the property need to be conducted to understand the property’s insulation abilities, as well as its heating and cooling requirements. Space can also be a challenge. Smaller properties or apartments might not be able to fit heat pump systems. Additionally, ground and water-source heat pumps require large outdoor areas or nearby water sources like ponds, rivers, or lakes. There are also a variety of refrigerants that can be used and some of them can be harmful to the environment. Luckily, biodegradable fluid options are available.

Although group-buy programs are an excellent way to save money, they sometimes require a household to have to wait until a group is formed and a discount can be applied before installing the heat pump. So, group-buy programs are not ideal for homeowners who need their heating systems upgraded quickly.

Shreyas Sudhakar’s Take

Shreyas Sudhakar believes that heat pumps have the potential to greatly decrease our carbon foot-prints. Sudhakar also believes that group-buy programs are important for encouraging households to make the environmentally-friendly switch to heat pumps. Those unsure about the cost of heat pump installation can be persuaded by the thousands of dollars they save through a group-buy program. Group-buy participants can also spread the word about their new heating system, encouraging more households to join in on the savings and install lower emission heating systems.

About Our Guest

Shreyas Sudhakar, a former rocket propulsion engineer, is the founder and CEO of Vayu, a heat pump installation company in the Bay Area. With his company, he hopes to improve the heat pump installation process for homeowners through transparency with customers, honest recommendations, and expert installers that take the time to understand the needs of each individual home.

Resources

• International Energy Agency, How Heat Pumps Work
• Harmon Mechanical, A Guide to Heat Pump Refrigerants
• Rewiring America, The Pros and Cons of Heat Pumps
• NYS Clean Heat, The Benefits of Switching to Heat Pumps
• Geowarmth, Heat Pumps’ Disadvantages: the Real & The Myths

For a transcript of this episode, please visit https://climatebreak.org/buying-heat-pumps-with-neighbors-with-shreyas-sudhakar/

Perovskite Solar Cells

Conventional solar panels are usually heavy and expensive to install. Perovskites are a class of materials that have the potential to create lighter weight and cheaper solar cells that still convert the sun to electricity at a high efficiency. Perovskite solar cells could potentially make solar energy more affordable, accessible, and environmentally friendly.

What Are Perovskite Solar Cells?

Perovskites are a group of materials in which hydrogens and carbons bind to a metal, such as lead, and a halogen, such as chlorine, and form a three dimensional crystal lattice. Thousands of different chemical compositions are possible, which allows perovskite solar cells to absorb many different colors of the solar spectrum, depending on which composition is used. This ability makes it possible for the perovskite solar cells to be used in tandem with or on top of other kinds of solar cells, such as traditional silicon solar cells, because each type of cell absorbs different parts of the solar spectrum. Together with the silicon cells, the total power conversion efficiency, or the efficiency of converting solar energy into electricity, increases to over 33 percent.

To make a perovskite solar cell, a thin layer of perovskite ink solution is deposited onto a base and then heated to set it into a film. The thin perovskite layer absorbs light, exciting a type of charged particle called electrons. These electrons are then extracted to generate electricity. Additional layers of material help direct the flow of electrons and laser scribed channels separate the film into individual cells. Separating the film into individual cells helps lower the current and raise the voltage, making a higher voltage solar device.

The Benefits

When compared to traditional silicon solar panels, perovskites solar cells are cheaper and create fewer emissions. Silicon is rarely found in its pure form, which is the form it is needed in for conventional solar panels. Silicon is mostly found in beach sand as silicon dioxide. To get rid of the excess oxygen, the silicon dioxide is heated in a furnace to a very high temperature of about 1500 to 2000 degrees celsius. The energy required to run these furnaces not only increases the production cost of the silicon solar panels, but also creates additional greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, perovskite solutions are made and set at lower temperatures, therefore resulting in fewer emissions and potentially costing less to produce.

Conventional solar panels are rigid, flat, and heavy, so they are mostly installed on top of roofs or as solar farms. Perovskite solution can be deposited on bases of many different shapes, and it weighs very little. This gives perovskite solar cells more flexibility in the ways they can be used. Perovskite also appears to be more resilient to imperfections in its crystal lattice structure than other materials typically used in solar panels, which improves its performance. These features of the perovskite solar cells, as well as their high power conversion efficiency, that matches that of traditional solar panels at over 26 percent, gives perovskites solar cells the potential to improve accessibility of solar panels.

The Challenges

According to the Integrated Energy Systems Office of the US Department of Energy, there are four primary challenges to the commercialization of perovskite technology: durability, power conversion efficiency at scale, manufacturing, and technology validation and bankability.

The durability of perovskite cells is limited when compared to other solar cells. Perovskites can decompose when exposed to stressors like moisture, oxygen, light for extended periods of time, heat, and applied voltage. Early perovskite devices degraded within a matter of minutes or hours, but now they can last for several months. Still, devices that cannot operate for more than 20 years, or ideally 30, are not likely to be commercially successful.

Perovskites have shown high power conversion efficiency as small devices, but maintaining these high efficiencies in larger devices still needs to be achieved. Methods used in labs for producing perovskite devices are not easily scalable, making uniform and high-performing perovskite material difficult to produce in a large-scale manufacturing facility. This can lead to significant differences between the efficiency of small devices and larger devices.

The US Department of Energy has created several funding programs for perovskite cells, but getting investment from other financial institutions is still a challenge. The testing protocols for perovskite devices are not standardized and there is a lack of field data on their long-term operational behavior. To increase investment in their production, confidence in the technology needs to be increased through standardized testing protocols that can accurately demonstrate how perovskite technologies fare in real-world circumstances.

Marina Leite’s Take

Marina Leite believes that perovskite solar cells have great potential. Perovskite solar cells could reduce the cost of solar panels by at least 30 percent while being better for the environment to produce. Perovskite solar cells can also be placed on top of existing solar panels, increasing overall efficiency.

Leite’s lab is working on discovering the best perovskite materials to use in the solar cells by utilizing machine learning models that help predict the efficiency and durability of each material. The materials are tested under different conditions of light, temperature, oxygen, and humidity to see how they degrade, then machine learning models help extrapolate those results to other environmental conditions and predict the behavior of the material under such conditions days and weeks into the future.

About Our Guest

Marina Leite began her work with solar cells as a post-doctoral scholar at the California Institute of Technology between 2008 and 2011. Currently, Leite is an associate professor at the University of California, Davis, in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, conducting scientific research that helps our society mitigate climate change. Leite is also a UC Davis Chancellor’s Fellow.

Resources

• US Department of Energy, Perovskite Solar Cells
• National Laboratory of the Rockies, Photovoltaic Research
• Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Laser Scribing of Solar Cells
• US Department of Energy, Perovskite Research Challenges
• World Economic Forum, Solar power has big limitations, but Perovskites could change that
• UC Davis Material Science and Engineering, Faculty Spotlight: Marine Leite
• Leite Lab, Materials for Energy Harvesting

For a transcript of this episode, visit https://climatebreak.org/developing-perovskite-solar-cells-with-dr-marina-leite/

Cellular Agriculture

Livestock farming is a major driver of global greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and water consumption, yet global demand for meat continues to rise. Cellular agriculture offers an alternative by cultivating meat from animal cells in a bioreactor. This could significantly reduce the climate and environmental impacts of meat production while delivering the same quality of meat consumers love.

Cells to Meat - How and Why

Current food production systems, particularly for meat, can be among the most harmful human activities for the environment. They often require vast amounts of fresh water and land, are a major source of water pollution, and contribute to about one third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, the demand for meat continues to rise, with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations projecting the demand to reach 445 M metric tons by 2050, which is a 76 percent increase from 2005. Cultured, or cell-based, meat has the potential to remedy these issues. Meat cultured in a bioreactor can avoid harming animal welfare, producing methane, or spreading food-borne diseases, and promotes a more humane, sustainable, and safe way to consume meat without substantial change to consumption habits.

Cultured meat is created by taking cells from an animal and growing them in bioreactors. Through controlling temperature, exposure to nutrients, and other aspects, the cells can be tricked into believing that they are still inside of an animal. Under these carefully monitored conditions, the cells divide and proliferate, or grow exponentially, and mature into muscle and fat tissue through a process called differentiation.

The Potential and the Challenges

Advocates for cultured beef project that it will use less land and water, and produce less greenhouse gas emission compared to farmed beef. Cultured meat additionally has the potential to benefit public health by reducing the spread of food-borne illness, infectious disease, and antimicrobial resistance. Farmed meat can carry countless pathogens, including zoonotic diseases, or diseases that can be passed from animal to human, such as influenza A. During the pandemic, meat-packing plants experienced multitudes of COVID-19 outbreaks. Cell-based meat production is conducted under more sterile conditions, so it has a lower chance of spreading such pathogens.

Despite the promising potential of cultured meat, it faces many challenges when it comes to commercialization. The primary concern of lab-grown meat is the cost. Media, or the food the cells use, is extremely expensive, and bioreactors, which were originally designed to cultivate small quantities of cells at a time, still need to be scaled. Cells are also finicky, so when conditions are unfavorable, they stop growing. With large vessels it is difficult to ensure that the conditions are always optimal for growth. Due to these high production costs, some estimates of the potential cost of cultured meat are approximately $37 per kilogram, which is 10 times more expensive than the cost of regular meat.

In addition, many studies have shown that attitudes towards lab-grown meat are mixed, with some customers having concerns about the ‘unnaturalness’ and about the safety of the product. One study showed that although 65 percent of respondents were willing to try cell-based meat, only approximately 33 percent were willing to eat it regularly or as a replacement for farmed meat. To gain consumer acceptance, the lab-grown alternative must be at a minimum equivalent, if not superior in quality to that of regular meat, which can be especially challenging for meats that require structure, like steak.

Natalie Rubio’s Perspective

Natalie Rubio believes that despite the challenges cell-based meats face, there is tremendous potential and that areas in which current technology is lacking are simply opportunities for new technologies to develop.

Rubio co-founded Deco Labs to take on some of the challenges posed to cultured meat and develop solutions to them. Currently, Deco Labs are experimenting with genetic engineering to make the cells more productive and with creating cheaper media to feed the cells and lower the cost of production. Natalie Rubio believes that despite the current cost of cultured meat, cheaper inputs can lead cell-based meats to becoming cheaper than conventional meat.

About our Guest

Natalie Rubio was one of the first interns at New Harvest and later became a New Harvest Research Fellow. As a fellow, Rubio completed her Ph.D. at Kaplan Lab at Tufts University, being among the first in the world to complete a Ph.D. in cellular agriculture. Currently, Natalie Rubio is a co-founder and CEO of Deco Labs.

Resources

• TEDx Talks, Natalie Rubio on the Journey of Cellular Agriculture
• Fraser et al, The Foundations of Cellular Agriculture
• Rubio et al, Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production
• Economics Research Service USDA, The Economics of Cellular Agriculture
• New Harvest, Natalie Rubio among world’s first cellular agriculture Ph.D

A transcript of this episode can be found at https://climatebreak.org/growing-meat-from-cells-with-dr-natalie-rubio/

What is the Valley Clean Infrastructure Plan?

Golden State Clean Energy aims to turn a large swath of struggling farmland in western Fresno County into a large solar panel installation. The Valley Clean Infrastructure Plan (VCIP) would repurpose up to 136,000 acres of salty, waterlogged agricultural land into more than 20,000 megawatts of solar energy, capable of producing enough electricity to meet up to 15% of California’s needs. The project would also help push California toward its Senate Bill 100 mandate, which requires the state to reach 100% clean electricity by 2045. A single project the size of VCIP could make a meaningful dent in that goal.

Benefits

Chief Operating Officer of Golden State Clean Energy Patrick Mealoy says VCIP alone could cover 10-15% of California's electricity needs– enough to power roughly nine million homes. The project would also cut electricity-related carbon dioxide emissions by 15%. The project’s new transmission line would carry clean power throughout Northern California, reducing the region’s reliance on natural gas, and would ease one of the grid’s worst congestion points between Northern and Southern California. Because the existing farmland is degraded by salt buildup and drainage problems, VCIP frames itself as putting failing land to better use, including optimizing scarce water supplies and cutting dust pollution. The project will also create roughly 6,000 construction jobs and 1,2000 permanent operations jobs. And for family farms sitting on the impaired ground, VCIP offers long-term lease income while keeping the land in the family’s name.

Drawbacks and Critiques

The scale of VCIP makes it a hard sell. Projects this size can spend years in development waiting for energy grid interconnection studies and environmental permitting. Fallow fields can serve as habitat for species that have adapted to the Central Valley, so large solar buildouts still face scrutiny over their ecological impact. And converting farmland to energy infrastructure at this scale raises questions about who holds the water rights tied to that land once it’s no longer farmed, and what happens to the site itself decades from now when the panels are eventually decommissioned.

Patrick Mealoy’s Take

Mealoy sees VCIP as making the best of land that has few other viable uses. This ground is already failing as productive farmland, in a district that’s already fighting drainage and salinity problems. In his view, the choice is between using this land to generate clean power or leaving it fallow, generating no return for the farmers who own it.

About our Guest

Patrick Mealoy is the Chief Operating Officer of Golden State Clean Energy, the developer behind the Valley Clean Infrastructure Plan.

Resources

• Golden State Clean Energy, The Valley Clean Infrastructure Plan
• Canary Media, A Huge Solar Project Grows in California

A transcript of this episode can be found at https://climatebreak.org/building-large-scale-solar-infrastructure-with-patrick-mealoy/

Disabilities During Disasters

Extreme weather events are increasingly frequent and severe, yet emergency response systems often fail to protect disabled people. The Partnership for Inclusive Disaster Strategies (PIDS) is a non-profit working to reform emergency management in the United States by centering disability rights, equity, and accessibility before, during, and after climate-induced disasters.

The Work of The Partnership

Disability inclusion in disasters is multi-faceted; PIDS, or The Partnership, envisions, “disability inclusive engagement throughout disaster preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery to build back better, optimize community resilience, and improve disaster outcomes for all.” The effort to increase inclusivity is critical to improving lifesaving efforts, with 16% of the world’s population and 27% of the US’s population living with a disability. People with disabilities are significantly more likely - up to four times - to be killed or injured during natural disasters. That’s largely because emergency preparedness and response have not been developed to include the disabled community.

One link that has become clearer in recent years is the overlap in the needs of those who have disabilities and those who are aging - both in everyday independent living and in the wake of disasters. Recognizing this, PIDS participates in the Disability and Aging Network, a group of organizations supporting disabled and aging individuals after disasters. PIDS especially supports disability-led organizations in their efforts to meet the needs of their communities.

Before, during, and after a disaster, PIDS can coordinate with emergency response efforts by organizations like FEMA and the Red Cross to advocate for the needs of disabled and aging individuals and to fill other gaps in the traditional humanitarian response. PIDS provides direct services to members of the disabled community and their family and friends during disasters - for instance, they operate a Disability & Disaster hotline, which anyone can call to get help. The hotline provides information and resources, and assistance finding accommodations like temporary housing and transportation.

Broader Applications

PIDS not only does crucial work in times of disaster - they also work behind the scenes to influence advocacy, policy, and systems change. The work PIDS is doing for the disabled community may have applications for others. For instance, the UN reports that, when climate-driven extreme weather events occur, women and children are 14 times more likely to die than men. The strength and frequency of extreme weather is a global issue - though all people are susceptible to the effects of climate change, a community may be more vulnerable due to factors like its geographic situation, economic strength, and demographic makeup. Improving advance planning and emergency response policy, like PIDS advocates for, is important to other vulnerable communities that have been historically underserved during disasters.

Germán’s Take

Germán underscores the population-wide benefits of disability-inclusive strategies. One advantage of a resource like the Disability & Disaster hotline is that it lightens the load on first responders who already have a lot going on. Also, adaptations made to include people with disabilities often have unintended benefits for everyone else. Germán points to curb cuts, which are the ramps between the sidewalk and the street. Though they were initially designed to accommodate wheelchairs and other mobility aids, they also benefit strollers, carts, and children on bicycles and scooters, making the transition from the sidewalk to the street smoother for all.

One way that the disabled community is disproportionately affected by heat waves, storms, and other disasters is power outages. Many people with disabilities or medical conditions rely on energy-intensive devices that support their independence and, in some cases, their survival. Restoring power to individuals can be difficult, especially when they live far from hospitals or other critical services that utilities focus power delivery to in a disaster. Germán sees utility-run battery programs as a step forward in relieving energy anxiety, like PG&E’s Portable Battery Program.

About our guest

Germán Parodi is Co-Executive Director at the Partnership for Inclusive Disaster Strategies, a disability-led organization that addresses the needs of people with disabilities in disaster situations. He serves as the Focal Point for Persons with Disabilities in the Americas for the United Nations Disaster Risk Reduction office.

Resources

• PIDS, Introduction
• NASA, Worsening Extreme Weather
• UN Women, Climate Action to Support Women, Youth, and Girls
• Enterprise Community, Effects of Extreme Weather on Vulnerable Communities

For a transcript of this episode, visit https://climatebreak.org/building-disability-inclusive-disaster-strategies-with-german-parodi/

What is Solar Grazing?

The deployment of utility scale solar has often required clearing vegetation and then using fossil-fuel-powered mowers or toxic herbicides to prevent overgrowth. To reduce these harms, solar grazing is a dual land use approach where livestock is taken to solar farms to manage the vegetation that can grow and interfere with the panels. Solar grazing reduces maintenance emissions, provides a revenue stream for local ranchers, and promotes soil health.

Why it Works: Sheep

Solar grazing is a type of targeted grazing, which is, “the controlled application of specific livestock at a designated season, duration, and intensity to achieve specific landscape and vegetation management goals”. Those goals often include weed control, fire risk reduction, and wildlife habitat enhancement. Solar grazing specifically refers to livestock grazing on solar farms, or, under and around solar arrays. According to the American Solar Grazing Association (ASGA), other terms associated with solar grazing include agrivoltaics (the co-location of agriculture and solar), agrisolar, agri-pv, or rangevoltaics. One grazier compares solar grazing to silvopasture - or, grazing under trees - “Just with metal trees”.

Sheep have been found to be an excellent match for the needs of solar grazing. Sheep are nimble and can work around solar installments, eliminating work that, without re-designing or raising solar panels, can be difficult for humans. The benefits of solar grazing extend beyond vegetation management: sheep have been measured to have lower body temperatures, both in their wool and skin, when they’re shaded by solar panels. Additionally, forage quality and moisture content are higher in the shade where water in the soil evaporates more slowly. Sheep have been shown to drink less water during solar grazing, which reduces water needs for graziers. Solar grazing also eliminates competition for land use between solar developers and graziers.

What’s Left to Learn

Solar grazing has been expanding across the country for the last decade; however, long-term studies on the effects of grazing on biotic and abiotic factors - as well as changes in cost over time - have not been widely conducted. One of the highest costs in solar grazing is transportation and logistics, so in places like the US’s Northeast where most solar farms are around 11 acres, moving sheep makes grazing less affordable. In regions with large or interconnected farms, that cost is reduced; Stacie reports that many sheep are born and live out their lives on one farm. Solar grazing is often viewed as just “mowing with sheep” - not as an active agricultural practice. The American Farmland Trust emphasizes that, on the contrary, “It’s a way to grow food, build soil, create habitat, and generate renewable energy at once.”

Stacie’s Points

Stacie emphasizes that grazing - even in areas where animals have to be rotated between sites - contributes less fossil fuel emissions than mowers that run on diesel. Mowers and weed-whackers have other side effects: blades have a tendency to “throw” rocks, or pick up and eject rocks, which can damage panels and add costs to operation. Also, using any machine powered by combustion increases fire risk.

There’s a demographic shift supported by solar grazing. Often, the greatest financial hurdle to a grazing operation is buying or leasing pasture; for young people who won’t inherit pastureland, solar grazing lowers the barrier to entering the industry. Stacie says that polling done by ASGA shows a lower average age of participants compared to the national average, which sits around 65. Also, a greater proportion of women are involved. Another upside: solar graziers are contracted by solar farms - meaning, instead of paying to lease or buy land, they’re being paid for their service - which adds economic opportunity. On the climate side, Stacie underscores improvement in overall soil health, but especially carbon sequestration. The use of agrivoltaics tends to improve public acceptance of large-scale solar, a key strategy for reducing the country’s dependence on fossil fuels.

About our Guest

Stacie Peterson is the Executive Director of the American Solar Grazing Association. She was a developer of the AgriSolar Clearinghouse for the Department of Energy and the Director of Energy Programs at the National Center for Appropriate Technology. Her environmental research includes the development of a protocol for domestic dogs to serve as bioindicators of metal contamination and cleanup efficacy.

Resources

• Society for Rangeland Management, Targeted Grazing
• Fonseca et al, Solar Shade on Sheep
• American Farmland Trust, Grazing Between the Panels
• Andrew et al, Sheep grazing as sustainable vegetation management for solar energy

For a transcript of this episode, visit https://climatebreak.org/grazing-livestock-on-solar-farms-with-stacie-peterson/

Why Sodium?

The global transition to renewable energy has accelerated the global development of lithium-ion batteries, but the mining and processing of its materials can be harmful to workers, local communities, and the environment. Sodium has a recently emerged as a potentially cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative that could revolutionize battery storage systems. Dr. Shirley Meng is one of the scientists leading the way in this field, spearheading the creation of the world's first anode-free sodium solid-state battery.

Diving Deeper

Dr. Meng’s batteries have three key qualities: they are anode-free, sodium based, and solid-state. Though other researchers have developed batteries with similar characteristics, this is the first time all three have been combined.

Most batteries consist of three main parts: a cathode, anode, and electrolyte. The cathode is the positive pole, the anode is the negative pole, and the electrolyte is the material between the poles. As explained by the MIT School of Engineering, when a battery is connected to an external circuit, electrons move through the circuit, while simultaneously ions move through the electrolyte. The anode in a standard battery stores ions, while an anode-free battery starts out with no active anode material—the ions come entirely from the cathode.

According to laser tech company Laserax, there is one key difference between Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) and Solid State Batteries (SSBs): the electrolyte material. In an LIB, this is a liquid, typically liquid salt dissolved in an organic solvent, which is highly flammable. In an SSB, this liquid is replaced by a solid electrolyte. Dr. Meng calls the electrolyte in her team’s batteries the “magic salt” because it’s primarily made out of sodium chloride - the same chemical as table salt. By supplementing the magic salt with other chemicals like oxygen, yttrium, and zirconia, an ion-conducting electrolyte can be formed.

The Pros and Cons

Dr. Meng’s batteries use sodium in place of the lithium in LIBs. Lithium and other LIB components can only be mined in particular regions, and production - besides being deleterious to the environment - is tightly controlled by a handful of powerful countries. Sodium, on the other hand, is predicted to be about 1200 times more plentiful than lithium in the earth’s crust, and can be accessed from other sources like sea water.

Anode-free batteries are often lighter, cheaper, and more energy-dense than similarly capable standard batteries. However, they can be harder to manufacture and can have shorter lifetimes. As advances are made by other researchers working on alternate battery structures, these challenges will likely be overcome, as have similar difficulties with LIBs. Dr. Meng’s batteries operate best in the lab at low external temperatures, which fills a gap in the battery market in extremely cold climates; however, scalability and widespread use demands that batteries function in a wide temperature range.

Solid-state batteries also come with a range of benefits and challenges. Besides being less flammable, they can have faster charging, higher energy capacity, and longer lifetimes compared to LIBs. However, they are susceptible to the formation of dendrites - or, tree-like metallic structures on the anode - which form during charging and can cause short circuits. Solid electrolytes are prone to cracking under mechanical stress, both in manufacturing and use. Like anode-free batteries and other cutting edge battery tech, SSBs have a long way to go in terms of scalability, but show promise in the future of battery development.

Dr. Meng’s Take

Dr. Meng emphasizes that Sodium-ion battery technology is not new - research began back in the 1960s, but was outpaced by lithium-ion research, which at the time showed better results. Additionally, sodium batteries aren’t necessarily a replacement for lithium batteries, but rather a complementary technology that many companies will be able to produce without much capital investment. With the combination of these battery technologies, there is potential to moderate the cost of electricity at peak use times. Dr. Meng predicts that sodium-ion batteries may be able to compete with lithium-ion and lead-acid batteries in the next five years, and suggests that until then, costly but compact lithium batteries might be used in mobile applications, like computers, while sodium batteries - which for now are heavier - can be used for stationary purposes, like grid storage. Overall, she feels that it's “critical that all of us… stop temperature rise” - and sodium-ion batteries are a key step in the plan.

About our guest

Dr. Shirley Meng is the Liew Family Professor in Molecular Engineering at the Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering at the University of Chicago. She is also the Distinguished University Professor and Vice President (Industry) at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. She directs the Energy Storage Research Alliance and is the principal investigator of the Laboratory for Energy Storage and Conversion (LESC) at UCSD. Her research focuses primarily on energy storage materials and systems – including rechargeable batteries and grid-scale storage for renewable energy.

Resources

• UChicago, Team Develops Battery
• Nature Energy, Design principles for enabling an anode-free sodium all-solid-state battery
• LESC, Recent news
• Physics Today, Solid State Batteries - Hype, Hopes, and Hurdles
• Chemical Review, Anode-Free Batteries

For a transcript of this episode, visit https://climatebreak.org/the-future-of-battery-storage-with-dr-shirley-meng/

Introduction

Mozzarella accounts for over 30% of all cheese produced in the U.S., more than any other variety. So when New Culture, a San Francisco-based food technology company, set out to remake vegan cheese, they started with the pizza topping millions of Americans know and love. New Culture, co-founded by guest Matt Gibson, relies on fermentation to make animal-free cheese that melts, stretches, and tastes like the real thing. Crucially, this process cuts down on the emissions, land, and water dairy farming requires.

Background

Dairy production is a large driver of climate change. According to the BBC, cheese has the third-largest agricultural carbon footprint, after lamb and beef. Methane released by cows, sheep, and goats is a major contributor, along with the land and water needed to raise the animals. The process of cheesemaking multiplies this carbon footprint:it takes roughly ten pounds of milk to produce a single pound of cheese, meaning the carbon emissions of cheese are concentrated tenfold.

New Culture sidesteps both livestock and the plant-based substitutes that have tried to replace them by manufacturing casein– the protein responsible for cheese’s stretch and gooeyness. As Gibson explains, the company trains microbes to produce casein inside fermentation tanks, similar to the process used to brew beer. The microbes feed on sugars to produce casein, and that protein is then combined with plant-based fats to create the finished cheese. This method, known as precision fermentation, dates back to the 1970s, when researchers first used E. coli to produce human insulin.

Advantages

According to Gibson, switching from dairy to New Culture’s cheese cuts greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 86%, with a 97% reduction in land use and a 98% reduction in water use.

Perhaps equally as important, New Culture doesn’t ask consumers to compromise on taste or texture. The manufactured casein is molecularly identical to what’s found in dairy milk, meaning that the cheese melts the way people expect. This is something most conventional plant-based cheeses, which lack casein entirely, have not been able to replicate. The switch from dairy cheese to an alternative, then, is now potentially more palatable.

Drawbacks and Critiques

Producing precision-fermented proteins is significantly more expensive than regular dairy products. Gibson acknowledges this, explaining that dairy is a heavily subsidized industry, and New Culture’s casein protein is the most expensive part of its cheese. The company has had to engineer ways to use less protein per product without sacrificing quality to stay competitive. He also points to the challenge of limited fermentation tanks and infrastructure.

And it’s worth noting that the same trait that makes New Culture’s cheese taste like the real thing also carries a drawback. Because its casein is identical to the casein found in ruminant milk, someone with a milk allergy would still react to the cheese, even though no animal was involved in making it. This distinction could complicate how the product gets marketed and understood, since “animal-free” doesn’t necessarily equate to “dairy-free.”

The Guest’s Take

Gibson believes that “taste is king in the food world,” and because New Culture’s cheese is “indistinguishable to dairy cheese,” consumers aren’t giving anything up on the experience. He’s hopeful that as New Culture grows, costs will lower and its products will be adopted by mass-market restaurant chains where climate impact could be the greatest. For now, you can get a taste of New Culture mozzarella at partner restaurants like Pizzeria Mozza in LA.

About the Guest

Matt Gibson is the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of New Culture. He holds a Bachelor of Science in genetics and microbiology from the University of Auckland in his native New Zealand. Before co-founding New Culture, Gibson went vegan out of concern for the environmental and animal welfare impacts of dairy production.

Other Resources & Further Reading

• New Culture Website: New Culture
• The Good Food Institute Europe: The History of Precision Fermentation
• Vegpreneur: Matt Gibson’s Biography

For a transcript of this episode, visit https://climatebreak.org/making-cheese-with-microbes-with-matt-gibson/

Introduction

As California works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, the transition to energy-efficient homes is an important opportunity for climate careers. The Rising Sun Center for Opportunity, a California-based nonprofit managed by Julia Hatton, helps address challenges faced by those in underserved communities when it comes to job training. Through hands-on programs, participants can gain valuable skills as they work to improve green buildings.

Background

Buildings account for over 40% of the global energy consumption and carbon emissions, making improvements to the energy and water efficiency of local homes an important part of climate strategy. As a result, the transition to clean energy creates a high demand for workers trained in energy efficiency and green construction—and there is a global shortage of workers with the applicable skills.

The Rising Sun Center for Opportunity assists not only with the immediate need, but also in building career pathways focused on long-term climate resilience. By employing young people from low-income backgrounds in the Bay and Central California, this nonprofit works as a launchpad for future climate action.

Advantages

Climate job training addresses both economic and environmental challenges simultaneously. Participants gain practical skills to help them enter the green industry, while households can receive services that save energy and water.

The hands-on approach that the Rising Sun Center for Opportunity utilizes furthers this endeavor, especially with the focus it has on leveling the playing field. With programs specializing in preparing youth, women, and individuals in reentry, a diverse range of participants can work directly in homes and communities. This provides immediate climate benefits to recipients of service, while workers gain experience in real-world projects that equip them with skills necessary for a long-term career.

Drawbacks and Critiques

Some contend that climate job training doesn’t always translate into long-term climate employment. Although the Rising Sun Center for Opportunity may provide an efficient starting point, participants are not guaranteed a green career, especially if employers require other additional experiences or skills.

There is also a need to ensure that the climate transition doesn’t just create jobs; it should also help establish economic power for those who have been marginalized from careers, as Hatton emphasizes. Although the Rising Sun Center for Opportunity aims to coordinate efforts from a wide group of historically disadvantaged communities, it’s crucial that efforts translate into real impact.

The Guest’s Take

Ms. Julia Hatton believes that investment in workers in green jobs is crucial to advance response to climate change. Rather than identifying job creation and reducing emissions as separate goals, Hatton sees potential in merging and combating both actions at once: by allowing them to reinforce each other.

About the Guest

Ms. Julia Hatton is the President & Chief Executive Officer at Rising Sun Center for Opportunity, committed to climate job training for underserved communities to lead climate action. She takes charge in leading innovation in the workforce and climate sector alike.

Other Resources & Further Reading

• Rising Sun Center for Opportunity Website: Rising Sun
• ScienceDirect: Energy-related carbon emissions in the building sector
• Green Jobs Network: Climate Job Training
• California Climate Investments: Workforce Development

For a transcript of this episode, please visit https://climatebreak.org/building-a-climate-workforce-with-julia-hatton/

The Global Transition

As the global transition to clean energy accelerates, scaling solar infrastructure has emerged as one of the most critical pathways to achieving a net-zero future. However, this rapid buildout could bring an increasingly large amount of waste as solar panels reach their end of life. To avoid this, recycling offers a dual climate solution: it significantly reduces the greenhouse gas emissions associated with primary mining and provides a supply of pre-refined, low-carbon materials that can be used to make new panels.

The Role of Solar Panels

Transitioning away from fossil fuels and achieving net-zero carbon emissions at a global scale requires rapid deployment of renewable technologies. For solar energy specifically, the amount of solar infrastructure needed on Earth to meet climate goals is about 16 times what has already been built. This buildout demands large quantities of raw materials, including glass, silica sand, silver, copper, and aluminum. While these resources are traditionally mined from the Earth, they can also be recovered directly from solar panels once they reach their end-of-life.

Extracting and processing raw materials for solar panels through primary mining is resource-intensive, and recycling those materials significantly reduces the panels’ manufacturing emissions. Similarly, integrating recycled solar glass cullet into manufacturing lowers furnace operating temperatures, cutting energy consumption by 2.5% to 3% for every 10% of cullet added and reducing the overall energy and emissions needed to produce new glass.

If solar panels are taken to traditional e-waste recycling facilities, these sites typically rely on bulk shredding, a process that destroys material purity and scatters valuable metals. In contrast, the solar recycling process from SOLARCYCLE uses a step-by-step “reverse manufacturing” sequence in which the company strips away the junction box, removes the aluminum frame, and isolates the specialized glass to recover up to 97% of a panel’s material value. Furthermore, because solar manufacturing has evolved to generate more energy using fewer materials, the elements recovered from decommissioned panels can be the basis to build newer, higher-efficiency arrays that generate even more clean power.

The Impact on Energy and Raw Materials

Solar panel recycling requires dramatically less energy input, potentially avoiding up to 95% of the CO2 emissions and 95% of the energy needed to mine and process raw aluminum for new solar panels. What’s more, this technology can recover up to 99% or more of key materials like glass and metals.

Likewise, because this solution recovers critical resources like silver and copper from existing infrastructure, the technology can be used to mine materials from what has already been produced and collected rather than extracting new minerals from the Earth. This means the technology has the potential to eliminate up to 25% of manufacturing emissions for specialized solar glass, while diverting toxic chemicals like lead and cadmium away from landfills to protect environmental and human health.

Challenges: Recyclability and Economics

Currently, panels have not been designed for recyclability, making the process of separating their tightly sealed layers a technical challenge. Because solar manufacturers operate on very thin or negative profit margins, they have rarely prioritized design-for-recyclability features, leaving decades of panels that will need specialized, intensive processing when they decommission. Scaling this technology also presents operational challenges because, while recycling thousands of panels is manageable, processing the millions of units at scale will require tooling that a supporting industry cannot yet provide.

Solar panel recycling currently struggles to compete economically with traditional waste disposal depending on local geography. In countries like the United States, landfill remains the cheaper option, creating a financial gap that can deter asset owners from recycling the panels. Moreover, the process cannot yet achieve a fully circular loop for all components. Certain materials, like thermoset plastics, are unrecyclable and must be diverted to waste-to-energy processes. Finally, the industry faces regulatory risks from “sham recycling”, where bad actors take upfront payments but fail to manage the materials properly, creating an environmental hazard by exposing toxic lead or cadmium to the soil.

The Guest’s Take

Pablo Dias sees solar panel recycling as an essential part of the energy transition. For him, this process closes the loop on a true circular economy by allowing discarded panels to be mined for valuable resources like aluminum, silver, and copper instead of extracting raw materials from the Earth. This is part of a broader vision for a waste-free solar industry, turning end-of-life solar panels into a tool to drastically reduce the industry’s emissions and eliminate the environmental and social risks of heavy metal leaching.

About the Guest

Dr. Pablo Dias is the Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of SOLARCYCLE, a recycling platform designed to build a circular economy for the solar industry.

Further Reading

• SOLARCYCLE
• Resources on Solar Panel Recycling (SOLARCYCLE)
• ScienceDirect: High yield, low cost, environmentally friendly process to recycle silicon solar panels: Technical, economic and environmental feasibility assessment
• Wiley Online Library: Recycling Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Modules
• Grist: What happens when solar panels wear out?
• Personal Website – Pablo Dias

For a transcript of this episode, visit https://climatebreak.org/recycling-solar-panels-with-pablo-dias/

What is TEK?

As climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, traditional land and water management approaches are proving insufficient to protect ecosystems and communities. Restoring tribal stewardship by re-establishing Indigenous leadership, returning ancestral lands, and applying Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) offers a holistic climate solution. By working with nature through practices like cultural fires, wetland restoration, and natural carbon capture, tribal stewardship builds ecosystem resilience, reduces wildfire and flood risks, and enhances natural carbon sequestration across California.

How We Got Here

Before European colonization, Native communities managed California’s ecosystems for millennia through practices rooted in place-based TEK. Settler colonialism displaced those communities and severed TEK from ecosystem management. In California, this included the criminalization of cultural burning practices and the non-ratification of 18 negotiated federal treaties in the 1850s, which broke promises to reserve 7.5 million acres of permanent tribal homelands. Decades of fire suppression and environmental degradation have left forests overgrown with dry biomass and ecosystems vulnerable to hazards such as severe wildfires, flooding, and biodiversity loss.

What Now?

To begin addressing these historical wrongs and build climate resilience, in March of 2026 the California Natural Resources Agency launched a policy aimed at restoring meaningful tribal stewardship across at least 7.5 million acres of land and coastal waters. The policy outlines three pathways:

• Ancestral land return — land acquisitions by Native communities through state grants and land trust partnerships,
• Co-Management and collaboration — shared or delegated decision-making power between tribal and non-tribal entities for joint conservation, and
• Durable tribal access — removal of legal and administrative barriers so Native cultural practitioners can access ancestral territories.

Advantages

The main advantage of tribal stewardship is its ability to proactively mitigate extreme climate risks and restore ecosystems. Low-intensity cultural burning clears out woody biomass and dry plant material, preventing severe fuel buildup and slowing down catastrophic wildfires. In water ecosystems, restoring native wetland species like tule beds slows down floodwaters, enhances groundwater infiltration, and stabilizes freshwater ecosystems. Similarly, restoration of coastal kelp forests protects critical natural carbon sinks while cooling ocean waters.

Likewise, facilitating tribal stewardship can promote Indigenous-led initiatives such as clean energy microgrids, which can provide surrounding rural communities with emergency power, shelter, and resources during climate-induced disasters. Ultimately, grounding land return targets in historical treaty obligations takes concrete, tangible steps toward truth, healing, and repairing historical injustices committed against Native communities.

Drawbacks

A current constraint of implementing tribal stewardship at scale is the ongoing challenge of securing durable, long-term funding for land reacquisition and management, especially when relying on fluctuating state budget cycles or bond measures. Negotiating co-management agreements also presents deep administrative challenges, as navigating complex, siloed legal structures across federal, state, local, and private landowning entities requires significant time and institutional coordination.

Additionally, given that landscapes have suffered from severe degradation and artificial fire suppression, safely reintroducing controlled cultural practices requires intensive labor, resources, and careful planning to avoid runaway risks in overgrown forests. Finally, non-tribal government entities often struggle to integrate traditional knowledge because they aren’t designed to blend Indigenous expertise with their laws and policies.

The Guest’s Take

Geneva EB Thompson views tribal stewardship not only as a conservation strategy, but as an essential framework for climate resilience and environmental justice. For her, empowering tribes to steward land and water ecosystems creates a positive ripple effect that yields healthier, safer, and more resilient communities for all Californians. She emphasizes that all of California is ancestral Indigenous territory, and that centering Native leadership and place-based expertise in ecosystem management is vital for addressing interconnected climate hazards.

About the Guest

Geneva EB Thompson is the Deputy Secretary for Tribal Affairs at the California Natural Resources Agency.

Further Reading

• California Natural Resources Agency – Tribal Stewardship Policy
• Sierra Club – Indigenous Co-Stewardship Policy & Guidance
• Popular Science – How tribal co-managing movements are transforming the conservation of public lands
• Indigenous Land & Data Stewards Lab –Resource Hub
• The Nature Conservancy – Partnering with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
• National Park Service –Indigenous Fire Practices Shape Our Land

For a transcript, please visit https://climatebreak.org/approaching-climate-change-through-tribal-stewardship-with-geneva-eb-thompson/

Introduction to Green Tech Hubs

Small green tech startups often possess groundbreaking ideas to combat climate issues, but lack the market resources, capital, and visibility to make large-scale impact. However, the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation (HKSTP) Green Tech Hub is taking initiative for a change. By creating connected workspaces and acting as a launchpad for startups, the hub fosters more collaborative and impactful climate innovation.

Background

A physical community of more than 230 companies with work stretching across new energy, smart cities, green buildings, and green fintech are changing the equation. The green tech hub co-locates companies with similar goals, facilitates business matchmaking, and offers hands-on training to attract investors. In this way, the global transition towards sustainable technology is accelerated through a joint effort.

Advantages

The hub acts as a bridge between small companies’ operational struggles and their passion, ambition, and goals. By equipping green innovators with the network, visibility, and skills necessary to expand, green tech hubs help these startups overcome market challenges. Green tech hubs also promote businesses’ climate-friendly products for targeted marketing, especially overseas, connecting innovators with potential clients and investors. In addition, the mentorship program assists in product design to better suit the market.

Globally, as green tech reaches the market, the hope is that it will replace climate-harming technology, taking advantage of the close proximity of innovators thereby promoting the transfer of knowledge. Across networks, founders can promote the best products to be implemented on a wide scale. Because Hong Kong is ranked as the #1 freest economy in the world and #2 for enterprise conditions, green tech hubs can benefit from this gateway for technological innovation and expansion with the right tools. These hubs are becoming increasingly crucial to a sustainable world as the urgency to address environmental degradation grows.

Drawbacks and Critiques

A potential drawback to green tech hubs is the fact it’s a public-private partnership between Hong Kong’s government and companies. Being tied to the government exposes the hubs to swings in government decisions, policies, and goals. Without proper design or understanding for the entrepreneurial process, governments struggle to balance their positions as catalysts with limited control in entrepreneurship.

Some economists also argue against the model that green tech hubs possess: the “cluster,” where similar businesses are grouped together—especially for startups. New, small companies may thrive better within highly diverse environments, exposing innovators to different products, models, and fields, rather than being limited to counterparts of similar technologies and goals.

The Guest’s Take

For Mr. Howard Lee, green tech hubs are a way to change the equation—allowing small innovators to effectively combat climate issues with sufficient magnitude. To displace climate-harming technologies on a global scale, Mr. Lee emphasizes the importance of inspiration and creativity that results from collaboration among passionate changemakers.

About the Guest

Mr. Howard Lee is the associate director of Hong Kong’s green technology hub at Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation, aiming to connect scientific and technological knowledge with stakeholders to accelerate green innovation. With a public-private partnership between the Hong Kong government and businesses/investors, Mr. Lee focuses on promoting climate-friendly companies through green tech hubs.

Other Resources & Further Reading

• HKSTP Website: HKSTP.org
• InvestHK: Guide to Navigate the Green Tech Market
• Iir News: Green Tech Hubs: Sparking Sustainable Innovation
• Princeton University Press: Boulevard of Broken Dreams
• American Economic Association: Nursery Cities

For a transcript of this episode, please visit [https://climatebreak.org/green-tech-hubs-scaling-climate-technology-startups/]

•
•

A Clean Energy Campus

In July 2025, the University of California Board of Regents approved a plan to modernize UC Berkeley’s energy infrastructure by replacing its aged steam system with efficient, all-electric heating and cooling systems.

Today, 90% of Berkeley’s power comes from the combustion of natural gas at UC Berkeley’s costly and outdated fossil gas cogeneration plant. However, the plant is nearing the end of its life: it has less than a decade of life left, and is a source of frequent, costly, and disruptive repairs on campus (UC Berkeley Clean Energy Campus). In an effort to build a more sustainable future, the plan seeks to phase out fossil fuel use for powering, heating, and cooling campus buildings by 2035 or sooner.

Advantages

The plan is primarily funded by a capital investment from the State of California, and will be conducted in 3 phases. Phase 1, which will take place from mid-2026 through 2030, will electrify Berkeley’s heating and cooling plant, upgrade electrical infrastructure, improve thermal energy storage, distribute heated and chilled water through an underground system, and update the accessibility of landscaping and pathways on campus (UC Berkeley Clean Energy Campus). The plan not only predicts a 70% reduction in carbon emissions from campus buildings by 2028 and a 59% reduction in campus-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2035 and promotion of energy resilience, but also promises to create new employment and training opportunities, distributing the benefits of clean energy across the campus and the local community (CEC First Phase Underway).

The project’s primary priority is the establishment of an Electrified Heating and Cooling Plant (EHCP). The new system, rather than relying on steam and natural gas, will develop a fully functional clean energy microgrid. A major component of this includes a “new central electrified heating and cooling plant capable of serving more than 12 million square feet of building space,” located underneath a new recreational field (CEC First Phase Underway). The plant functions primarily through a “geothermal” mechanism: an underground heat exchange will distribute hot and chilled water throughout campus to heat and cool buildings (Berkeley Energy and Resources Collaborative).

UC Berkeley is not alone in its goals to phase out fossil fuels — both UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz — are making similar long-term plans for transitioning to renewable energy sources (University of California). Each of the individual campus’ goals align with the UC system’s new climate policy, which aims to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions across all ten campuses by 2045 (University of California).

Drawbacks

While the plan would undoubtedly make strides in UC Berkeley’s plans to reduce their carbon footprint, its success is not guaranteed. Of the $700 million required to complete the plan, UC Berkeley has currently secured $270 million (Cal Alumni Association). In order to ensure the project is seen through, pressure on campus leadership and the State of California to maintain continued funding is critical.

About our guest

Sally McGarrahan oversees the Berkeley Clean Energy Campus Project at UC Berkeley’s Office of Facility Services. Before joining UC Berkeley, she held executive positions at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the City of San José, and the City of Oakland, where she managed large utility systems, capital programs, and public works departments.

Resources

• November 2023 Update, CEC First Phase Underway
• Home, Clean Energy Campus
• UC Berkeley Clean Energy Campus Utility Improvement Project, Youtube
• UC Berkeley Goes All-Electric As Part of Ambitious Clean Energy Campus Plan, Cal Alumni Association
• UC Berkeley’s Clean Energy Campus – A Sequential Plan for Success, Berkeley Energy and Resources Collaborative

Further Reading

• How three UC campuses are phasing out fossil fuel, University of California
• With major strides toward decarbonization, Brown to create sustainable thermal energy system, Brown University
• Campus-wide electrical upgrades will help Stanford achieve climate goals, Stanford Report

For a transcript, please visit https://climatebreak.org/building-berkeleys-clean-energy-campus-with-sally-mcgarrahan/

Impacts of Heat Waves on Human Health

Across the United States, climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of heat waves. A heat wave is defined as a persistent period of high temperature days. Although unusually hot days are a natural part of day-to-day variations in weather, heat waves are becoming more common alongside the rapidly accelerating climate crisis. In major cities across the country, the number of heat waves has increased steadily, from two heat waves per year in the 1960s to six per year into the 2010s and 2020s. In the 1960s, the average heat wave was 2.0 degrees above the local 85th percentile threshold, while the average heat wave during the 2020s has been 2.5 degrees above the local threshold. Approximately 210 million Americans, or two thirds of the population, live in counties vulnerable to health threats from high temperatures. As temperatures increase, the number of heat-related illnesses, emergency room visits, and deaths simultaneously increase. As we head further into the 21st century, adaptive measures to protect human health from the effects of extreme heat waves will be necessary in the face of rising climate risk.

Protecting yourself during extreme heat

Over the past three decades, heat waves have been the leading cause of weather-related fatalities across the nation. In addition to rising heat-related illnesses and deaths, extreme heat can also worsen health outcomes from chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and acute kidney injury. Extreme temperatures compromise the body’s ability to regulate its internal temperature, resulting in illness, heat cramps, heat exhaustion, heatstroke, and hyperthermia. Individuals living in densely populated cities are extremely vulnerable to the urban heat island effect, which exacerbates high heat temperatures as man made surfaces absorb sunlight during the day and radiate the stored energy at night as heat. Children, the elderly, people experiencing homelessness, low-income communities and individuals with pre-existing health conditions are at the greatest risk to the adverse effects of extreme heat. As temperatures continue to rise, it is necessary that individuals take on adaptive measures to protect themselves from the health risks posed by extreme heat.

Action can be taken on both a policy and an individual level. Local governments can take steps to help residents reduce their vulnerability to heat through heat management plans and vulnerability assessments. For example, officials can create early warning systems and urban cooling centers for individuals to find refuge. On an individual scale, when you need to go outside, taking preventive measures such as sun protection, hats, and umbrellas is vital to stay cool. Trying to stay inside as much as possible and finding refuge from the heat will help one avoid the risks of heatstroke. More educational initiatives will be vital in informing individuals on risk factors, symptoms, and treatment steps to keep people safe and informed.

Benefits of protecting oneself during extreme heat

During periods of extreme heat, it is important to take proper care of yourself in order to mitigate the health effects that result from high temperatures such as dehydration, heat stroke, exhaustion, and slowed cognitive function. Taking extreme heat seriously is vital, as the effects of extreme temperatures can be as serious as sudden events like heart attack or stroke. Prolonged periods of heat and humidity make your body work extra hard to maintain a normal temperature, so taking such precautions is necessary to protect yourself and your loved ones. As extreme heat-related weather events become more common, becoming accustomed to the ways you can keep yourself safe is imperative in a warming world.

More progress can be made

If we fail to take adaptation measures on both an individual and policy level, we will be unprepared to respond to the impacts of extreme heat. As extreme heat rises in prevalence, more awareness on the ways to respond to increasingly high temperatures can help individuals adapt to such events. Currently, heat is already the weather phenomenon that kills the most people in the United States, so taking care of yourself, family, and neighbors during heat waves is essential to saving lives. For residents who do not have the resources or cooling systems in place to seek protection during a heat wave, the use of cooling centers in cities can provide short-term relief. Important to note, however, is that the increased use of cooling systems will heighten electricity costs due to increasing demand, thereby generating more greenhouse gas emissions from rising power generation. If leaks are to occur, concerns can also arise around the potential release of potent refrigerant gasses, which worsen climate change and damage the ozone layer. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle in that air conditioning is used to treat extreme temperatures, but effectively worsens the climate crisis in doing so. More innovative solutions will be necessary to curtail emissions while keeping individuals safe. Beyond individual actions during times of crisis, cities also need to help their residents respond to rising temperatures in the long-term by redesigning public spaces, planting trees to provide cooling, painting rooftops white to repel sunlight, and incorporating new cooling technologies in buildings and homes.

About our guest

Dr. David Sklar is an Assistant Dean at the Arizona State University School of Medicine and Advanced Medical Engineering, is a Professor at the ASU College of Health Solutions and works as an emergency physician. Former Editor in Chief of Academic Medicine, Dr. Sklar now works as a senior advisor in health policy and health professions education at ASU Health. Dr. Sklar works to increase awareness on mitigative steps individuals can take to decrease their health risks from extreme heat events.

Resources

• Indiana University: Adaptation strategies for extreme heat and public health
• NRDC: Climate Change and Health: Extreme Heat
• EPA: Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves
• WHO: Heat and Health
• NIH: Temperature-related Death and Illness

Further Reading

• Penn State: Climate-driven extreme heat may make parts of Earth too hot for humans
• Arch Daily:How to Adapt Cities to Extreme Heat
• White House: Planning Tools for Combatting Extreme Heat

For a transcript, please visit https://climatebreak.org/staying-safe-in-extreme-heat-with-dr-david-sklar/

What is Climate Cabinet?

Most climate advocates focus their energy on Washington– but often, real change happens closer to home. Climate Cabinet, founded by Caroline Spears, is dedicated to backing and electing climate champions at the state and local level, where the work of cutting emissions, lowering energy costs, and building clean transportation largely gets done.

Focusing Locally

While presidential races and Senate battles dominate national attention, decisions about electricity grids, transit systems, housing density, and building codes are being made day-to-day by city councils, county boards, state legislatures, and utility commissions.

Climate Cabinet describes their approach as “Moneyball for Climate”-- borrowing the analytics term made famous in baseball, where data is used to find undervalued players with outsized potential. Applied to politics, it means identifying overlooked races where a relatively small investment can shift climate policy. Candidate selection is non-partisan in practice. Rather than relying on party affiliation, Climate Cabinet examines candidate’s voting records, looking at how candidates have acted when major issues came before their city council, county board, or state legislature. They then back promising candidates early, providing financial support and policy expertise to help them build a winning campaign.

One of the most surprising– and consequential– offices Climate Cabinet focuses on is the utility commission. In select states, these commissioners are elected directly by voters, giving the public a rare and often overlooked say in how electricity is generated and priced.

How it Makes a Difference

State and local elections are often decided by thin margins and operate on small budgets compared to federal races. So unlike at the federal level, volunteer hours, early endorsements, and targeted outreach can be incredibly effective at building support for specific candidates. Climate Cabinet’s win rate reflects this– according to Spears, the organization has won 62% of its top priority races, spanning municipal, county, and state offices.

And because state and local officials are often closer to the problems their constituents face, the case for climate action is often easier to make. A state legislator can point to lower electricity bills from renewable energy, a city council member can garner support for more efficient bus service, a utility commissioner can push for faster grid buildout. Climate action, then, becomes a direct way to lower electricity bills, improve air quality, and expand transit access.

Challenges

With hundreds of thousands of elected positions across the country, even a well-resourced organization can only engage in a fraction of the races that matter. Spears also notes the difficulty of cutting through the noise in a fractured media environment. Many of Climate Cabinet’s candidates are running for offices most voters don’t think about, such as state budget committees and utility boards– making voter outreach and name recognition an uphill battle even in favorable districts.

The political environment itself remains a structural barrier. Running for office at any level has become more difficult, with political violence on the rise and entrenched interests– fossil fuel companies and real estate developers, to name a few– actively working to block climate-friendly candidates.

Spears’ View

For Spears, the goal is to build a political environment in which supporting clean energy, affordable housing near transit, and zero-carbon transportation is the natural, low-resistance choice for any elected official.

She’s also clear-eyed about what motivates the best candidates she works with: a real commitment to their communities, not necessarily ambition for higher office. Spears is particularly focused on transportation– the largest single source of climate pollution in the U.S.-- and on finding candidates who understand that the path to zero-carbon transit looks different in each state, requiring local leadership to deliver.

About Our Guest

Caroline Spears is the founder and Executive Director of Climate Cabinet, an organization that makes local climate policy solutions actionable for policymakers. She earned her B.S. and M.S. in Atmosphere and Energy Engineering from Stanford University. Before founding Climate Cabinet, she worked in solar energy.

Other Resources & Further Reading

• Climate Cabinet website: Climate Cabinet
• The Chisholm Legacy Project: Demystifying and Democratizing Public Utility Commissions
• The Guardian: Inside the climate group working everywhere but DC: ‘You can still have huge wins’
• Caroline Spears biography: Caroline Spears

For a transcript please visit, climatebreak.org/backing-climate-champions-in-local-elections-with-caroline-spears/

Introduction

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has established himself to be one of California’s leading legal advocates for climate accountability. Through lawsuits against big fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips, Bonta alleges that the industry misled the public about the climate impacts of their products. As federal environmental protections face increasing challenges, he has also led legal efforts against actions by the Trump administration that California argues undermine clean energy, environmental safeguards, and climate progress.

Background

States such as California have turned to litigation as a way to preserve environmental protections and advance climate action.Many of these efforts are led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office is currently involved in 67 lawsuits, including several focused on environmental and climate issues.

Transportation remains California's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for roughly half of the state's total emissions. In response, California adopted aggressive vehicle-emissions standards and zero-emission vehicle requirements. These standards were enabled through waivers granted under the federal Clean Air Act. Recent efforts by Congress to overturn or weaken these authorities have triggered new legal battles over the future of vehicle emissions regulation at the state level.

The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA held that greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The ruling ultimately led to the EPA's Endangerment Finding, the scientific and legal determination that greenhouse gas emissions harm public health and welfare. That finding became the basis for federal greenhouse-gas regulations across multiple sectors, but notably provided an avenue for transportation regulations. The Trump administration's efforts to rescind the Endangerment Finding and eliminate vehicle-emissions standards represents one of the most significant climate-policy reversals in decades. California is suing to stop the rescission.

Beyond regulatory disputes, California has also pursued accountability from fossil fuel companies. In ongoing litigation against major oil producers, including ExxonMobil and Shell, the state alleges that companies misled the public for decades about the climate risks associated with fossil fuel use while continuing to promote products that contributed to rising emissions.

Advantages

Litigation gives states the power to hold the federal government and companies responsible for violations of the law. By bringing cases against the federal government, states can challenge actions they believe violate environmental laws and ensure that agencies follow existing legal requirements. Lawsuits also serve as an important component of the United States' system of checks and balances, allowing courts to review government decisions and determine whether they comply with the law.

Drawbacks

Despite its potential benefits, litigation is often a slow and uncertain path to climate action. Court cases can take months or even years to reach a final resolution, particularly when they involve appeals that move through multiple levels of the judicial system. Critics also argue that major climate decisions are better addressed through elected legislatures than through the courts. While lawsuits can enforce existing laws, they cannot always provide the comprehensive policy solutions needed to reduce emissions at the scale required to address climate change.

Bonta’s Take

Attorney General Rob Bonta views litigation as one of California's most effective tools for advancing climate action and protecting environmental regulations. He argues that the courts provide a venue where disputes can be evaluated based on evidence, legal precedent, and statutory authority rather than political considerations. Through lawsuits against federal actions and fossil fuel companies, Bonta hopes to give Californians a voice in legal decisions that could affect the state's environmental future.

Bonta emphasizes that his office's role is not to pursue political objectives, but to uphold the law and the Constitution. According to Bonta, decisions about which cases to bring are guided by facts, legal analysis, and the state's responsibility to protect its residents. He argues that when government agencies or private companies violate environmental laws or mislead the public, the legal system provides an important mechanism for accountability.

About our guest

Sworn in as California’s 34th Attorney General in 2021, Rob Bonta has become a leading legal advocate for California residents. As the head of the nation’s largest state Department of Justice, he oversees efforts to protect consumers, defend civil rights, and enforce environmental laws. With a 80% case win rate in court Bonta continues to work hard to be the heart of California’s legal justice.

For a transcript, please visit climatebreak.org/advancing-climate-solutions-through-legal-action-with-rob-bonta/

Introduction to the Solution

Keeping buildings cool is becoming one of our fastest growing and energy-intensive challenges. A startup based in Hong Kong pioneers for an answer already existing in nature– the outer layer of a tiny ant that survives one of the hottest places on Earth. Dr. Martin Zhu and his co-founder mimicked the heat-repelling biology of the Saharan silver ant to develop cooling technology that remains electricity-free.

Background: From the Saharan Silver Ant to Zero-Energy Cooling

Cooling maintains around 10% of global electricity demand. In the hottest regions, cooling can account for over 70% of peak electricity demand.

The biological inspiration behind i2Cool’s technology, the Saharan silver ant, has evolved to be a solution in the transition to zero-energy cooling. The ant endures desert heat through its surface hairs with a distinctive structure that reflects solar energy and emits body heat as radiation in a specific wavelength range. This wavelength passes through the atmosphere into outer space, effectively cooling the ant without any energy input.

The team replicates this using engineered nanoparticles embedded in various materials, like paint coatings, window films, ceramics, and textiles. The i2Cool’s research team integrated this heat transfer principle to produce a multi-component and multi-scale solution, efficient in solar reflectivity and mid-infared emissivity of up to 95%.

Advantages

The most significant advantage of passive radiative cooling is that it requires no energy input, unlike traditional air conditioning. This technology can reduce surface temperature up to 42 ℃ and save air conditioning energy consumption by up to 40%.

In addition, since this solution is passive, requiring no electricity to run, the technology can be used off-grid or in energy-poor areas. This means the technology has the potential to democratize access to cooling in the regions of the world that need it most, but currently have the least access.

Drawbacks and Critiques

A constraint of passive radiative cooling is that the material may need to be redesigned for different climates, as Dr. Zhu acknowledges. Temperature swings and humidity in different regions require different nanoparticle structures, which is costly to implement and adjust for. This may be fine in areas near the equator where cooling demand is relatively consistent, but in seasonal climates like Russia, Canada, or the U.S., radiative cooling solutions run the risk of overcooling.

Another drawback could be the varying and longer payback times from saved energy costs that has the potential to deter building owners from using the technology. For example, vehicle payback is under six months, while building applications take two to three years. This has the potential to deter building owners from using the technology.

The Guest's Take

Dr. Martin Zhu sees zero-energy cooling as a powerful tool to reduce the global need for air conditioning, rather than an outright replacement. For him, this technology democratizes access to cooling while innovatively requiring no ongoing energy. This is a part of a broader vision for climate equity, sustainably leveraging technology as a means of supporting marginalized communities.

About the Guest

Dr. Martin Zhu is the Co-Founder and CEO of i2Cool, a company specializing in electricity-free cooling technology. He focuses on commercializing passive radiative cooling technology, reaching more than 30 countries.

Other Resources & Further Reading

• i2Cool Company Website: i2Cool
• IEA: The Future of Cooling
• IEA: Keeping cool in a hotter world is using more energy, making efficiency more important than ever
• ScienceDirect: Flexible passive radiative cooling inspired by Saharan silver ants
• National Library of Medicine: Biomimetic Cooling
• Dr. Martin Zhu Biography: Prof. ZHU Martin

For a transcript, please visit climatebreak.org/zero-energy-cooling-with-martin-zhu/