The most destructive and costliest wildfire in California’s history, the Camp Fire, killed 85 people and destroyed nearly 19,000 structures in November 2018. A year later, crews were still collecting and carrying away piles of wood, metals, appliances, contaminated soil, toxic household chemicals, and other debris and waste totaling more than 3.2 million metric tons – roughly the weight of 2 million cars.

Hurricane Michael, which hit Florida in October 2018, left about 13 million cubic meters of debris. To visualize what that looks like, picture a pile of 13 million boxes, each the size of a washer and dryer. More than a year later, crews were still removing the waste.

Dealing with enormous quantities of debris and waste materials is one of the most significant challenges for communities in the wake of natural disasters. Often this task overwhelms local waste managers, leaving waste untouched for weeks, months or even years.

As researchers who study urban engineering, disaster management and planning, and waste management, we see this as a critical and under-studied problem. Disasters will continue to happen and the losses they cause will continue to grow as a result of climate change, population growth, urbanization, deforestation and aging infrastructures. Societies urgently need better strategies for dealing with the wastes these events leave behind.

Trails of wreckage

Climate-related disasters like floods, landslides, storms, wildfires, and extreme hot and cold waves afflict millions of people around the world. These events have been increasing over time, particularly over the past several decades, and so have the losses they cause.

In 2018, at least 300 major natural disasters wreaked havoc worldwide, including 14 billion-dollar disasters in the United States alone. Through November 2019, 276 such events had occurred worldwide, with multiple billion-dollar disasters in the U.S.

Disasters commonly produce thousands to millions of tons of debris in a single event. For example, waste from hurricanes includes vegetation, such as trees and shrubs; municipal solid waste, such as household garbage; construction and demolition materials; vehicles; and household hazardous materials, including paints, cleaning agents, pesticides and pool chemicals.

Debris from wildfires largely consists of ash, contaminated soils, metal and concrete, along with other structural debris and household hazardous items such as paints, cleaners, solvents, oils, batteries, herbicides and pesticides.

Dangerous and in the way

Debris collection and cleanup following a disaster is a slow, expensive and dangerous process. First, crews clear out debris from roads used for rescue efforts. They then move the material to temporary storage areas. No one has yet invented a way to easily sort or contain hazardous materials, so they remain mixed into the debris mass. This poses major challenges for reusing and recycling post-disaster waste.

Beyond direct health and safety risks, debris also threatens the environment. It can emit air pollutants and contaminate groundwater, surface waters and soil. Uncollected debris and waste can hamper rescue and recovery efforts and slow down rebuilding efforts.

As an example, when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it left behind an estimated 75 million cubic meters of waste that interfered with and slowed down recovery efforts. The debris included close to 900,000 white goods, such as refrigerators, 350,000 cars and more than 16,000 metric tons of rotten meat. Cleanup costs were estimated at roughly US$4 billion.

Toward reusing disaster waste

At an expert workshop that we organized in May 2019, we identified steps for sustainably managing disaster debris and waste. As we see it, the key tasks are to (1) identify what is contained in these wastes; (2) find better approaches to recycling and reuse; (3) design new technologies to identify hazardous components and sort the different types of waste; and (4) develop markets to promote reuse and recycling.

Today public officials and planners know little about the amount and types of materials generated during disasters – what they contain, in what proportions, whether they are large and sortable versus fine and mixed, and how much can be reused or recycled. Developing new technologies and management approaches that can assist debris characterization, reuse and recycling should be a top priority.

For example, drones and autonomous sensing technologies can be combined with artificial intelligence to estimate amounts and quality of debris, the types of materials it contains and how it can be repurposed rapidly. Technologies that allow for fast sorting and separation of mixed materials can also speed up debris management operations.

Turning the problem around, creating new sustainable construction materials – especially in disaster-prone areas – will make it easier to repurpose debris after disasters.

Finally, new business models can help generate demand for and access to waste and recycled products. With proper sorting, some disaster materials can be used to make new products or materials. For example, downed whole trees can become timber resources for furniture makers. Today, opportunities to match materials with markets are wasted – pun intended.

[ Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter. ]

Sybil Derrible, Associate Professor of Sustainable Infrastructure Systems, University of Illinois at Chicago; Juyeong Choi, Assistant Professor, Florida A&M University-Florida State University College of Engineering, Florida State University, and Nazli Yesiller, Director, Global Waste Research Institute, California Polytechnic State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The climate breakdown continues. Over the past year, The Conversation has covered fires in the Amazon, melting glaciers in the Andes and Greenland, record CO₂ emissions, and temperatures so hot they’re pushing the human body to its thermal limits. Even the big UN climate talks were largely disappointing.

But climate researchers have not given up hope. We asked a few Conversation authors to highlight some more positive stories from 2019.

Costa Rica offers us a viable climate future

Heather Alberro, associate lecturer in political ecology, Nottingham Trent University

After decades of climate talks, including the recent COP25 in Madrid, emissions have only continued to rise. Indeed, a recent UN report noted that a fivefold increase in current national climate change mitigation efforts would be needed to meet the 1.5℃ limit on warming by 2030. With the radical transformations needed in our global transport, housing, agricultural and energy systems in order to help mitigate looming climate and ecological breakdown, it can be easy to lose hope.

However, countries like Costa Rica offer us promising examples of the “possible”. The Central American nation has implemented a refreshingly ambitious plan to completely decarbonise its economy by 2050. In the lead-up to this, last year with its economy still growing at 3%, Costa Rica was able to derive 98% of its electricity from renewable sources. Such an example demonstrates that with sufficient political will, it is possible to meet the daunting challenges ahead.

Financial investors are cooling on fossil fuels

Richard Hodgkins, senior lecturer in physical geography, Loughborough University

Movements such as 350.org have long argued for fossil fuel divestment, but they have recently been joined by institutional investors such as Climate Action 100+, which is using the influence of its US$35 trillion of managed funds, arguing that minimising climate breakdown risks and maximising renewables’ growth opportunities are a fiduciary duty.

Moody’s credit-rating agency recently flagged ExxonMobil for falling revenues despite rising expenditure, noting: “The negative outlook also reflects the emerging threat to oil and gas companies’ profitability […] from growing efforts by many nations to mitigate the impacts of climate change through tax and regulatory policies.”

A more adverse financial environment for fossil fuel companies reduces the likelihood of new development in business frontier regions such as the Arctic, and indeed, major investment bank Goldman Sachs has declared that it “will decline any financing transaction that directly supports new upstream Arctic oil exploration or development”.

We are getting much better at forecasting disaster

Hannah Cloke, professor of hydrology, University of Reading

In March and April 2019, two enormous tropical cyclones hit the south-east coast of Africa, killing more than 600 people and leaving nearly 2 million people in desperate need of emergency aid.

There isn’t much that is positive about that, and there’s nothing new about cyclones. But this time scientists were able to provide the first early warning of the impending flood disaster by linking together accurate medium-range forecasts of the cyclone with the best ever simulations of flood risk. This meant that the UK government, for example, set about working with aid agencies in the region to start delivering emergency supplies to the area that would flood, all before Cyclone Kenneth had even gathered pace in the Indian Ocean.

We know that the risk of dangerous floods is increasing as the climate continues to change. Even with ambitious action to reduce greenhouse gases, we must deal with the impact of a warmer more chaotic world. We will have to continue using the best available science to prepare ourselves for whatever is likely to come over the horizon.

Local authorities across the world are declaring a ‘climate emergency’

Marc Hudson, researcher in sustainable consumption, University of Manchester

More than 1,200 local authorities around the world declared a “climate emergency” in 2019. I think there are two obvious dangers: first, it invites authoritarian responses (stop breeding! Stop criticising our plans for geoengineering!). And second, an “emergency” declaration may simply be a greenwash followed by business-as-usual.

In Manchester, where I live and research, the City Council is greenwashing. A nice declaration in July was followed by more flights for staff (to places just a few hours away by train), and further car parks and roads. The deadline for a “bring zero-carbon date forward?” report has been ignored.

But these civic declarations have also kicked off a wave of civic activism, as campaigners have found city councils easier to hold to account than national governments. I’m part of an activist group called “Climate Emergency Manchester” – we inform citizens and lobby councillors. We’ve assessed progress so far, based on Freedom of Information Act requests, and produced a “what could be done?” report. As the council falls further behind on its promises, we will be stepping up our activity, trying to pressure it to do the right thing.

Radical climate policy goes mainstream

Dénes Csala, lecturer in energy system dynamics, Lancaster University

Before the 2019 UK general election, I compared the Conservative and Labour election manifestos, from a climate and energy perspective. Although the party with the clearly weaker plan won eventually, I am still stubborn enough to be hopeful with regard to the future of political action on climate change.

For the first time, in a major economy, a leading party’s manifesto had at its core climate action, transport electrification and full energy system decarbonisation, all on a timescale compatible with IPCC directives to avoid catastrophic climate change. This means the discussion that has been cooking at the highest levels since the 2015 Paris Agreement has started to boil down into tangible policies.

Young people are on the march!

Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL

In 2019, public awareness of climate change rose sharply, driven by the schools strikes, Extinction Rebellion, high impact IPCC reports, improved media coverage, a BBC One climate change documentary and the UK and other governments declaring a climate emergency. Two recent polls suggest that over 75% of Americans accept humans have caused climate change.

Empowerment of the first truly globalised generation has catalysed this new urgency. Young people can access knowledge at the click of a button. They know climate change science is real and see through the deniers’ lies because this generation does not access traditional media – in fact, they bypass it.

The awareness and concern regarding climate change will continue to grow. Next year will be an even bigger year as the UK will chair the UN climate change negotiations in Glasgow – and expectation are running high.

Heather Alberro, Associate Lecturer/PhD Candidate in Political Ecology, Nottingham Trent University; Dénes Csala, Lecturer in Energy Storage Systems Dynamics, Lancaster University; Hannah Cloke, Professor of Hydrology, University of Reading; Marc Hudson, Researcher in Sustainable Consumption, University of Manchester; Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, UCL, and Richard Hodgkins, Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography, Loughborough University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.