(Family Features) Preserving your community for future generations can take many forms. It might mean volunteering with local organizations and participating in community improvement initiatives. Taking steps to protect the environment is another critical way to ensure your community remains safe and livable for generations to come.
These ideas show that going green can be as simple as making small modifications to everyday actions you already take.
Donating Unwanted Goods Landfills are overflowing with items that still have plenty of useful life. Often, those discarded items could be repurposed to provide an affordable option to those who can’t afford new, full-price versions. Before loading up your trash can, consider donating things like household goods and clothing that could still serve a purpose. Numerous organizations accept gently used goods that they either distribute directly to those in need or sell to the general public, with proceeds benefiting a specific cause or population. Look into the options in your area to find the best fit for items you have that can be donated.
Rethinking Transportation Pollution from transportation accounts for 29% of the United States’ emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That’s a higher percentage than any other category measured by the EPA. Carpooling, public transportation and even carefully planning your route are ways you can take personal accountability to help reduce the problem.
Another way to improve transportation emissions is by talking to your school district about its school bus choices. Diesel school buses are not only expensive to operate, but they are harmful to children’s health, the community and the climate, according to data compiled by the Propane Education & Research Council. Conversely, propane reduces harmful emissions that impact student health and air quality in the community. By advocating for your district to convert to a more environmentally friendly transportation option, such as propane, you can help further reduce harmful emissions in your community.
Find more information about propane-powered buses at BetterOurBuses.com.
Recycling and Composting Another way to reduce landfill waste is recycling and composting. Many of the items you throw away can be recycled into all-new materials. For example, recycled plastic can be used in a wide range of products, from sleeping bags and backpacks to dishes and reusable water bottles. Food waste represents a large share of landfills, too. Eventually it will biodegrade, but composting what you can at home gives you nutrient-rich material you can use to support your garden or lawn with healthier soil and less need for pesticides.
Cleaning with Natural Products Keeping your home clean takes more than a little elbow grease, but the harsh chemicals found in many household cleaners are actually quite damaging. The chemicals can be poisonous or contain allergens that negatively impact your home’s air quality. Natural cleaners are often more cost-efficient, so you can enjoy cleaner air and minimize your impact on the environment.
Taking Advantage of Natural Light If you’re in the habit of flipping on a light switch as you walk in a room, next time pause and consider whether you really need additional light. During daylight hours, many rooms offer more than enough natural light. Sunlight can also help warm spaces naturally when it’s cool outdoors, so throw open the curtains and let those warm, bright rays shine. If you do need additional light, consider relying on task lighting to illuminate your project rather than an overhead light that consumes more electricity.
Advertisement
Benefits of Propane School Buses
Over the last several decades, there have been many advances in student transportation. However, one area that could still use improvement is the number of students who ride to school on diesel buses that pollute the air. Today, there are two meaningful energy choices for clean student transportation: propane and electric. While both can achieve clean transportation, propane buses cost one-third the price of electric, allowing districts to replace their aging diesel fleet faster.
As an affordable, available and clean energy source, propane buses make practical sense. The buses reduce harmful emissions by 96% compared to diesel. They can also meet school districts’ needs with a range of up to 400 miles and the resiliency to continue operating across all terrains and in any weather. In fact, more than 1,000 school districts have already made the switch. Every day, 1.3 million children ride to school in 22,000 propane school buses across the country.
In 2022, the EPA introduced the Clean School Bus Program, which provides $5 billion over five years (2022-26) to replace existing diesel school buses with zero-emission and low-emission models.
Through three rounds of funding, the EPA program has allocated more than $2.8 billion for 8,427 electric school buses and 440 low-emissions propane buses. However, for the same amount of money that was distributed for the electric buses (about $2.77 billion), the program could have helped fund as many as 92,635 propane buses, assuming each propane bus received the $30,000 incentive.
When considering full lifecycle emissions, replacing 92,635 diesel buses with propane buses would have reduced harmful nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 24,664 metric tons over the three years the program has funded buses. By comparison, replacing just 8,427 diesel buses with electric buses will reduce NOx emissions by just 2,379 metric tons over the three years.
The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.
Socially Engaged Design of Nuclear Energy Technologies
What prompted the idea for the course?
The two of us had some experience with participatory design coming into this course, and we had a shared interest in bringing virtual reality into a first-year design class at the University of Michigan.
It seemed like a good fit to help students learn about nuclear technologies, given that hands-on experience can be difficult to provide in that context. We both wanted to teach students about the social and environmental implications of engineering work, too.
Aditi is a nuclear engineer and had been using participatory design in her research, and Katie had been teaching ethics and design to engineering students for many years.
What does the course explore?
Broadly, the course explores engineering design. We introduce our students to the principles of nuclear engineering and energy systems design, and we go through ethical concerns. They also learn communication strategies – like writing for different audiences.
Students learn to design the exterior features of nuclear energy facilities in collaboration with local communities. The course focuses on a different nuclear energy technology each year.
In the first year, the focus was on fusion energy systems. In fall 2024, we looked at locating nuclear microreactors near local communities.
The main project was to collaboratively decide where a microreactor might be sited, what it might look like, and what outcomes the community would like to see versus which would cause concern.
Students also think about designing nuclear systems with both future generations and a shared common good in mind.
The class explores engineering as a sociotechnical practice – meaning that technologies are not neutral. They shape and affect social life, for better and for worse. To us, a sociotechnical engineer is someone who adheres to scientific and engineering fundamentals, communicates ethically and designs in collaboration with the people who are likely to be affected by their work.
In class, we help our students reflect on these challenges and responsibilities.
Why is this course relevant now?
Nuclear energy system design is advancing quickly, allowing engineers to rethink how they approach design. Fusion energy systems and fission microreactors are two areas of rapidly evolving innovation.
Microreactors are smaller than traditional nuclear energy systems, so planners can place them closer to communities. These smaller reactors will likely be safer to run and operate, and may be a good fit for rural communities looking to transition to carbon-neutral energy systems.
But for the needs, concerns and knowledge of local people to shape the design process, local communities need to be involved in these reactor siting and design conversations.
Students in the course explore nuclear facilities in virtual reality.Thomas Barwick/DigitalVision via Getty Images
What materials does the course feature?
We use virtual reality models of both fission and fusion reactors, along with models of energy system facilities. AI image generators are helpful for rapid prototyping – we have used these in class with students and in workshops.
This year, we are also inviting students to do some hands-on prototyping with scrap materials for a project on nuclear energy systems.
What will the course prepare students to do?
Students leave the course understanding that community engagement is an essential – not optional – component of good design. We equip students to approach technology use and development with users’ needs and concerns in mind.
Specifically, they learn how to engage with and observe communities using ethical, respectful methods that align with the university’s engineering research standards.
What’s a critical lesson from the course?
As instructors, we have an opportunity – and probably also an obligation – to learn from students as much as we are teaching them course content. Gen Z students have grown up with environmental and social concerns as centerpieces of their media diets, and we’ve noticed that they tend to be more strongly invested in these topics than previous generations of engineering students.
Aditi Verma, Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan and Katie Snyder, Lecturer III in Technical Communication, College of Engineering, University of Michigan
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
In that first movie, “Episode IV,” Luke Skywalker’s Uncle Owen was a farmer on the planet of Tatooine. He farmed water from air in the middle of a desert.
It might sound impossible, but it’s exactly what experts discussed at the second International Atmospheric Water Harvesting Summit hosted by Arizona State University in March 2025.
Each day, a human needs to consume about the equivalent of 0.8 gallons of water (3 liters). With more than 8 billion people living on the planet, that means engineers need to produce nearly 2.6 trillion gallons (10 trillion liters) of clean drinking water every year. Taken globally, rainfall would be enough, but it’s distributed very unevenly – including landing in the oceans, where it immediately becomes too salty to drink safely.
Deserts, which cover about one-fifth of the Earth’s land area, are home to about 1 billion people.
Researchers at places such as Berkeley have developed solar-powered systems that can produce clean drinking water from thin air. In general, they use a material that traps water molecules from the air within its structure and then use sunlight to condense that water out of the material and into drinkable liquid. But there is still a ways to go before they are ready for commercial distribution and available to help large numbers of people.
Researchers can harvest water from air in the desert, in a process powered only by the Sun.
Space debris
When the second Death Star was destroyed in “Return of the Jedi,” it made a huge mess, as you would expect when blowing to smithereens an object at least 87 miles across (140 kilometers). But the movie’s mythology helpfully explains a hyperspace wormhole briefly opened, scattering much of the falling debris across the galaxy.
As best as anyone can tell, a hyperspace wormhole has never appeared near Earth. And even if such a thing existed or happened, humans might not have the technology to chuck all our trash in there anyway. So we’re left with a whole lot of stuff all around us, including in space.
According to the website Orbiting Now, in late April 2025 there were just over 12,000 active satellites orbiting the planet. All in all, the United States and other space-faring nations are trying to keep track of nearly 50,000 objects orbiting Earth. And there are millions of fragments of space debris too small to be observed or tracked.
Just as on Earth’s roads, space vehicles crash into each other if traffic gets too congested. But unlike the debris that falls to the road after an Earth crash, all the bits and pieces that break off in a space crash fly away at speeds of several thousand miles per hour (10,000 to 30,000 kph) and can then hit other satellites or spacecraft that cross their paths.
This accumulation of space debris is creating an increasing problem. With more satellites and spacecraft heading to orbit, and more stuff up there moving around that might hit them, space travel is becoming more like flying the Millennium Falcon through an asteroid field every day.
Engineers at NASA, the European Space Agency and other space programs are exploring a variety of technologies – including a net, a harpoon and a laser – to remove the more dangerous pieces of space junk and clean up the space environment.
Dodging obstacles in space is no picnic.
African countries shouldn’t have to borrow money to fix climate damage they never caused – economist
As COP29 approaches, African nations urgently seek increased public finance for climate adaptation. The reliance on loans exacerbates their debt, impeding progress. Systemic biases and bureaucratic barriers hinder access to essential climate funding, demanding coordinated efforts.
As we approach the global annual climate change conference, COP29, the need for increased public finance from the global north to address climate adaptation in Africa has become more urgent than ever.
However, framing the finance debate solely around this need risks deepening mistrust and downplaying the scale of the challenge. The financial burden of addressing climate change, coupled with limited fiscal space, creates a precarious situation for many African countries. African countries bear no historical responsibility for causing the climate crisis. However, they rely heavily on external financing to solve climate change problems.
Unfortunately, much external climate finance comes from loans rather than grants. This only worsens Africa’s debt burden. There is also not nearly enough money being channelled to Africa to pay for climate change adaptation.
At COP29, African negotiators will undoubtedly focus on reducing dependence on debt, and improving access to finance. I’m an economist who specialises in climate change and governance, with a long background at the United Nations and the African Union. Without robust commitments from public financial institutions, Africa will continue to face the dual crises of climate vulnerability and debt.
African countries must use COP29 to tackle systemic biases that inflate risk perceptions, minimise African achievements and inflate its problems. These biases drive up borrowing costs, and worsen commodity dependence.
The climate finance gap
The African Development Bank has estimated that Africa needs between US$1.3 trillion and US$1.6 trillion in total climate financing every year between 2020 and 2030. This will enable African countries to meet their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, known as nationally determined contributions.
The Global Center for Adaptation estimates that Africa requires at least US$52.7 billion annually for adaptation every year until 2035. However, this figure could rise to US$106 billion. This is because data gaps allow for double counting of financial contributions. There is also very little transparency about the real amounts of climate finance being disbursed. Because nationally determined contributions are focused on mitigation, carbon depletion tends to be measured without accurate calculations of the amount of emissions that are captured, or carbon that is conserved.
Advertisement
The United Nations Development Programme says that Africa’s nationally determined contributions mean the continent needs about US$2.8 trillion by 2030 for climate mitigation. However, Africa contributes only 4% of all greenhouse gas emissions currently. It needs funds for adaptation to adjust to climate change that is already changing the lives of many, rather than for mitigation.
But only about half of the climate finance received by Africa in 2022 was for adaptation (US$4.6 billion). The rest of the climate finance addressed mitigation or a mix of both, in line with the global north’s agenda.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change says developed countries are responsible for financing climate adaptation in vulnerable regions. But loans that create a huge debt burden only enrich global financial institutions at the expense of African countries.
The effects of climate change are causing unprecedented floods, drought and other disasters across Africa. Yet it is becoming more difficult for African countries to access the climate finance they need to adapt to a warming world.
Advertisement
Why is the situation worsening?
First, access to climate finance remains a bureaucratic nightmare with complex application processes. There also needs to be more transparency in fund allocation. The recently established Loss and Damage Fund could assist. It is meant to channel money to countries worst affected by climate change to pay for the damage caused.
Second, the focus on reforming Bretton Woods institutions and development finance institutions is shifting attention away from the obligations developed countries have signed up for. This distracts developing nations from making reforms in trade, taxation and financial regulations that could drive more meaningful results.
Third, there is a lack of liquidity (access to fresh money) needed to propel investment or allow countries to bridge their budget deficits. African countries are forced to juggle paying for healthcare, education and infrastructure development with paying back debt. Some spend more on debt repayments than healthcare.
Increased tax efficiency and domestic savings, such as the savings maintained by pension funds, could be used. This should be the priority while the fight for better international conditions continues.
Fourth, the distinction between development finance and climate finance is becoming an impediment to progress. The conversation should move away from getting African countries to prioritise greenhouse gas emission reductions at the expense of other development priorities. Climate action is under-implemented and underfunded. The focus must be on excessive dependency on aid and rather promote market incentives to encourage the private sector to invest in climate adaptation in Africa.
Fifth, African negotiators must address the structural barriers that limit access to finance. For example, biased risk perceptions by credit rating agencies prevent African countries from securing finance. Restrictive prudential rules from the Bank for International Settlements intended to preserve international financial system integrity have proven unfavourable to the transformation of the African economies.
This will allow Africa to pool resources, coordinate demands and make it easier to negotiate better terms for climate finance. Just energy transition partnerships create an opportunity for countries to secure renewable energy funding for the transition from fossil fuel. Success will depend on effective coordination and regional solidarity in international climate negotiations.
Seventh, African countries have strong potential to use carbon markets to finance climate initiatives, provided they have control over them. Nature-based solutions can go hand in hand with reforestation, sustainable land management or conservation, while generating carbon credits. These are additional funding opportunities for climate adaptation efforts in Africa.
This moment demands bold leadership and a united front to rewrite the rules. African countries must secure the commitments and resources at COP29 that are needed to build a sustainable future.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
Pollution from transportation accounts for 29% of the United States’ emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That’s a higher percentage than any other category measured by the EPA. Carpooling, public transportation and even carefully planning your route are ways you can take personal accountability to help reduce the problem.
Over the last several decades, there have been many advances in student transportation. However, one area that could still use improvement is the number of students who ride to school on diesel buses that pollute the air. Today, there are two meaningful energy choices for clean student transportation: propane and electric. While both can achieve clean transportation, propane buses cost one-third the price of electric, allowing districts to replace their aging diesel fleet faster.
