In Los Angeles, a new crop of curbside libraries are helping communities recover after last year’s wildfires. But instead of books, these libraries are full of seeds.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

Today, we’re headed to sunny Los Angeles, where a new crop of curbside libraries has sprouted over the last few years. But instead of books, these libraries are full of seeds — and they’re helping communities reconnect with nature after last year’s wildfires.

Possibly reporter Janek Schaller, who’s based in Southern California, drove out to see one of them in person.

Janek Schaller: There’s a wooden box perched on a pole in front of Nina Raj’s home in Pasadena, California. Without taking a closer look, you might assume that it’s just another one of those little free libraries that have cropped up on many suburban curbsides. But anyone hoping to find a good read inside is in for a surprise.

Nina Raj: We’ve got bush sunflower, we’ve got showy milkweed. (Nina Library,

Janek Schaller: Colorful square packets of seeds line the shelves.

Nina Raj: We’ve got Yarrow, California Poppy, some buckwheat. This is cool. This is from the Ohlone farm. 

Janek Schaller:Nina is a trained naturalist and educator, and has lived in a handful of different neighborhoods across LA. Over the years, she’s built up a sizable collection of seeds, many gathered from her work with gardens and environmental organizations around the city. When she settled down in Pasadena in 2020, Nina decided that it was time to spread the wealth.

Nina Raj: My neighbor has a little free book library, and it inspired me to just build my own little library that I put out in front of my house and share seeds. 

Janek Schaller: Before long, Nina began partnering with other environmental organizations, community members, and even public schools to establish new libraries in neighborhoods throughout LA. Each so-called “outpost” is stocked with seeds that community members had donated.

Nina Raj: These are from people’s gardens. They might be edible seeds. They might be, you know, native plants that they planted in their yards or at community gardens. 

Janek Schaller: There are now 17 libraries throughout LA, and there are more outposts in places as far away as Sonoma County in Northern California and even New York City. Nina says people often don’t realize how spread out the library system really is.

Nina Raj: There are just so many different outposts and each one is totally unique. 

Janek Schaller: Unlike a seed bank, whose purpose is to preserve a carefully-constructed inventory of an ecosystem, Nina says that seed libraries are much more fluid. They represent the identity and needs of a specific community, which can vary from place to place, and can change over time, too. For instance,

Nina Raj: Up here in Altadena, we’re really focused on more phytoremediator seeds. 

Janek Schaller: That scrabble word was phytoremediator — it refers to plants that have the power to clean up the soil that they’re rooted in. Much of the ground in Altadena is still contaminated with toxic chemicals from homes that burned during the wildfires that engulfed the city in January of 2025.

Janek Schaller: Nina has been planting these seeds to absorb some of that pollution in her own neighborhood. But, she says, her neighbors come to the library to find all sorts of plants.

Nina Raj: As I see what comes in and out of the library in front of my house, it helps me understand kind of what people are excited about, what they want. 

Janek Schaller: And Nina is already building on this excitement. She’s actually just finished a new design for the outposts — she’s replacing the glass doors with wooden ones so the seeds can stay cool and out of the light.

Janek Schaller: You’re trusting folks to know that this enclosed box contains what they want it to contain. 

Nina Raj: It’ll say “Altadena Seed Library” on the front, and it’ll say, “Take what you need, leave what you can.” So hopefully that’ll be inviting enough. We’ll find out.

Megan Hall: That’s it for today. You can find more information, or ask a question about the ways your choices affect our planet, at ask possibly dot org. You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on social media at  “ask possibly.”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative, Ocean State Media and WBRU.

Correction: Nina Raj’s home is in Pasadena, and she did not grow up in LA. A previous version of this episode stated that her home was in Altadena, and that she grew up in LA. 

The post What are seed libraries? appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post What are seed libraries? appeared first on Possibly.

This week on Possibly, we’re taking a closer look at how plastics have given the fossil fuel industry a new business platform — with hardly anyone noticing they’re even in the market.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

Today, we’ve got another episode in our running series on plastics. You probably already know that plastic causes issues when we’re done with it, littering beaches, roadsides, and even our own bodies. But its origin story is just as problematic — and the fossil fuel industry plays a big part in it.

We had Janek Schaller and Leo Nachamie from the Possibly team look into this.

Janek Schaller: Hi, Megan!

Leo Nachamie: Hello!

Megan Hall: So how are oil and gas connected to plastics?

Janek Schaller: We spoke with Professor Sherri Mason to find out. She teaches at Gannon University in Erie, Pennsylvania.

Sherri Mason: I moved here in summer of 2018, and as I was moving here, everybody was talking to me about, “What about the Shell plant?”

Janek Schaller: Sherri is talking about the Beaver County Shell Petrochemical Facility. It’s just north of Pittsburgh. She saw it for the first time when she was driving south from Erie.

Sherri Mason: I came over this horizon and this, like, whole city kind of rose out in front of me …

Leo Nachamie: The 14 billion-dollar Beaver County facility opened in 2022. And the state of Pennsylvania was thrilled. They’d offered Shell more than a billion dollars in tax breaks to bring the project to their state.

Megan Hall: Whoa! What does this factory do?

Janek Schaller: It makes tiny little plastic pellets, known as nurdles.

Sherri Mason: These little three millimeter balls of plastic…they like clear white lentils.

Janek Schaller: Those lentils are the building blocks that make up every single plastic product you can think of — everything from plastic bottles to packaging.

Megan Hall: So, why did Shell and the state put so much money into a factory that makes plastic pellets?

Leo Nachamie: Sherri says fossil fuel companies are still marketing oil and gas as fuel sources, but as the country shifts toward renewable energy, the industry is relying on plastics as a backup plan. And Pennsylvania is the perfect place for this project.

Megan Hall: Why?

Janek Schaller: This is where we get back to the connection between oil and gas and plastics. Pennsylvania produces a lot more energy than it needs, mostly because it harvests natural gas from fracking…

Megan Hall: That’s where companies shoot water deep into the ground to release methane from rock formations… right?

Janek Schaller: Exactly. Here’s the thing: about half of all of the fracking going on in Pennsylvania is targeting younger rock formations.

Leo Nachamie: When you frack younger rock, the fuel that you get has more ethane and propane in it than the fuel from older reserves.

Megan Hall: And why’s that a big deal?

Leo Nachamie: Sherri says ethane and propane aren’t the best ingredients for making fuels like gasoline — they actually serve a different purpose.

Sherri Mason: Because of the mixture of what’s coming out in this gas, this is considered better to be used as a starting material for making plastics.

Megan Hall: Oh! I’m beginning to see the connection here. And they’re using that starting material at the plant in Pennsylvania?

Janek Schaller: Yep, remember, that’s what the Beaver County plant does.

Sherri Mason: It’s called a cracker plant, and not crackers like you eat, but to crack a molecule.

Leo Nachamie: The plant starts with ethane and cracks it into polyethylene, which is what those nurdles we talked about earlier are made out of.

 Sherri Mason: Ethane to ethene to polyethylene, is the process that that whole facility is aimed to do. That’s all it does.

Janek Schaller: And the use of oil for plastics is only expected to grow. The International Energy Agency predicts that plastics will account for nearly half of the increase in demand for oil over the next two decades.

Leo Nachamie: That’s a larger share than the predicted demand from trucks, aviation, and shipping.

Janek Schaller: But still, Sherri says most people have no idea about the link between oil and plastics.

Sherri Mason: If you saw that plastic bottle is being connected to an oil rig, you’d be like, ‘Ew, I don’t want to put my mouth on that!’”

Leo Nachamie: Even if the jury is still out on just how harmful plastics are when they get into our bodies, researchers like Sherri say we still need to pay attention to where these products come from.

Megan Hall: Got it! Thanks, Janek and Leo.

That’s it for today. You can find more information, or ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, at askpossibly.org. You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, or Bluesky at  “askpossibly”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative, Ocean State Media and WBRU.

The post How are the plastic and fossil fuel industries connected? appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post How are the plastic and fossil fuel industries connected? appeared first on Possibly.

A new book by Possibly’s founder Stephen Porder titled Elemental: How Five Elements Changed Earth’s Past and Will Shape Our Future, explores the rare times in Earth’s past when organisms changed the world. Understanding how they did it might help us build a more sustainable future.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

Earlier this year, Possibly’s founder and Brown University’s Provost for Sustainability Stephen Porder published Elemental: How Five Elements Changed Earth’s Past and Will Shape Our Future.

His book explores the rare times in Earth’s past when organisms have changed the world. He argues that understanding how they pulled off this remarkable feat might help us build a more sustainable future.

Senior Reporter Janek Schaller sat down with him to talk about his book – here are some excerpts from their conversation:

Janek Schaller: What sort of inspired you to take on this project in the first place

Stephen Porder: There’s sort of two motivations. One, we live in a moment of existential environmental concern, and it feels as if what we’re doing is really unprecedented and really unstoppable. I realized, that we could learn something from the geologic past about organisms that have changed the world before us. By understanding how our predecessors have changed the world and how we humans are changing the world and the common thread between those two things, we could actually use that knowledge to build a more sustainable future.

Megan Hall:  About a third of Elemental is about organisms that changed the world 2.5 billion years ago. But Stephen says that modern-day humans are not all that different from the other world-changers that came before us.

Stephen Porder: So all of us, from humans, to bacteria, to fungi to plants, we’re all made of roughly the same stuff, hydrogen, and oxygen, which are the components of water, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Those elements also play a critical role in determining what the environment is like, So when life evolves a new way of gathering these elements from the environment, it can actually change the environment profoundly. And that’s the common thread that links us to the cyanobacteria, who precipitated the biggest environmental change of all time to 2.2 billion years ago, to the land plants who pulled so much carbon dioxide out of the air that they froze the planet 300 million years ago, to humans who dug up those land plants, which are now fossilized as coal and liberated the carbon that was stored in their bodies, injected it back in the atmosphere and are now causing climate change.

Megan Hall: Still, Stephen says that there are two things about the way humans are changing the planet that set us apart from cyanobacteria and land plants

Stephen Porder:  One, on the downside, is the rapidity with which we’re doing it. So it took the cyanobacteria, hundreds of millions of years to change the world, it took the land plants 100 million years to change the world, it’s taking us a century and a half, So a million times faster. and adapting to a very slow change is easy. But adapting to a really fast change is hard.

On the upside, unlike our world changing predecessors, whose effects were linked directly to the chemistry of their bodies, our effects are linked to the chemistry of our society. And those we can change. It’s not internal to us, it is external to us. And therefore, it gives us an opportunity to be wiser in our management of the flows of these elements in a way that gives us what we want, like energy and food without the negative environmental consequences that we don’t want. And that is the challenge of the 21st century.

Janek Schaller:  I’m curious about what broader actions and messages folks who are reading this book might take away from it?

Stephen Porder: The first thing I want people to get from this is that there is hope that we can make a difference. The second thing I want people to get is that everyone has a role to play. The third thing is we can simplify the conversation around sustainability to wise management of energy, food, and water. And for what individuals can do, a few major changes can make a huge difference. Your next car should be an electric car. Your furnace should not be replaced with combustion, it should be replaced with heat pumps. Cut down or eliminate red meat and dairy. Fly less. And after that, like give yourself a break. The transformations that we need requires, more than anything, a winning of hearts and minds, which is not necessarily about science, but is about making bridges with whatever community you’re a part of, and working towards a solution.

Megan Hall: That’s it for today! To hear Janek and Stephen’s complete conversation, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to askpossibly.org, or subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts.

You can learn more about Elemental, or purchase the book here.

You can also follow us on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn or X at  “askpossibly”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative, and the Public’s Radio.

The post What can organisms that changed the world teach us about climate change? appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post What can organisms that changed the world teach us about climate change? appeared first on Possibly.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

We’ve celebrated Earth Day in the United States for more than 50 years. Today, we’re taking a look at what made the first Earth Day in 1970 such a big deal, and whether the modern version needs a reboot. 

We had Janek Schaller and Will Malloy from our Possibly team tackle this question.

Janek Schaller: How’s it going, Megan?

Will Malloy: Happy belated Earth Day!

Megan Hall: Thank you! So, set the scene for us: what did the first Earth Day look like?

Will Malloy: It was huge! 20 million Americans participated in more than 10,000 events from New York City to small-towns in Kansas.

Megan Hall: Wow! How did this happen?

Janek Schaller: Believe it or not, Earth Day 1970 was set in motion by a US senator, Gaylord Nelson. He wanted to build a new environmental movement that used tactics that were similar to the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s.

Megan Hall: A US senator leading a grassroots campaign? That seems like the opposite of grassroots… 

Janek Schaller: Right. Senator Nelson knew that, so he hired a group of young organizers to coordinate the event. 

Will Malloy: These organizers decided to have every community design their own Earth Day programming around the environmental issues that mattered the most to them.

Megan Hall: So there was no single set of demands?

Janek Schaller: That’s right! The national organizers did put a lot of effort into publicizing Earth Day, but they stopped short of telling people what to do.

Adam Rome: “A lot of people worked out their own theory of change, and then acted on it.”

Janek Schaller: That’s Professor Adam Rome, a historian of environmental movements. He says, the first Earth Day was special because…

Adam Rome: “It joined the organizing effort of the grassroots with the power of the Washington elite to accomplish more than either the grassroots activists or the Washington elite could have accomplished on their own.”

Will Malloy: That first Earth Day certainly made a big difference – it played an important role in the creation of both the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Plus, it motivated millions of people to take action together. 

Janek Schaller: But the movement didn’t include everyone.

Megan Hall: What do you mean?

Janek Schaller: The organizers and participants in the first Earth Day were mostly white, and the topics that received the most attention were those that appealed primarily to white, affluent people.

Will Malloy: Some Black Americans were skeptical of the event. For example, the mayor of Cleveland at the time, Carl B. Stokes – who was Black –questioned whether Earth Day would do anything to reduce rates of poverty and homelessness in his city.

Janek Schaller: In the end, Mayor Stokes did support Earth Day protests against water pollution in Cleveland. His efforts actually helped pave the way for the modern environmental justice movement.

Megan Hall: Got it. How are people working to make Earth Day more inclusive now? 

Janek Schaller: To find out, we talked to Caitlyn Carpenter, a coordinator of the Sunrise Movement hub at Brown University. Sunrise is an environmental justice organization with chapters across the country. 

Will Malloy: To Caitlyn, Earth Day as it is promotes a form of environmentalism that doesn’t push for lasting change.

Caitlyn Carpenter: You’re giving out this like broad concept of, okay, we should care about the Earth. But that can be interpreted in ways that uphold these fundamental structures that are at the root of why we have environmental degradation in the first place.

Will Malloy: This year, Sunrise Brown is working with groups on over 80 college campuses to target those structures by reclaiming Earth Day.

Megan Hall: What does that look like?

Janek Schaller: The group is collaborating with other student organizations and academic departments to create events that encourage students to think about how environmental and social justice issues overlap.

Will Malloy: Their goal is to change the narrative of Earth Day so it focuses on the issues that are most important for people who have been excluded from the environmental movement. 

Here’s Garrett Brand, the other Sunrise coordinator at Brown:

Garrett Brand: “We want there to be a new status quo, where when people think about something environmental, they’re thinking about environmental justice, thinking about getting rid of toxic polluters in Black communities instead of thinking about recycling.”

Janek Schaller: Basically, they believe Earth Day should be repurposed to unite environmental issues with their vision of social justice. 

Megan Hall: That seems like a big rethinking of Earth Day.   

Will Malloy: As you might suspect, it’s not a universally accepted approach. But it is gaining traction with this generation of environmental activists.

Janek Schaller: If you’d like to get involved in reclaiming Earth Day, there’s a good chance that a campus near you has scheduled events for this week. 

Megan Hall: Got it  – thanks, Janek and Will!

That’s it for today. For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to thepublicsradio.org/possibly. Or subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. 

You can also follow us on social media at  “ask possibly” 

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative, and The Public’s Radio.

The post Is it time to rethink Earth Day? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Is it time to rethink Earth Day? appeared first on Possibly.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall. 

So-called “Natural gas”- the stuff a lot of us use to heat our homes and run our stoves- is basically methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. In the short term, methane is 80 times more potent than CO2 when it comes to warming the planet. 

So, states are looking for ways to use less of this fossil fuel. And Massachusetts has a new plan to do just that. 

Here to tell us more are our Possibly reporters Janek Schaller and Iman Khanbhai

Janek Schaller: How’s it going, Megan?

Iman Khanbhai: Hi!

Megan: So, tell me more about what’s happening in Massachusetts right now.

Iman: Ok, for the past 4 years or so, the Department of Public Utilities in Massachusetts has been exploring the future of natural gas. 

Megan: And they’re doing this because they want to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

Janek: Exactly. Like other states across the country, Massachusetts made a pledge to bring its emissions down to zero by 2050. If it wants to reach that goal, the state will need to phase out natural gas.

Megan: Got it. And Massachusetts finally has a plan? 

Iman: That’s right! It’s called the 20-80 order, and it’s kind of a big deal.

Dr. Michael Walsh: The 20-80 order rocked not only Massachusetts, it didn’t just rock New England, it rocked the entire country in terms of how a lot of states are thinking about the future of gas.

Janek: That’s Dr. Michael Walsh, a decarbonization and energy strategist who gave feedback on 20-80.

Megan: So why did this plan rock the country? 

Iman: For starters, it discourages utility companies from investing in the infrastructure that brings natural gas to people’s homes and businesses. 

Megan: In what way?

Janek: Well, before a company can do something like fix a natural gas pipeline, the 20-80 order now requires it to explore all of its other options.

Iman: That could include heating homes with electricity or geothermal energy instead of natural gas.

Megan: Does that mean Massachusetts is hoping to abandon its natural gas system altogether?

Iman: Well, this isn’t a complete ban on natural gas service in Massachusetts – the electric grid is limited and can’t reach everyone in the state, yet. 

Janek: But, it’s a good time to start this process. 

Megan: Why? 

Iman: First, there are other ways of heating homes, like heat pumps. They’re reliable, run on electricity, and are three to four times as energy-efficient as gas-powered furnaces.

Janek: Also, the gas infrastructure in Massachusetts is getting old- some portions were put in more than 100 years ago. When those pipes leak, they release methane directly into the air.

Iman: But fixing those pipelines to eliminate leaks is expensive. Repairs to Massachusetts’s existing gas infrastructure is expected to cost $20 billion dollars.  

Megan: So, why invest in a system that’s expensive and falling apart when there are better options out there? 

Janek: Exactly. 

Megan: But what happens to the houses that are using natural gas now?

Janek: That’s where Massachusetts’ plan really shines. It encourages gas and electric utilities to work together to find the best places to start this transition away from natural gas and towards electricity. 

Iman: The order also says that these projects should prioritize communities with unreliable service and leak-prone pipes, as well as environmental justice populations. 

Janek: Because the truth is, everyone is going to need to transition away from natural gas eventually. As Michael Walsh, the energy strategist says-

Dr. Walsh:  “The question that’s ahead of us is how well will we manage this transition off of gas and on to a cleaner, more electrified future.”

Megan: How do we know the utility companies will follow this plan?

Iman: Starting in 2025, they have to submit reports detailing their plan to reduce emissions. And Massachusetts is working on creating financial incentives to make sure companies follow through on these plans.  

Janek: It’s now up to other states, like Rhode Island, where policymakers are also considering the future of gas, to follow Massachusetts’ lead.

Megan: We’ll stay tuned on that – thanks, Janek and Iman.

That’s it for today. For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to thepublicsradio.org/possibly. Or subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. 

You can also follow us on Instagram, Facebook or X at  “askpossibly”

Possibly is a co-production of The Public’s Radio, Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society and Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative.

The post What does the future of natural gas look like in Massachusetts? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post What does the future of natural gas look like in Massachusetts? appeared first on Possibly.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall. 

Recently, we got a question from one of our listeners. Matt from Providence wants to know – can we harness electricity from electric eels? We were intrigued! So we had Possibly reporters Iman Khanbhai and Janek Schaller look into this question. 

Janek Schaller: Hi Megan! 

Iman Khanbhai: Hello! 

Megan Hall: So, electric eels? Tell me about them. 

Janek Schaller: Electric eels are a type of freshwater fish. They have bad eyesight and can be as long as 8 feet! 

Megan Hall: Ok, but what about the electric part? How does that work?

Iman Khanbhai: Right. Inside an eel’s body are a series of cells that generate electricity. Alone, those cells don’t create much of a charge, but when they’re stacked in a row, like batteries, they’re pretty powerful. 

Megan Hall: How much electricity are we talking about?

Janek Schaller: It depends, but scientists have found eels that can generate up to 860 volts.

Megan Hall: 860 volts. Is that a lot? 

Iman Khanbhai: Hang on – to answer that we need a quick high school physics refresher.  

Janek Schaller: Voltage is basically pressure in an electrical current. A good way to think about it is to picture electricity kind of like a waterfall. 

Iman Khanbhai: If the waterfall is high, the water falling over it has a lot of energy, and can do a lot of work. 

Janek Schaller: Your home outlets are 120V, so electric eels can be several times higher voltage than those outlets.  They can definitely give you quite a shock.  

Megan Hall: Oh cool! So can humans use this electricity?

Janek Schaller: Well, that gets to the next part of the electricity refresher. To learn more, we talked to Professor Sean Sun. 

Sean Sun: I’m a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Johns Hopkins University. I’m also part of the Center for Cell Dynamics and Institute of Nanobiotechnology here.

Iman Khanbhai: Sean has actually done research into this exact question- can we harness electricity from eels?  

Sean Sun: I think the short answer to your listener’s question is yes…There’s really quite a number of challenges, some of those logistic, some of it is scientific, they’re things that we just don’t know… it is definitely possible.

Megan Hall: What are the challenges Sean is talking about?

Janek Schaller: Well, eels can create electricity, but not for very long. They only give off those high-voltage shocks when they’re defending themselves or trying to stun their prey. Even then, their current only flows for about 2 milliseconds. 

Iman Khanbhai: Remember the waterfall analogy? The high waterfall means the water will have a lot of energy by the time it hits the bottom, but there just isn’t much water- it runs out in 2 milliseconds.  

Megan Hall: I see. So an electric eel isn’t going to power my electric car? 

Janek Schaller: Not anytime soon. But Sean’s team wondered if they could get around this problem by making artificial eel cells. 

Sean Sun: All you need is a small piece of tissue from a native eel, preferably young eel that you can then use to derive into stem cells. And then because they will self renewal if you can keep them alive, you essentially can have an indefinite number of cells, right? 

Iman Khanbhai: Sean hoped to take those electric cells out of an eel’s body, and put them in the ideal environment. He thought you could get them to fire that electricity more often. And maybe, with genetic engineering, you could make those cells more powerful.

Sean Sun: This is, of course, this is what evolution does, right? You’re always looking for the next better thing.  

Megan Hall: Interesting. So, how soon will these artificial eels start creating some serious electricity? 

Janek Schaller: Unfortunately, not anytime soon. Sean’s project ended early because it ran out of funding. But he’s still excited about pursuing these questions. 

Megan Hall: Got it. Thanks Iman and Janek. 

That’s it for today. For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to thepublicsradio.org/possibly. Or subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. 

You can also follow us on Instagram, Facebook or X at  “askpossibly”

Possibly is a co-production of The Public’s Radio, Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society and Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative.

The post Can we harness electricity from Electric Eels? appeared first on Possibly.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall. As we head into a new year, our Possibly team decided to think about all of our episodes, and how they might inspire our resolutions for 2024. Here’s what some of us had to say.

Will Malloy: My name is Wil Malloy, I’m a reporter for Possibly, I was inspired by the episode about offsetting flights by giving up red meat. And my resolution for the new year is to give up red meat.

Juliana Merullo: My name is Juliana Merullo, and I’m a senior reporter with Possibly. I love to bird and I was inspired by our episode on bird migration and light pollution. So this spring, I’m going to make sure to close my curtains and turn off my lights at night during spring migration. 

Stephen Porder: Hi, this is Steven Porder, co-founder of Possibly. It’s finally time to tackle dairy. I’ve cut out all meat. But we know the dairy has a big carbon footprint. I’m not quite ready to give up cheese. So my New Year’s resolution is to give up on all animal based milk, yogurt, and butter. Maybe next year for cheese, but that’s going to be a tough one.

Meg Talikoff: Hi, I’m Meg Talikoff. I’m a reporter at Possibly and this year my resolution is to look into how to become an intervener at my public utilities commission. It means that I would be able to give feedback officially to the Public Utilities Commission and give a perspective other than utility companies’ perspective. 

Charlie Adams: Hello, My name is Charlie Adams. I’m a reporter for Possibly 

Iman Khanbhai: Hi, my name is Iman Khanbhai. I’m a reporter for Possibly.

Charlie Adams and Iman Khanbhai: We’re gonna use less water when we shave.

Nat Hardy: Hi, my name is Nat Hardy, and I’m the managing producer at Possibly. We had an episode earlier this year about how to more sustainably make a cup of coffee. I don’t drink coffee, but I’m a really big tea drinker. This year, I want to research how to make a more sustainable cup of tea. 

Megan Hall: Hi, my name is Megan Hall and I’m the host of Possibly. Two years ago I made a resolution that I was going to save money so I could buy an electric car. And I did it this year. So mission accomplished.  For 2024, my resolution is to also try to limit the kinds of things I buy that I don’t need so I can save up money for heat pumps, which is another thing we talked about a lot on the show- it’s a more sustainable way to heat and cool your house.

Janek Schaller: Hi, my name is Janek Schaller. I’m a senior reporter here at Possibly and my resolution for the new year is to become more aware of the ways in which I can leverage my position as a student, and as somebody who cares with the climate, to affect change. Kind of along the lines of what we saw in our reporting on the Youth Climate suit in Montana.  

Megan Hall: Anything else you want to say? 

Nat Hardy: Happy New Year!

Stephen Porder: Happy New Year!

Megan Hall: Happy New Year! 

That’s it for today. For more information or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet. Go to the public’s radio.org/Possibly.

You can also follow us on social media at Ask Possibly.

Possibly is a co-production of The Public’s Radio, Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, and Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative.

The post Our resolutions for 2024 appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Our resolutions for 2024 appeared first on Possibly.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall. 

Today, we’re continuing our coverage of the future of energy in Rhode Island. Since the state burns too much natural gas to reach net-zero by 2050, it’s time to change our relationship to that energy source – but how?

We had Janek Schaller and Juliana Merullo from our Possibly team learn more about the potential solutions to this problem.

Janek Schaller: What’s up, Megan?

Juliana Merullo: Hi there! 

Megan Hall: So, remind me, what’s the problem with natural gas?

Janek Schaller: Well, burning gas to heat homes and generate electricity accounts for about ⅓ of Rhode Island’s carbon emissions. That’s not even counting the gas that leaks without being burned, which warms the planet as well.   

Megan Hall: So where do we go from here?

Juliana Merullo: An excellent question, and one that the stakeholder group organized by the Public Utility Commission, or PUC has been mulling over for more than a year now. 

Megan Hall: What are they trying to figure out?

Janek Schaller: Essentially, the future of natural gas boils down to one main debate: Should we improve our existing gas infrastructure or should we abandon gas pipelines entirely and electrify our heating sector? 

Megan Hall: So What’s the answer? 

Juliana Merullo: They’re not sure yet,  But, we can tell you what we know about those options…

Megan Hall: Let’s hear them!

Janek Schaller: Ok- option number 1 would be to update and improve gas infrastructure across the state. Natural Gas leaks in the United States happen roughly once every forty hours  –so,  the thinking is that if newer equipment can eliminate those leaks, we can keep up with our emissions targets.

Juliana Merullo: There’s one big problem here. If we sink money into improvements to the gas network, we’re more likely to use it for a longer time, and there is no way to reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets if we continue to burn gas to heat our homes. 

Megan Hall: What if we weren’t burning natural gas? 

Juliana Merullo: That’s another idea! We could use those pipelines for an alternative fuel source with less emissions.

Megan Hall: Does that alternative fuel source exist?

Janek Schaller: Not really. … Researchers are looking into blending hydrogen into natural gas pipelines, but as of right now, we don’t have a way to produce hydrogen without also releasing lots of carbon dioxide emissions. 

Juliana Merullo: We might solve that problem someday, but it’s very unlikely to help by 2030, when our first reduction target has to be met.

Janek Schaller: Some people hope that biogas, which is made from decomposing organic matter like manure and sewage, could be a decent substitute for natural gas.

Juliana Merullo: But, unfortunately, it’s not really all that much better than natural gas, and it’s hard to produce it in large quantities.

Megan Hall: What about just abandoning natural gas and the pipelines that get it to our homes? 

Janek Schaller: Some states are already looking into that.  

Megan Hall: What does that process look like? You can’t just turn off the gas supply one day, right?

Juliana Merullo: It wouldn’t be quite that dramatic. Places that have abandoned their gas infrastructure use an approach that’s called “Trimming.”  

Megan Hall: How does that work?

Janek Schaller:  They start by shutting down aging sections of gas infrastructure, block by block. Then, all of the homes and businesses that were connected to those sections get electrified.

Megan Hall: Who has done this so far? 

Juliana Merullo: California, for one! One of its major utility companies is working to retire and dismantle their own infrastructure. 

Megan Hall: Could Rhode Island do this, too?

Janek Schaller: It’s certainly possible! So far, Rhode Island Energy hasn’t expressed much interest in this approach, but they are the main utility for gas AND electric in our state, so in theory, they wouldn’t lose any business by switching people over to electricity. 

Megan Hall: Got it. So what happens next? 

Juliana Merullo: The Public Utility Commission’s stakeholder group is still considering the best approach for reducing our emissions. They’ll report their final recommendations to the legislature in March of 2024

Megan Hall: We’ll definitely stay tuned on that front. Thanks, Janek and Juliana!

That’s it for today. For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to the public’s radio dot org slash possibly. Or subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. 

You can also follow us on Facebook and instagram  at  “ask possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of The Public’s Radio, Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society and Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative.

The post What does the future of natural gas look like in Rhode Island? Part 2 appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post What does the future of natural gas look like in Rhode Island? Part 2 appeared first on Possibly.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall. 

It’s getting colder, and a lot of people are turning on their furnaces. Many of those run on “natural” gas, which is basically methane, a potent greenhouse gas. 

So, what do we do about these emissions?  We had Janek Schaller and Juliana Merullo, from our Possibly team, look into this tricky question.

Janek Schaller: Hey, Megan!

Juliana Merullo: Hiya! 

Megan Hall: First off, why are we concerned about using natural gas?

Janek Schaller: Natural gas is used for both heating and electricity generation, and burning it is responsible for about ⅓ of all US emissions.    

Megan Hall: Is Rhode Island doing anything to reduce those emissions?

Juliana Merullo: In fact, we have to! The 2021 Act on Climate requires the state to get to net-zero by the year 2050, so we’ll have to rethink our relationship with natural gas if we want to meet that target.

Megan Hall: So who’s responsible for figuring out what changes need to be made?

Janek Schaller:  This is another job for our friends at the Public Utility Commission…

Megan Hall: Remind me who they are…?

Janek Schaller: The Public Utility Commission, or PUC,  regulates the utility companies in each state and assesses the rates they charge consumers for water, electricity, and gas.

Megan Hall: Gas, as in natural gas?

Juliana Merullo: Exactly – so you can start to see how the utilities tie in to this. To meet the state’s emission goals, utility companies will need to make changes to the way they operate. And THOSE changes may affect the cost of energy. 

Megan Hall: Which is where the PUC comes into play–

Janek Schaller: Right. One of their jobs is deciding whether utility companies are making “prudent investments.” 

Megan Hall: What does that mean?

Juliana Merullo: That’s a really important question. We spoke with Todd Bianco, the Chief Economic and Policy Analyst for Rhode Island’s Public Utilities Commission, to get a better idea:

Todd Bianco: “The issue of prudence often comes to what a reasonable company would have done to serve its customers.”

Janek Schaller: Todd says if a utility can provide compelling evidence that a new investment – like repairs to its natural gas lines – would help them better serve their customers, then the PUC will let them increase their prices. 

Juliana Merullo: In this case, the most piece of evidence is that Act on Climate that Rhode Island passed in 2021. It mandated emissions reductions for Rhode Island’s gas sector. 

Janek Schaller: In other words, our state law has now officially made it “prudent” to reconsider our use of natural gas. 

Megan Hall: Got it. So what does the future of gas look like, according to the Public Utilities Commission?

Juliana Merullo: Right now, they are still gathering information, since this is a pretty contentious issue.  

Janek Schaller: Before making a final call, the PUC has decided to organize a stakeholder group to get more input on how best to decarbonize the gas sector. Todd says this buys everyone a little time. 

Todd Bianco:“It would be too early for folks to begin to settle their differences. No one should feel the pressure that they need to begin to compromise on what they want yet.”

Megan Hall: But how long is this process going to take? I mean, we don’t have a lot of time when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. 

Janek Schaller: Todd says getting more opinions is a crucial part of the process. And besides, the biggest issue has already been resolved.

Megan Hall: And what would that be?

Juliana Merullo: Whether or not we have to transition to renewable energy at all. As Todd puts it,

Todd Bianco: “The question of is it prudent to eliminate emissions from the gas system has been answered already by the legislature: it is prudent and not only is it prudent, it must be done.”

Megan Hall: So what happens once the stakeholder group has done its thing? 

Juliana Merullo: While they may not reach complete consensus, the group will eventually share their findings with the Public Utilities Commission, who will ultimately decide which course of action to take.  

Janek Schaller: Those recommendations will largely be based on which approaches will create the most benefit for consumers while also minimizing cost for the utility, all while getting us to the emissions targets laid out in state law. We’ll have more on what those options might look like in a later episode. 

Megan Hall: Keep us posted – thanks, Janek and Juliana!

That’s it for today. For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to the public’s radio dot org slash possibly. Or subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. 

You can also follow us on Facebook and Instagram- at  “ask possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of The Public’s Radio, Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society and Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative.

The post What does the Future of Natural Gas Look Like in Rhode Island? Part 1 appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post What does the Future of Natural Gas Look Like in Rhode Island? Part 1 appeared first on Possibly.

Juliana Merullo: Welcome to Possibly,  where we take on huge problems, like the future of our planet, and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Juliana Merullo. 

Janek Schaller: And I’m Janek Schaller. We’re in for Megan Hall to continue our youth takeover of the show. 

Juliana Merullo: This week, we have more coverage of the climate lawsuit that was filed by a group of young people against the state of Montana. It was the first case like this in the US to go to trial, and the young people won! 

Janek Schaller: In a past episode, we spoke to an expert witness from the trial about the legal background for the case. She said Montana is special because its constitution includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. 

Juliana Merullo: So we’re going to start today’s episode with Montana itself. One small problem: Janek and I have never lived in Montana. Luckily, we just met someone who has spent her entire life there – in fact, her connection to Montana started before she was even born.

Grace Gibson-Snyder: My family has been in Montana for six generations, I was a fifth generation born in Montana.

Janek Schaller: That’s Grace Gibson-Snyder, who hails from Missoula, Montana. Even though she grew up in the city, she says she was never very far from the state’s beautiful outdoors. Right now, Grace is learning how to kayak.

Grace Gibson-Snyder: I can literally drive six blocks from my house to the river, get in, practice my roll a couple of times, and it takes like a total of 30 minutes.

Juliana Merullo: Grace said that one of the biggest parts of being a Montanan is enjoying and relying on its natural environment on a daily basis.

Janek Schaller: But Grace also knows Montana is a fossil-fueled state; much of the economy depends on extracting natural resources like coal and oil. 

Juliana Merullo: And while there might have been a time when these two parts of Montana could coexist, Grace says climate change has shown that’s not the case anymore.

Grace Gibson-Snyder: The extractive industry is no longer compatible with this outdoors that we value so greatly in Montana.

Juliana Merullo: With this in mind, Grace got involved with environmental advocacy in her hometown. But she was also hoping to make change on a broader scale, so when a guest speaker at her high school mentioned an upcoming climate lawsuit, she knew she wanted to help.

Janek Schaller: Now might be a good time to mention that we didn’t meet with Grace to talk about kayaking.

Grace Gibson-Snyder: I am first and foremost a student but I’m also a plaintiff in the constitutional climate lawsuit Held vs State of Montana.

Juliana Merullo: Grace is 19 now, but she was just 16 when the case was first filed back in 2020. 

Grace Gibson-Snyder:  I remember talking to my parents, bringing it to them and saying what do you think about me getting involved legally in something at age 16. They were very supportive… But we didn’t expect it to go anywhere.

Juliana Merullo: I think a lot of people in our generation feel some responsibility to help fight the climate crisis. And because the young people who filed the case weren’t old enough to vote at the time, bringing a lawsuit like this was one of the only ways they could force their government to take action.

Janek Schaller: It took three years for the case to make its way to trial, and in the meantime, Grace had to balance her sense of responsibility with just being a regular teenager.

Grace Gibson-Snyder: We all want to be kids, like I was 16, I would much prefer to be thinking about like, prom than like, the end of the world, right. And it’s really hard to balance the intensity of that with regular life. And I won’t say that I’m particularly good at separating the two. (combined) 

Janek Schaller: I think Grace is speaking to something a lot of people our age are dealing with. Especially when we’re thinking about our futures, it can be hard to avoid letting climate anxiety dominate our everyday lives. 

Juliana Merullo: It’s so exciting to see these youth-led climate movements that are fighting back against that hopelessness. But at the same time, Grace says, 

Grace Gibson-Snyder: I really don’t like that this movement is being led by youth. this whole concept of now let’s involve youth in the space and see what they want. Well, everyone knows what we want. We want you to stop burning fossil fuels, and give us like a nice, clean, healthy environment for the next forever, hopefully.

Janek Schaller: Even if we didn’t ask to be the generation leading this fight, Grace and the other youth plaintiffs clearly aren’t backing down. But sometimes I wonder whether our generation can succeed even when past generations haven’t. Grace is still optimistic:

Grace Gibson-Snyder: It’s super inspiring to see just how invested everyone is, because I think we know we have no other choice. I believe in our ability to have an impact. Not out of hope, but out of necessity. 

Janek Schaller: The climate science and personal experiences they presented with their lawyers are now officially in the court record, and as a result, the state has to consider the climate impact of any new energy projects. 

Juliana Merullo: But beyond that, Grace says she hopes this legal victory will help protect the Montana she loves for generations to come.

Grace Gibson-Snyder: Knowing that, no, my kids won’t experience Montana in the same way that I will, or knowing that the glaciers will be gone, you know, within a couple of decades, what I work for is just the possibility of giving the next generation an experience even remotely similar to mine, because mine has been so spectacular, and so unique and wonderful. 

Janek Schaller: I think all of us are just trying to figure out how to navigate this climate crisis we’re living in. The youth climate movement, and young people like Grace, remind us why we should still have hope. 

Juliana Merullo: That’s it for today. For more information or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to the publics radio dot org slash possibly. Or you can follow us on facebook and Instagram at ask possibly

Janek Schaller: Possibly is a co-production of The Public’s Radio and Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society and Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative.

The post Meet one of the students who sued Montana to address climate change and won appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Meet one of the students who sued Montana to address climate change and won appeared first on Possibly.