Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.
The number of peer-reviewed scientific studies authored by scientists at the EPA has declined since the beginning of Donald Trump’s second administration, according to a new analysis.
The analysis was published by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a nonprofit organization that advocates fo
Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.
The number of peer-reviewed scientific studies authored by scientists at the EPA has declined since the beginning of Donald Trump’s second administration, according to a new analysis.
The analysis was published by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a nonprofit organization that advocates for public employees in the natural resource and environmental professions. The report tracks the number of peer-reviewed scientific studies authored by EPA scientists since 1977.
According to PEER’s analysis, 61 peer-reviewed publications by EPA scientists have been published so far this year, putting the agency on track to publish 183 articles by the end of 2026. That would be a 33% decline from the previous year and a nearly 46% decrease from 2024.
“These numbers represent a diminution of scientific contributions from the fewer, remaining EPA scientists,” said Kyla Bennett, a science policy director at PEER and a former EPA attorney, in a statement. “The net result is that the scientific contribution of EPA to a greater understanding of what affects human health and the environment will be diminished.”
The number of peer-reviewed publications authored by EPA scientists in 2026 will be just over half of the number published in 2024, if current publication rates continue. Credit: PEER, Grace van Deelen
Peer-reviewed publications can take years to review and publish, meaning the work for a publication may have occurred during a previous administration. But the decline in publications may indicate a shift away from long-term basic research at the agency, according to PEER.
Since Trump took office, hundreds of scientists have been terminated from the EPA or have chosen to resign, and scientists working within at least one of its research office have been told to pause efforts to publish research, representing “millions of dollars of research, potentially, that’s now being stopped,” one EPA employee told The Washington Post anonymously.
In February, the EPA took final steps to eliminate the Office of Research and Development, the arm of the agency responsible for conducting research. In its place, Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that a new office, called the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, would be formed but would not operate as a separate division.
Six EPA scientists who signed an open letter expressing frustration about changes to the agency, including the elimination of the Office of Research and Development, were terminated and have filed claims with the federal government arguing that their terminations were illegal retaliation.
These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.
Source: Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems
About 600 million years ago, the continents wandered Earth, yet to settle into their current positions. Their locations during the Ediacaran (as this time is called) have been tough for scientists to pin down. Earth’s magnetic field appears to have behaved in erratic ways, and applying standard techniques to calculate the continents’ positions based on records of the magnetic field yields implausible results. In particular, scientists debate the l
About 600 million years ago, the continents wandered Earth, yet to settle into their current positions. Their locations during the Ediacaran (as this time is called) have been tough for scientists to pin down. Earth’s magnetic field appears to have behaved in erratic ways, and applying standard techniques to calculate the continents’ positions based on records of the magnetic field yields implausible results. In particular, scientists debate the location of an ancient continent called Baltica, which is now part of Europe.
To investigate, Xue et al. traveled to Egersund, Norway, to collect samples of rock that formed during a time when Baltica’s crust was being pulled apart, allowing magma to percolate up from below. As that magma hardened, it recorded snapshots of Earth’s magnetic field, storing information about Baltica’s position in the process.
The results of studying these samples revealed a much more complex picture of the ancient rocks than the scientists initially envisioned. The rocks contained a messy mix of at least six magnetic signals. Several appeared to have formed when more modern geological processes altered the original rocks. Three distinct signals may have survived from the Ediacaran period, two of which diverge from the most plausible Ediacaran signal, which places Baltica near the equator. These conflicting signals further support the idea that Earth’s magnetic field was behaving strangely at the time, adding new complexity to an already puzzling picture.
On the basis of the new results, the researchers place the Egersund paleomagnetic pole at 20.8°N, 89.0°E during the Ediacaran—which diverges from previous results—and suggest that Baltica was located near the equator, adjacent to the ancient continent Laurentia, but rotated slightly clockwise relative to previous reconstructions. The study demonstrates the convoluted nature of the magnetic signals preserved in ancient rocks and the importance of dissecting those records into their constituent components. Doing so, the researchers suggest, can shed new light on the enigmatic behavior of Earth’s magnetic field during the Ediacaran. (Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GC012730, 2026)
Columbia Climate School is thrilled to announce that Melanie Nakagawa, Chief Sustainability Officer at Microsoft, will deliver the keynote address at the Climate School’s Class Day ceremony.
Columbia Climate School is thrilled to announce that Melanie Nakagawa, Chief Sustainability Officer at Microsoft, will deliver the keynote address at the Climate School’s Class Day ceremony.
Editors’ Highlights are summaries of recent papers by AGU’s journal editors.
Source: Water Resources Research
In the March 2026 issue of Water Resources Research, Zhang et al. [2026] interrogate conceptual hydrologic models’ ability to capture prolonged drought dynamics. The Australian Millennium drought serves as an example in the study. The results are quite sobering because the vast majority of more than 40 models fail. Unfortunately, calibration doesn’t generally help either and might
In the March 2026 issue of Water Resources Research, Zhang et al. [2026] interrogate conceptual hydrologic models’ ability to capture prolonged drought dynamics. The Australian Millennium drought serves as an example in the study. The results are quite sobering because the vast majority of more than 40 models fail. Unfortunately, calibration doesn’t generally help either and might result in massive overfitting. In essence, conceptual models miss deep aquifer storage components and associated hydrodynamic processes leading to a lack of time scales important in drought modeling. The study is a constructive reminder that model parsimony is not necessarily a good thing and that detailed representation of complex physical processes is part of hydrologic sciences.
Citation: Zhang, Z., Fowler, K., & Peel, M. (2026). Can conceptual rainfall-runoff models capture multi-annual storage dynamics? Water Resources Research, 62, e2025WR042226. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025WR042226
Editors’ Vox is a blog from AGU’s Publications Department.
AGU Advances is excited to announce the journal’s inaugural Early Career Editorial Board! The editors of AGU Advances have selected three early career researchers to join the Early Career Editorial Fellow program:
Huilin Huang
University of Virginia
Yihe Huang
University of Michigan
Danielle Monteverde Potocek
Spark Climate Solutions
They will serve as
AGU Advances is excited to announce the journal’s inaugural Early Career Editorial Board! The editors of AGU Advances have selected three early career researchers to join the Early Career Editorial Fellow program:
Huilin Huang
University of Virginia
Yihe Huang
University of Michigan
Danielle Monteverde Potocek
Spark Climate Solutions
They will serve as Associate Editors from January 2026 to December 2027, under the leadership of the mentoring editors: David Schimel (Jet Propulsion Laboratory), Thorsten Becker (The University of Texas at Austin, Jackson School of Geoscience), and Eric Davidson (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science), respectively. AGU Advances is excited to join AGU journals GeoHealth and JGR: Biogeosciences (Xenopoulos, M. A., and T. H. Nguyen, 2024) in launching an Early Career Editorial Fellow program and grateful to our exceptional Early Career Fellows for volunteering their time in service of scientific publishing. This mentorship program, designed to offer a hands-on approach for researchers interested in editorial roles, will support the next generation of researchers and journal editors and lead to stronger futures for our journals and scientific community.
The Early Career Fellows will work one-on-one with a current AGU Advances Editor.
The Early Career Fellows will work one-on-one with a current AGU Advances Editor to learn about the steps of the editorial process, the ethics of reviewing, and what goes into making a decision on a manuscript. They will also learn about the more challenging elements of the editorial process, such as securing reviewers, addressing conflicting reviews, addressing author and/or reviewer concerns.
As the scientific world, and the world at large, change and shift, so too does the world of academic publishing and the needs of future researchers. By working with these Early Career Fellows, we will gain invaluable insight on how to keep our publications at the forefront for the Earth and space sciences.
Below, we asked the Early Career Fellows about their research interests and what they are excited about as they step into this new role (responses edited for length and clarity):
What is your current role and area of research?
Danie: “My areas of research include: biogeochemistry, geobiology, climate science, and global environmental change. “
Huilin: “My area of research is land-atmosphere interaction especially biosphere-atmosphere interaction and climate modeling.”
Yihe: “My group studies the physical mechanisms of earthquakes and faulting processes using both observational methods (e.g., seismic data analysis) and numerical tools (e.g., earthquake rupture simulation). We’re particularly interested in how fluid, fault zone structure, and fault geometry can affect the nucleation, propagation and arrest of earthquakes and how earthquakes contribute to the strain budget and structural evolution of fault zones and plate boundaries. We also have a broad interest in developing physical tools for seismic hazard mitigation and bridging earthquake science and engineering applications.”
Do you have prior experience as a journal editor?
Danie: “This is my first experience in an editorial role.”
Yihe: “Yes, I’ve been an Associate Editor for JGR: Solid Earth since 2020, and I’ve been an editor for Earth, Planets and Space since last year.”
What interested you in joining the AGU Advances editorial board?
Danie: “I was eager to learn more about the publishing process from the editorial perspective, engage with fellow editors, and contribute to supporting the scientific community. I was also particularly drawn to the structure of the Early Career Board, which offers the opportunity to be mentored by a senior editor and develop editorial expertise before handling manuscripts independently. “
Huilin: “I am drawn to AGU Advances because it prioritizes high-impact studies that fundamentally shift our understanding.”
Yihe: “I’m interested in getting a broader perspective about how an editorial board works, especially for a cross-disciplinary high-impact journal like AGU Advances.”
What would you like to see next from AGU Advances or the AGU journals as a whole?
Danie: “AGU Advances already has a strong focus and track record of publishing research with global relevance and impact. I am excited to support this mission and would also like to see continued expansion of the author base to include more diverse geographies (particularly Asia and Global South) as well as a broader range of career stages.
I would also welcome AGU journals to continue their outreach and engagement with the community that balances traditional hypothesis-driven research with action-oriented perspectives addressing urgent scientific and societal challenges especially considering the rapidly shifting landscape of scientific research.”
Huilin: “I am particularly interested in seeing the conversation toward the use of new technolog[ies] (like AI/ML or new satellite, new models) to advanc[ing] process-level understanding.”
Yihe: “I would like to see editors’ perspectives on how AGU Advances distinguishes itself from other high-impact journals. I would also like to learn how we can advertise and communicate the advantages of publishing in AGU Advances through different avenues.”
We are so appreciative of our volunteer Editors, David Schimel, Thorsten Becker, and Eric Davidson, who will be mentoring our new Early Career Fellows. Here, we asked them what they are looking forward to most about the program:
What outcomes for AGU Advances do you hope to see from the Early Career Board?
Dave: “ECRs provide a fresh view and are often much closer to the methods and science in papers we receive. An ECR and a Board editor have a great combination, experience, perspective and familiarity up close with the work and the community.”
Eric: “The associate editors become interested in being full editors and are well prepared. At a minimum, they have an experience that makes them better authors and reviewers because of the perspective they’ve gained as associate editors.
Why did you decide to become a mentoring editor?
Editing scientific papers can be a true joy of learning and discovery.
Thorsten Becker
Thorsten: “We value a diversity of perspectives and background when assessing contributions during initial and formal review, and it will be terrific to benefit from Yihe’s expertise. Editing scientific papers can be a true joy of learning and discovery, and we think this position will be a great pathway to take on a larger role in this community process while having a somewhat reduced workload and being able to participate in an exchange about best practices and a mentoring system that can hopefully facilitate sharing best practices and insights gained from prolonged work in an editorial role.”
Dave: “Oh, man, when I started as a peer reviewer and then a guest editor, followed by being a member of a board, each step was sink or swim! I am happy to share a few lessons learned but also expect to learn a lot from my ECR’s view from the cutting edge. I think we’ll have fun learning from each other.”
What advice would you give to early career researchers interested in becoming journal editors?
Seeing publishing from the other side is really important for maturing scientists!
David Schimel
Dave: “Being an editor is an amazing way to broader your knowledge and network, but being an editor is serious work, is a paper going to advance science, or, with appropriate guidance could it advance science? Does it build on the literature or ignore relevant work? Accepting/rejecting papers has huge career impact on authors but we have to keep in mind we review papers to advance science, not to play career games, while recognizing publications have become very much about careers with all manner of distorted and perverse incentives. Seeing publishing from the other side is really important for maturing scientists! Also, you learn that ten extra minutes to explain a decision to an author can change a life! I’ve learned a HUGE amount from the peer reviewers and editors of my own papers!”
Eric: “Accept invitations to review manuscripts. Let an editor or EiC know of your interest. Make sure you have the time to do this.”
Citation: Schuette, A., A. Montanari, H. Huang, Y. Huang, D. Monteverde Potocek, T. Becker, E. Davidson, D. Schimel, K. Vrouwenvelder, and S. Dedej (2026), Announcing the inaugural AGU AdvancesEarly Career Editorial Fellows, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO265018. Published on 5 May 2026.
This article does not represent the opinion of AGU, Eos, or any of its affiliates. It is solely the opinion of the author(s).
About two tons of satellite material burns up in Earth’s atmosphere every day. That is the steady-state exhaust of a single company’s broadband network, SpaceX’s Starlink, operating at its current scale. Each vaporized spacecraft leaves behind aluminum oxide, lithium, copper, and a growing list of metals the upper atmosphere has never had to contained in these quantities before.
We’re following a familiar human pattern. A commons, like the low earth orbit (LEO) region of space, is declared abund
About two tons of satellite material burns up in Earth’s atmosphere every day. That is the steady-state exhaust of a single company’s broadband network, SpaceX’s Starlink, operating at its current scale. Each vaporized spacecraft leaves behind aluminum oxide, lithium, copper, and a growing list of metals the upper atmosphere has never had to contained in these quantities before.
We’re following a familiar human pattern. A commons, like the low earth orbit (LEO) region of space, is declared abundant. Commercial activity scales faster than science can measure the consequences. Governance lags by a decade or more. By the time the damage is legible, it is already expensive to reverse.
We did this to rivers in the 19th century, to the atmosphere in the 20th, and to the deep ocean in a quiet accumulation that stretched across both. A new peer-reviewed analysis published in Advances in Space Research makes clear that LEO is now on the same trajectory, and the chemistry is moving faster than the regulation.
An Atmosphere Already Dominated by Human Metal
The paper, an update to a 2021 study, reassesses how much spacecraft material is now being injected into the mesosphere and lower thermosphere as satellites and rocket stages burn up on reentry. The comparison it draws is that for several metals commonly used in spacecraft, anthropogenic injection now rivals or exceeds the natural input from meteoroids.
What was already true in 2021 is more true now. The researchers incorporate direct observations from stratospheric aerosol sampling — work led by Daniel Murphy at NOAA and published in PNAS in 2023 — which confirmed that roughly 10 percent of stratospheric aerosol particles now contain aluminum and other metals traceable to satellite and rocket-stage burn-up. For decades, the natural baseline was micrometeoroid ablation, what space sent naturally toward our planet. Earth sweeps up roughly 30 to 50 metric tons of cosmic dust every day, a steady rain of mostly sand-grain-sized particles left over from comets and asteroids. Those grains hit the upper atmosphere at speeds between 11 and 72 kilometers per second, vaporize in a thin layer between about 75 and 110 kilometers altitude, and seed the mesosphere with iron, magnesium, silicon, sodium, and trace amounts of nickel, calcium, and aluminum. This process has been running for the entire 4.5-billion-year history of the planet. The metal layers it produces in the upper atmosphere are well-mapped; they are the chemistry the stratosphere evolved with.
Aluminum is a useful tracer because it is a small share of the natural input. Cosmic dust is dominated by silicates and iron, with aluminum running on the order of one to two percent by mass. So when researchers began detecting elevated aluminum in stratospheric aerosol particles in the early 2020s, the signal was unambiguous — meteoritic infall could not account for it. The source had to be terrestrial in origin, vaporized at altitude. Spacecraft, in other words.
Human vehicles have become a second, larger source.
The near-term trajectory is worse. Researchers at the University of Southern California documented an eightfold increase in stratospheric aluminum oxide between 2016 and 2022, corresponding almost exactly to the ramp-up of Starlink and other satellite megaconstellations. In 2022 alone, reentering satellites released an estimated 17 metric tons of aluminum oxide nanoparticles — raising total atmospheric aluminum input about 29.5 percent above natural levels.
The Ocean Parallel
Consider the deep ocean in the 1960s. Dumping was legal, monitoring was barely funded, and the prevailing assumption was that the ocean was big enough to absorb anything. We now know the answer to that assumption after finding microplastics in Mariana Trench amphipods, pharmaceutical residues in Arctic sediment cores, and PFAS in polar bear blood.
Low Earth orbit is in the 1960s-ocean phase. The prevailing assumption among launch operators is that satellites that burn up are satellites that disappear. Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in global politics and international law, put this directly in a 2024 interview with Scientific American: “There’s this widespread assumption that something burning up in the atmosphere disappears, but, of course, mass never disappears.”
What it does instead is change form. A 250-kilogram satellite, typically about 30 percent aluminum by mass, generates roughly 30 kilograms of aluminum oxide nanoparticles as it ablates through the mesosphere. Those particles are small enough — 1 to 100 nanometers — that they can drift in the stratosphere for decades before settling. Aluminum oxide is not inert. It catalyzes the chlorine reactions that destroy stratospheric ozone, the same chemistry the Montreal Protocol was designed to stop. Crucially, the particles are not consumed in those reactions; they continue to destroy ozone molecules for the duration of their atmospheric lifetime.
The Scale Is Not Hypothetical
As of April 2026, SpaceX alone operates more than 10,000 active Starlink satellites, roughly two-thirds of all functioning spacecraft in orbit. The company has launched over 11,700 total, with about 1,500 already deorbited and replaced. Starlink satellites are designed for a five-year operational life, which means the constellation is, by design, a continuous churn: launch, operate, burn, launch again.
Amazon’s Project Kuiper, Eutelsat’s OneWeb, and a growing roster of Chinese state-backed constellations are moving toward similar architectures. The European Space Agency now tracks roughly 40,000 objects in low Earth orbit, about 11,000 of them active payloads, the rest debris or derelict hardware. Statistical models from ESA estimate another 130 million fragments smaller than one centimeter, each traveling fast enough to destroy whatever it hits.
Research published in Geophysical Research Letters projects that once currently planned megaconstellations are fully deployed, roughly 912 metric tons of aluminum will reenter the atmosphere every year, producing around 360 tons of aluminum oxide annually. A separate NOAA modeling study published in 2025 found that sustained alumina injection at expected 2040 levels could alter polar vortex speeds, warm parts of the mesosphere by as much as 1.5°C, and measurably impact the ozone layer.
Two Kinds of Pollution, One Commons
The orbital damage is happening on two fronts simultaneously, and they reinforce each other.
Atmospheric injection is the slow-accumulating chemistry problem. Every satellite that completes its mission becomes tomorrow’s stratospheric dust. A newly upgraded lidar system at the Leibniz Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Germany can now simultaneously detect lithium, sodium, copper, titanium, silicon, gold, silver, and lead in the upper atmosphere — each element a chemical fingerprint for specific spacecraft components. On February 20, 2025, the instrument registered a sudden spike in lithium vapor that researchers traced to a Falcon 9 upper stage reentering overhead.
The measurement capability is arriving just as the pollution is scaling.
Orbital debris is the faster-moving physical problem. SpaceX reported that its Starlink satellites executed 144,404 collision-avoidance maneuvers in the first half of 2025, due to collision warnings every couple of minutes, for six months straight — three times the previous rate. Two Starlink satellites have fragmented in orbit in the past four months, each creating a trackable debris field. Space is getting filled with junk that led to the International Space Station performing avoidance maneuvers twice in a single six-day window in November 2024, and again in April 2025.
Darren McKnight, a senior technical fellow at the debris-tracking firm LeoLabs, told IEEE Spectrum that certain orbital altitudes at 775, 840, and 975 kilometers have already passed the debris-density threshold where collisions generate fragments faster than atmospheric drag can remove them. This is known as the Kessler syndrome, proposed by NASA scientists Donald Kessler and Burton Cour-Palais in 1978, and it is no longer hypothetical in every band.
“Some operators in low Earth orbit are ignoring known long-term effects of behavior for short-term gain,” McKnight said, “Some will not change behavior until something bad happens.”
The Governance Gap
There is no body that regulates the cumulative atmospheric impact of satellite reentries. No operator is required to submit an environmental impact assessment for a constellation’s aggregate burn-up.
The FCC licenses spectrum.
National launch authorities license liftoff.
Debris mitigation guidelines from the UN’s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space are voluntary, and compliance is inconsistent. The chemistry of the upper atmosphere is, in regulatory terms, nobody’s jurisdiction.
The United Nations Environment Program took a first step in late 2025, releasing a report titled Safeguarding Space: Environmental Issues, Risks and Responsibilities. It framed space debris and atmospheric injection as “emerging issues” deserving the attention international bodies already give to ocean pollution and transboundary air quality. This is the same framing UNEP used for atmospheric ozone depletion in the 1970s before the Montreal Protocol. Measuring something does not fix it. But it is the necessary precondition for fixing it — and for the first time, the measurement infrastructure is catching up to the pollution.
The Counter-Case, Honestly
Not every specialist agrees the situation is as urgent as the headlines suggest. A skeptical review published in March 2026 argued that the Kessler cascade framing oversimplifies a risk that plays out on timescales of decades to centuries, and in specific orbital bands rather than across all of LEO. The review is right on one narrow point: the ISS has operated continuously at 400 kilometers since 2000, its debris risk is managed in real time, and the environment is not in a runaway state.
What the skeptical case does not resolve is the atmospheric chemistry. The Kessler debate is about whether low-earth orbit becomes unusable. The alumina question is about whether the recovery of the ozone layer — a genuine success story of international environmental governance — is quietly being undone from above. Those are different problems. The first might take a century. The second is already measurable and is projected to worsen within fifteen years.
Trash can? Storage container? The dilemma of what should be done with all types of old batteries may seem trifling, but choosing incorrectly is detrimental to our planet and against the law in many states. As a junior in high school, I chose to help people make the right choice by starting an awareness campaign, the Battery Recycling Initiative.
The first step to starting an awareness campaign is identifying the issue you wish to advocate for. Through research and observation, I noted that many
Trash can? Storage container? The dilemma of what should be done with all types of old batteries may seem trifling, but choosing incorrectly is detrimental to our planet and against the law in many states. As a junior in high school, I chose to help people make the right choice by starting an awareness campaign, the Battery Recycling Initiative.
The first step to starting an awareness campaign is identifying the issue you wish to advocate for. Through research and observation, I noted that many of us, including people in my own community, were unaware of the consequences of improper battery disposal on our environment. In fact, according to Recycling Today, 41% of Americans are unaware of the dangers of improper battery disposal.
The second step is to set the scope of your campaign. Are you planning on only advocating locally, globally, or a mix of both? Which specific areas should you advocate in to effectively spread awareness?
For my campaign, I chose to start locally and move globally. To find out if a local battery recycling campaign would be effective in my community, I decided to survey residents in Houston, TX and found out that more than 50% of the residents did not recycle batteries and about 14% only recycled certain types of batteries.
Step 1: Identify the issue and scope of your initiative
How does one start taking inititative? It is simple. Get people to listen. There were three strategies I used to increase awareness about battery recycling:
Provide information digitally and physically
Engage people through interaction and face-to-face conversations
Provide resources for people to take action.
These strategies tend to work for the majority of awareness campaigns: indirectly educate people (this could be through flyers, websites posts, etc.), directly educate people through in-person events, and give them a convenient method to take action. Why are these strategies effective?
Because through these 3 different ways to reach out to and engage people, you can cover most of the reasons why people may choose not to participate in resolving an issue. For example, the three main reasons why people don’t recycle batteries are:
people do not know they can recycle batteries.
recycling batteries is not convenient for some people.
they do not know where to recycle, or people do not have the will to recycle- they see recycling as insignificant, or they are ignorant of grave consequences for future generations.
All three of these problems can be combatted using the three strategies. Through indirect education, people learn that batteries can be recycled and where they can recycle them. Direct education empowers people to recycle, to take action, which combats the lack of will problem. Finally, providing resources to residents, in my case by placing battery recycling bins at my community clubhouses, combatted the lack of convenience aspect.
Step 2: Use the Three Strategies
Strategy 1 – Indirect Education
The first step to indirectly educating people is to ensure your information is accurate. I did plenty of research and talked to various battery recycling centers- like the Fort Bend County Battery Recycling Center- to ensure my information was accurate. The next step is choosing which methods of indirect education you wish to utilize. I chose to provide information via flyers, and use a QR code to help people locate their nearest battery recycling center, to give people quick and easy means to receive the information. I chose to utilize social media as my 2nd method to spread my initiative over a more globalized scope.
Strategy 2 – Direct Education
The main goal of direct education is to empower people to take action and to support/join your initiative. By interacting with people via face-to-face conversations, you retain the person’s attention a lot better than indirect means. By building a connection with the person you converse with, it encourages them to take part in the initiative.
For example, I participated in my community’s Green Day event where I set up a small booth and talked with residents about battery recycling. I remember having a conversation with this resident who was surprised to learn she could recycle batteries.
Many other residents told me they would just store old batteries in a container, not knowing what to do with them. One of my favorite interactions was with this lady who was so inspired by my initiative; she offered to help me out with anything I needed. While direct education does not reach that large of an audience, every meaningful connection you develop carries a depth of impact that numbers alone cannot measure- it has the potential to ripple out and influence countless others.
Strategy 3 – Providing a Convenient Method to Take Action
Convenience and availability play a big part in people’s will to take action. In fact, according to a study done by the Carton Council, these two factors contributed the most towards people’s will to recycle.
By appealing to people’s need for convenience, you spread awareness more effectively and grow your initiative by influencing people to act. I applied this idea by placing two battery recycling bins at both of my community clubhouses. I ended up receiving around 1,000 old batteries from those bins within two weeks, which I then safely recycled by taping the points of contact- this helps prevent fires due to batteries.
Have the Will and a Vision to Make an Impact
It may seem like you are just one person who cannot make an impact, but with a strong will and right vision you can achieve success. Your age, position, or location does not matter: I am just a Junior in high school living in a suburban area, but what does matter is you care and you have the heart to do something about it.
I urge you to utilize these methods and strategies to spread awareness about issues that matter to you, to make an impact. To quote the well-known, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”
About the Author
Swara Bhatt is a high school junior who loves to paint, read, and watch movies in her free time. She hopes to make the world a better place, one step at a time. If you are interested in seeing updates about the battery recycling initiative, follow the project on Instagram: @batteryrecyclingintitative
In the forestry sector, only the carbon storage service remains as the final piece to complete the legal framework, helping mobilise financial resources for people to participate in forest protection.
In the forestry sector, only the carbon storage service remains as the final piece to complete the legal framework, helping mobilise financial resources for people to participate in forest protection.
The solar system is bathed in galactic cosmic rays: protons and atomic nuclei traveling, nearly at the speed of light, from all directions. Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere shield us from most of this harmful radiation, but outside of that shelter, the bombardment is strong enough to prove a threat to astronauts.
But a new analysis of data from the Chang’e-4 lunar lander published in Science Advances revealed an extended cosmic ray shelter stretching from Earth at an unexpected angle at
The solar system is bathed in galactic cosmic rays: protons and atomic nuclei traveling, nearly at the speed of light, from all directions. Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere shield us from most of this harmful radiation, but outside of that shelter, the bombardment is strong enough to prove a threat to astronauts.
But a new analysis of data from the Chang’e-4 lunar lander published in Science Advances revealed an extended cosmic ray shelter stretching from Earth at an unexpected angle at least as far as the Moon, though exactly how far is unclear. When the Moon passes through this shelter in its orbit of Earth, the lunar surface experiences a roughly 20% reduction in the galactic cosmic ray flux.
“We found Earth casts kind of a shadow in the galactic cosmic ray space,” said Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber, a space physicist at Kiel University in Germany. “This was unexpected, and to me that was the cool part of this paper.”
The surprise came in part because the shape of Earth’s magnetic field is well understood: It forms a strong protective region around the planet known as the magnetosphere, with a long “tail” shaped by the solar wind of charged particles streaming from the Sun.
If the magnetotail is like a person’s shadow cast behind them by sunshine, this newly discovered bubble would be like if that shadow extended to the front of the person as well.
“You would expect an effect inside the tail or as [the Moon goes] through the tail, but we find an effect of the tail ahead of the tail,” said Wimmer-Schweingruber. He noted that if the magnetotail is like a person’s shadow cast behind them by sunshine, this newly discovered bubble would be like if that shadow extended to the front of the person as well and tilted rather than lying along a line connecting Earth, the Sun, and the Moon.
“The observed region of reduced [galactic cosmic ray] flux on the sunward side of the Moon’s orbit outside the geomagnetic field where it is compressed by the solar wind is unexpected,” Brian Flint Rauch wrote in an email. Rauch, a cosmic ray physicist at Washington University in St. Louis who was not involved in the Chang’e-4 study, added that any reduction in cosmic ray exposure is noteworthy for potential astronauts on the Moon.
A 20% decrease in flux during part of the lunar orbit is unlikely to make a large difference in determining when it’s safest for astronauts go out onto the lunar surface. But it might help guide individual decisions in the moment because while spacesuits won’t protect astronauts from cosmic rays, the metal of a habitat or lander would.
Shelter from the Storm
The China National Space Administration’s Chang’e-4 spacecraft was the first successful mission to the lunar farside, landing in the Von Kármán crater on 3 January 2019. As part of its suite of scientific instruments, the probe carried the Lunar Lander Neutron and Dosimetry experiment (LND) developed by Wimmer-Schweingruber and collaborators at Kiel University in an astonishingly rapid 18 months. This detector was designed in part to gauge conditions for human exploration by measuring the radiation on the Moon’s surface, including cosmic rays.
LND collected data between January 2019 and January 2022. Though Apollo astronauts carried radiation dosimeters, those instruments did not provide detailed information about fluctuations in exposure, making LND the primary source for such information from the lunar surface. For that reason, it provided the best data on galactic cosmic rays, which consist mostly of protons accelerated to nearly the speed of light in the remnants of supernovas.
Measurements show the ambient radiation dose on the lunar surface is more than twice as high as on the ISS and nearly 200 times as high as on Earth.
These protons arrive in the solar system from every direction, often undeflected by the magnetic fields of stars or planets. However, Earth’s magnetosphere is strong enough to repel many galactic cosmic rays in low orbit, where the International Space Station (ISS) resides. Meanwhile, measurements show the ambient radiation dose on the lunar surface is more than twice as high as on the ISS and nearly 200 times as high as on Earth, which is a matter of concern for long-term human presence on the Moon.
All of these reasons are why everyone was surprised when LND data revealed Earth’s magnetic protection extends far beyond the magnetosphere and at an angle to the line connecting Earth and the Sun. Lead author Wensai Shang of Shandong University in Weihai, China, worked out that the angle corresponds to the twisting of the Sun’s magnetic field.
“As the Sun rotates, it pulls the solar wind along the solar magnetic field,” Wimmer-Schweingruber said. “That produces a spiral.” Apparently, an unanticipated interaction between this twist in the solar magnetic field and Earth’s magnetic field produces the cosmic ray shelter revealed by LND.
Wimmer-Schweingruber noted that he was extremely skeptical that such results were possible at first. He warned Shang, a graduate student he worked with, that he might be wasting his time looking for cosmic ray anomalies in the Chang’e-4 data. It was only after Shang provided ironclad analyses ruling out other possibilities that he was swayed.
With the LND instrument shut off, researchers need other sources of data to continue the work. Wimmer-Schweingruber expressed particular interest in understanding how cosmic rays produce secondary radiation—especially neutrons, which are very dangerous to humans—when they impact the lunar soil. In the meantime, the general understanding of the radiation environment provided by Chang’e-4 shows we still have some surprises in store as humans explore the solar system.
Citation: Francis, M. R. (2026), Moon mission data reveal unexpected cosmic ray “shadow,” Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260137. Published on 4 May 2026.
Source: AGU Advances
Urbanization, climate change, and fire suppression practices are contributing to increased wildfire risk at the densely populated wildland-urban interface. These factors make fires more unpredictable and harder to manage. In January 2025, this was made devastatingly clear in Los Angeles, when massive wildfires engulfed entire hillsides and canyons, destroying neighborhoods and damaging surrounding ecosystems.
The Mediterranean climate region of California, which stret
Urbanization, climate change, and fire suppression practices are contributing to increased wildfire risk at the densely populated wildland-urban interface. These factors make fires more unpredictable and harder to manage. In January 2025, this was made devastatingly clear in Los Angeles, when massive wildfires engulfed entire hillsides and canyons, destroying neighborhoods and damaging surrounding ecosystems.
The Mediterranean climate region of California, which stretches up most of the state’s coastline, is a naturally fire-prone landscape because its dry conditions support vegetation growth and also allow for fire to spread easily. As wildfires become more intense, better modeling and understanding of their drivers is crucial in efforts to predict risk.
Ward-Baranyay et al. looked at three of the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires by analyzing preburn conditions, such as fuel characteristics, topography (including elevation and slope), and wind speed. Satellite observations gathered from the Ecosystem Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer Experiment on Space Station (ECOSTRESS) and the Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT)—precursors to a recently announced NASA mission, the Explorer for Artemis Geology Lunar and Earth (EAGLE)—provided detailed information about the vegetation’s condition before the fires began. The researchers then built a random forest regression model to predict burn severity based on these conditions, ultimately demonstrating that prefire fuel conditions were a key driver of the destructive wildfires’ immediate effects on wildlands.
The model used in the study was able to accurately capture about 60% of the patterns in burn severity. It was most accurate for the Palisades and Hughes fires, but less accurate for the Eaton Fire. This discrepancy could be because the area burned by the Eaton Fire was more topographically variable, meaning its burn severity drivers may not have been fully captured by the model, the researchers suggest. Vegetation type was also a strong performance indicator: Terrain with shrub or scrub cover, the dominant vegetation type, offered the most accurate predictions for burn severity. The burn patterns of forests and other landscape types were less accurately captured.
Fuel conditions emerged as the dominant driver of burn severity, more so than topography or weather. In particular, how abundant, wet, dry, or stressed vegetation is can hint at how severe future fires may be. Tracking and monitoring these fuel conditions, researchers suggest, may be a way to monitor wildfire hazard in California and other fire-prone regions. (AGU Advances, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025AV002179, 2026)
Citation: Owen, R. (2026), Want to predict wildfire severity? Look to the state of vegetation, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260130. Published on 4 May 2026.
Login
