fbpx
01 / 05
From Waste to Wealth: the Alchemy of Innovation

Blog Post | Pollution

From Waste to Wealth: the Alchemy of Innovation

Environmental challenges can be transformed into economic opportunities.

Summary: Scientists and engineers are finding ways to turn pollution and waste into valuable resources. From recovering fertilizer from toxic lakes to creating biodegradable packaging from farm residues, innovation is transforming environmental problems into opportunities for growth. By reimagining waste as a resource, we can make the planet cleaner while fueling new industries and jobs.


Every summer, toxic algae blooms turn Lake Erie and other US lakes into a green soup, threatening drinking water for millions. Every year, American farmers burn millions of pounds of grain stalks after harvest. And every day, Americans throw away enough packing peanuts to fill an Olympic swimming pool. What if I told you that each of these waste streams could become valuable resources—and that the solutions are emerging from university laboratories right now?

We stand at a unique moment in history. For the first time, we possess the scientific tools to transform our most pressing environmental challenges into economic opportunities. The numbers tell a compelling story. According to the World Bank’s “What a Waste 2.0” report, global waste is projected to rise by 70 percent, from 2.01 billion tons today to 3.4 billion tons in 2050. Yet, the circular economy, or using waste productively to create wealth, could unlock $4.5 trillion in economic benefits by 2030. The question isn’t whether we can afford to innovate—it’s whether we can afford not to.

Three Breakthrough Innovations from North Dakota

The convergence of nanotechnology, materials science, and biotechnology has created unprecedented possibilities for environmental remediation. In a laboratory at North Dakota State University, my research team is developing three innovations that exemplify this waste-to-wealth transformation:

  1. Calcium peroxide nanoparticles that absorb phosphates from polluted lakes and convert them into sustainable fertilizer
  2. Flax-fiber composites that transform agricultural waste into biodegradable packaging materials
  3. Starch-based foam alternatives that replace petroleum-based packing peanuts with compostable materials

These aren’t pie-in-the-sky concepts. They’re practical solutions that could scale from our Fargo lab benches to global implementation within a decade. Here’s how each one works—and why they matter.

Turning Lake Poison into Farm Food

Over 500 “dead zones” now plague our planet’s bodies of water, with the number doubling every decade since the 1960s. These oxygen-depleted areas, caused primarily by phosphate runoff from agriculture, cost the United States $2.4 billion annually in economic losses. The 2014 Toledo water crisis, which left half a million people without access to drinking water for three days, was just a preview of what may come unless we act.

Here’s where nanotechnology can change the game. At our NDSU lab, we’re developing calcium peroxide nanoparticles—imagine particles 5,000-times smaller than the width of a human hair—that act as molecular sponges for phosphate pollution. When deployed in eutrophic (nutrient-rich) lakes, these nanoparticles serve a dual purpose that borders on alchemy: First, they absorb phosphates from the water with an efficiency 500-times greater than conventional materials; second, they slowly release oxygen over 30 days, breathing life back into suffocating bodies of water.

But here’s the truly exquisite part: Those absorbed phosphates don’t disappear. Our research team harvests them to create sustainable fertilizer. Consider the irony—the very phosphates that are killing our lakes came from fertilizer runoff, and now we’re capturing them to make new fertilizer. It’s the circular economy in its purest form.

The timing couldn’t be more perfect. The global phosphate fertilizer market, currently valued at $72 billion, is facing a sustainability crisis. Morocco controls 70 percent of the world’s phosphate rock reserves, and at current extraction rates, most of these reserves will be depleted within a century. By recovering phosphates from water pollution, we’re not just cleaning lakes, we’re securing agriculture’s future. Our preliminary calculations suggest that phosphate recovery from US agricultural runoff alone could replace 15 percent of imported phosphate fertilizer, saving farmers billions while restoring water quality.

From Farm Waste to Amazon Packages

The second innovation transforms an agricultural nuisance into packaging gold. North Dakota grows 90,000 acres of flax annually, primarily for the valuable oil in its seeds. But after harvest, millions of pounds of stalks are typically burned or buried, a waste of remarkably strong natural fibers that have been used for over 30,000 years for textiles, food, paper, and medicine.

At our NDSU lab, we’re extracting these fibers and mixing them with biodegradable polymer matrices to create packaging materials that rival petroleum-based plastics in performance while completely biodegrading in three to six months. The resulting composite materials achieve tensile strengths of 50–70 megapascals—stronger than many conventional plastics—using 35 percent less energy to produce.

The market is hungry for such solutions. The biodegradable packaging sector is experiencing rapid growth, projected to reach $922 billion by 2034. More important, consumers are voting with their wallets: 82 percent say they’ll pay premiums for sustainable packaging, and 39 percent have already switched brands for better environmental practices. Major corporations aren’t waiting. Dell already uses mushroom-based packaging grown on agricultural waste, while IKEA has committed millions of dollars to eliminate polystyrene entirely.

North Dakota sits on a gold mine of opportunity. The state’s two million acres of various crops produce enormous volumes of agricultural residue. By viewing these stalks, husks, and shells not as waste but as industrial feedstock, North Dakota could become a hub for sustainable packaging materials. A single processing facility could create 200 rural jobs while generating $50 million in annual revenue from materials currently worth nothing.

Replacing Satan’s Snowflakes

The third innovation addresses what some environmentalists refer to as “Satan’s snowflakes”—namely, those infuriating polystyrene packing peanuts that seem to multiply in your garage and never decompose. Americans generate enough polystyrene waste to circle the Earth in a chain of coffee cups every four months. This material persists for 500 to one million years, breaking into microplastics that contaminate our food chain.

In our NDSU lab, we’re developing starch-based foam alternatives using corn, wheat, and potatoes, all crops that North Dakota grows in abundance. These “bio-peanuts” dissolve completely in water, compost within 90 days, and require just 12 percent of the energy needed to produce traditional polystyrene. They even eliminate the static cling that makes unpacking electronics feel like wrestling an electric eel.

The economics are compelling. Companies such as electronics retailer Crutchfield report saving $70,000 to $120,000 annually in freight costs after switching to lighter, bio-based packing materials. With 11 states and 250 cities already banning polystyrene foam, and the European Union implementing strict regulations on single-use plastics, the market for alternatives isn’t only growing, it’s becoming mandatory.

Perhaps the most profound impact is psychological. Every online purchase delivered with biodegradable packing materials sends a message: Modern conveniences can be maintained without mortgaging the environment. While a small victory, such progress is building momentum for larger, more significant changes.

The Scaling Potential: From Lab to Global Impact

The opportunity is enormous: If just 10 percent of US agricultural waste were converted to packaging materials, it would replace 33 million tons of petroleum-based plastics annually. If our phosphate recovery technology were deployed in the 100 most-polluted lakes globally, it could recover enough phosphorus to fertilize five million acres of farmland while restoring recreational value worth $10 billion.

These aren’t distant possibilities—our NDSU innovations are progressing through the typical stages: proof of concept, pilot testing, demonstrations, and commercialization. We’re currently in pilot testing, with plans for field demonstrations next year. Industry partners have expressed strong interest, particularly from agricultural cooperatives seeking value-added opportunities for crop residues.

Innovation Beats Despair: Lessons from Environmental History

Some critics might ask, “Aren’t these solutions just Band-Aids on the gaping wound of industrial civilization?” Such a question, however, misses the profound lesson of environmental history. Every major pollution crisis we’ve faced, from London’s killer smog to acid rain and the ozone hole, seemed insurmountable until human ingenuity proved otherwise.

Consider the track record. Since 1970, the United States has reduced major air pollutants by 78 percent while increasing gross domestic product by 321 percent. The Montreal Protocol has eliminated 99 percent of ozone-depleting substances, saving approximately two million people from skin cancer each year. Acid rain, once predicted to cost $6 billion annually to address, was solved for less than $2 billion per year. These victories weren’t achieved by abandoning modern life but by making modernity cleaner and more efficient.

The same patterns are emerging in clean technology. Solar panel costs have plummeted 90 percent in the past decade. Renewable energy is often among the lowest-cost power sources, especially when comparing marginal generation costs. When accounting for storage or backup needs, however, total system costs can vary by region and grid mix. Battery prices have decreased by 97 percent over the past 30 years. Each follows Wright’s Law—costs decline predictably as production scales. Our NDSU waste-to-resource innovations will follow similar trajectories.

The investment community recognizes this potential. Clean technology attracted $1.8 trillion in investments globally in 2023, surpassing fossil fuel investments for the first time. The bioeconomy, currently valued at $4 trillion, is projected to reach $30 trillion by 2050. These aren’t charitable donations, but rather hard-nosed bets on profitable technologies that happen to benefit the planet.

From Lab Bench to Marketplace

Numerous university spin-offs have traveled the well-worn path from laboratory to marketplace. Companies such as Membrion (ceramic membranes developed at the University of Washington) and Integricote (nanocoatings developed at the University of Houston) demonstrate that academic innovations can achieve commercial success while addressing environmental challenges.

The Optimistic Imperative

The waste crises facing our generation are real and urgent—but so is our capacity to transform them into opportunities for prosperity. The toxic algae choking our lakes could become tomorrow’s sustainable fertilizer. The agricultural waste burning in our fields could become the packaging protecting tomorrow’s e-commerce deliveries. The petroleum-based foams polluting our oceans could be replaced by materials that harmlessly dissolve back into the earth.

This transformation, however, won’t happen automatically. It requires continued investment in research, supportive policies that incentivize innovation over incineration, and entrepreneurs willing to scale laboratory successes into industrial realities. The trajectory is clear: Waste is becoming wealth, pollution is becoming profit, and environmental restoration is becoming economic opportunity.

From my lab bench in Fargo, I see a future in which every environmental challenge sparks a thousand innovative solutions, every waste stream becomes a value stream, and the same human ingenuity that created these problems engineers their solutions. That’s human progress at its finest.

Audubon | Conservation & Biodiversity

Breeding Birds Are Returning to the Colorado River Delta

“For more than a decade, the Raise the River coalition, including the National Audubon Society, has worked in collaboration with the United States and Mexico under the framework of Colorado River Treaty agreements (Minutes 319 and 323), to bring back healthy habitats in the Colorado River Delta. Working from my perch at Colorado State University with support from Audubon as well as federal funding, and with partners in Mexico and the United States, I led a series of studies to find out whether those efforts are actually helping birds. The short answer is yes, and in meaningful ways. 

Bird surveys at 230 sites across the delta, carried out from 2002 to 2021, paint an encouraging picture: over those 20 years, researchers counted more than 100,000 individual birds. In areas where native trees and shrubs such as cottonwoods, willows, and mesquites were planted, birds that depend on riverside forests, like Abert’s Towhee, Song Sparrow, and Yellow-breasted Chat, started showing up in greater numbers. Perhaps even more surprising, bird populations in nearby areas that weren’t directly restored also stopped declining, suggesting that restoration can have a ripple effect across the landscape.”

From Audubon.

Associated Press | Conservation & Biodiversity

Rare Antelope Returns to the Wild of Kenya

“The mountain bongo has become the ‘ghost of the forest,’ hard to spot amid the dense shrubs due to its ability to camouflage.

A critically endangered species, the animal is being slowly reintroduced into the wild by conservationists to increase the number of the rare antelope that are indigenous to Kenya’s forests.

The mountain bongo is a rare antelope known for its brown skin and distinct white stripes. With fewer than 100 individuals left in the wild, a conservancy based in Kenya is breeding them and slowly reintroducing them into the wild, with a target of 750 wild bongos by 2050.

Located on the misty slopes of Kenya’s highest mountain, Mount Kenya, and on the edge of the forest, the 1,250-acre Mount Kenya Wildlife Conservancy in the Nanyuki area has been restoring the survival instincts of zoo-bred bongos. They want to ensure the animals can feed without human assistance, escape from predators, and build a strong immunity against diseases in the wild.

Last week, the conservancy imported a new batch of four male bongos from the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria though the Czech Republic. These new arrivals, currently quarantined and under constant observation, will interbreed with descendants of 18 bongos that arrived at the conservancy in 2004 from the United States to ensure a more diverse genetic pool.”

From Associated Press.

Blog Post | Environment & Pollution

What Climate Science Really Says | Podcast Highlights

Marian Tupy interviews Roger Pielke Jr. about the latest climate research and how to think clearly about climate change.

Listen to the podcast or read the full transcript here.

Today I’m joined by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., a Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado Boulder, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of influential books like The Honest Broker and The Climate Fix. He’s a leading voice on the politicization of science and climate policy, and his scholarship is known for being rigorous, data-driven, and impartial.

I want to spend most of our time talking about climate change and global warming, but let’s start by looking at the extremes in the climate change debate.

People who are critical of the dominant view that climate change is a crisis or even a problem will say things like CO2 concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere are much lower than they were in the distant past, or that CO2 is vital for life, it is plant food, so there is nothing to worry about. What is wrong with that point of view?

Science supports global greening and the fact that CO2 levels were higher in the past. Where that goes away from scientific understanding is the “nothing to worry about” part.

The late Steve Schneider, who was a famous climate scientist and climate activist, once said that the fundamental challenge of climate change is that outcomes could be very benign, or they could be very serious, and we won’t know the difference during the time that we need to prepare. So, both extremes—the apocalyptics and the “don’t worry, be happy” folks—are guilty of selectively interpreting evidence. The reality is that both outcomes are in the spectrum of possibilities, but smart decision-making has to consider that entire spectrum, not just one tail of the distribution.

Is there such a thing as an optimal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

The simple answer is, as a risk management problem, the emission of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels has risks associated with change. And those risks could be profound. So, limiting the rate of change is much more important than whether 425 parts per million is better than 350 or 575.

There is also the question of trade-offs. For example, by emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere, we are making the world much richer. So, even if we do emit a lot more CO2, society in the future will be much richer and much more technologically advanced than we are, and they’ll be able to take care of any problems.

Humans are a fantastically inventive species. And it’s absolutely true that fossil fuels, which have the side effect of emitting carbon dioxide, have been central to human progress. One data point, a trend that I don’t think many people are aware of, is that the carbon dioxide intensity of economic activity—carbon dioxide per unit of GDP—has been dropping for decades. So, as we’ve become wealthier, we’ve also become much less carbon-intensive. As a species, we really like getting more output for less input, and we like cleaner-burning fuels. So, if that trend were to continue, we do at some point go over the hump of increasing carbon dioxide emissions, and they start going down.

In fact, right now, over the last decade, emissions have plateaued. There are small increases, but they’re within the margin of error measurement. So, there is a background force of decarbonization that has nothing to do with climate policy. I know it’s not as fast as some would like, and it could be faster, but decarbonization is just a fundamental reality of human civilization.

Now let’s address the other side of the extreme: people who believe that climate change is an existential crisis, and to avert it, we need to shrink the global economy. What’s wrong with that picture?

The big problem with that view is that the vast majority of people on this planet have no interest in degrowth. There are not very many politicians able to win an election by campaigning on making people poorer. The reality is that any successful path to decarbonizing the economy has to be accompanied by greater growth and wealth for most people. There are 5 or 6 billion people who do not enjoy anything close to the energy consumption that people who are watching this podcast get to enjoy every day. So, the world’s going to consume more energy no matter what degrowthers say.

What do you think about the very out-there techno-optimist view, which is that we should aim to have the technological sophistication and wealth necessary to completely control the climate? That’s a kind of sci-fi scenario that I sometimes hear.

I think we should get as wealthy as possible and be able to make our way through a volatile environment as safely as possible. The idea that there’s going to be a control panel where we can perfect climate conditions is science fiction. I have no expectation we’ll ever be doing that. The track record of humans trying to influence ecosystems is horrible.

We hear about this with proposals to “geoengineer” the climate. And full disclosure, I signed onto a geoengineering non-use letter, because it’s the height of arrogance for us to think that we can control the climate system. It’s like gain-of-function research on viruses. Yeah, maybe you’ll learn something, but maybe you’ll kill 20 million people. So, I’m not a big fan of the “control panel” approach to climate.

I want to now turn to specific concerns that people have when it comes to climate change. Let’s start with the rising global temperatures and extreme heat. What does the latest research say about this problem?

What I normally do—and I think this is a good practice in any area where science and politics meet—is I start with assessments that have been put together by authoritative bodies.

In this case, that’s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a sprawling, massive thing. It’s got three working groups and many dozens of chapters and hundreds of authors. But it’s a touchpoint for assessing the science. The IPCC gets some things right and some things wrong. But in general, Working Group 1, with its focus on extreme events, has pretty much called things straight over the past 30 years.

When it comes to extreme heat, the IPCC says that there has been an increase in heat waves around the world. It’s been detected, to use their language, and they attribute that increase of heat waves to human causes, including increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

The World Health Organization has argued that with effective adaptation, the number of people who should die from excessive heat is zero. We have air conditioning, we have weather forecasts and good warnings. The challenge is that those adaptations to heat are not well implemented everywhere around the world. If places that are adapted to one level of temperature start seeing a greater frequency of heat waves, they will need to adapt.

The other factor is that ecosystems are far less adaptable than humans are. If it’s 110 outside, I can come inside in the air conditioning. Ecosystems can’t do that. So, material changes in the physical environment can have profound consequences for ecosystems.

Okay, now onto changes in precipitation patterns.

The extreme weather phenomenon the IPCC has the second-highest confidence in is an increase in heavy downpours, which they call “extreme precipitation.”

People have to be careful with that. And the IPCC, to its credit, is very careful. Extreme precipitation is not the same thing as flooding. Here in Boulder, Colorado, if we got 2 centimeters of rain today, that would be extreme precipitation, but it wouldn’t cause a flood. I wish we would get 2 centimeters of rain.

There has been a documented increase in the activity of the hydrological cycle around the world due to increasing temperatures. It hasn’t been detected everywhere, and the numbers are not super large in the context of natural variability, but they’ve been detected and attributed. However, the IPCC has low confidence that flooding has increased globally. Flooding is very difficult to document because we manage so many river basins. We change runoff patterns through urbanization and agricultural irrigation. So, flooding is much more confounded than precipitation itself.

Extreme weather events, especially hurricanes, cyclones, wildfires, and droughts.

We need to take these one by one.

I’ve studied tropical cyclones for 30 years, which includes hurricanes, and the IPCC gets this one right: there is no convincing evidence that there are more hurricanes or more intense hurricanes over the period of record. The IPCC is clear on that, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US is very clear on that.

Hurricanes have become a kind of poster child of climate change. They’re very photogenic. Al Gore had one coming out of a smokestack in his famous movie. However, hurricanes are probably one of the worst places to look for any signals of climate change. There are only 60 to 80 hurricanes on planet Earth in any given year. That’s a small number of events when you compare it to the millions and millions of temperature measurements we take every year.

Flooding, as I said, has no detection or attribution. Drought, for most metrics of drought, again, no detection or attribution. The one distinction that the IPCC makes is soil moisture deficits, basically dry land, which is associated with warming more than it is with precipitation. Winter storms, again, no detection or attribution there.

You have to be careful with wildfires because the wildfire record is very confounded by human land management. While we might be able to tease out trends in wildfires, attributing causality is much more difficult. There are some published studies out there that say that warming, particularly in, say, the western United States, has led to an increase in fire-prone conditions. There is also good research that says before the human settlement of North America, the intensity and scale of wildfires were much, much greater than anything we’ve seen, so we actually have a fire deficit.

Moving swiftly onto ocean warming and acidification.

I’m glad you brought those up. Despite all the arguments that have been made over the decades about the surface air temperature and the location of thermometers and things like that, it turns out that the best place to look for a signal of warming is the oceans. Over the last several decades, there have been very good temperature measurements showing that most of the energy imbalance caused by our emission of greenhouse gases is actually going into the oceans.

Onto acidification. So about half of the carbon dioxide we emit is taken up by the oceans, and that changes the chemistry of the oceans. On the one hand, it’s a good thing that the oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide because then there’s less of a radiative effect in the atmosphere. But on the other hand, it means we’re changing the chemistry of the ocean, and that will have impacts on sea life. If you go through all that math, this is one place that takes you to net zero. To stop changing the chemistry of the ocean, we couldn’t just reduce emissions to the amount that the oceans are taking up; we would have to reduce emissions to zero.

My next concern, melting ice and glaciers, is also tied to the rising sea levels and so forth. So maybe you can talk about that.

Runoff from glacial melt and also melt from Greenland, and to some degree from Antarctica, is contributing to sea level rise. That’s tightly associated with warming and has been attributed to human causes. There are also other factors beyond warming. Something I was fascinated to learn about from one of my colleagues at the University of Colorado was that when we put particulates in the atmosphere, and it precipitates out in snow, it changes the albedo—basically, the snow is a little darker because it has soot in it—and the snow melts faster.

Understood. Let’s talk a little bit about the different climate change scenarios. How much warming have we experienced? What are the worst and the best-case scenarios? And what does the most likely scenario mean for the planet?

That’s a great question.

Using a preindustrial baseline of 1850 to 1900, the world has already warmed about 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The projections are, as you say, scenarios. They’re a function of what we think the global population will be, how big the economy will be, where we’re going to get our energy from, and how we apply that energy in the economy. Last December, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change said that the world is headed to 2.2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. It just so happens that it aligns very nicely with a paper I did with Justin Ritchie and Matt Burgess.

I call this one of the best-kept secrets in all of climate science.

It wasn’t so long ago that those same types of projections were looking at 4, 5, 6 degrees Celsius by 2100. They’ve come down dramatically, not because of anything to do with the physical science of climate, but because our expectation for future emissions has come down dramatically. There was an assumption that coal, the most carbon-intensive fuel, was going to fuel everything around the world. And it turns out we’re not going in that direction.

Another big factor, and one that really hasn’t made its way into climate projections yet, is the changing projections of the global population. The leading climate scenarios still have 12 or 13 billion people on the planet in 2100. And demographers are now seriously talking about the global population peaking under 10 billion and then going down to maybe 7 billion in 2100. Once that gets factored in, projected temperature ranges are going to drop further.

Climate change has morphed from something that was plausibly extreme—I don’t think existential threat was ever the right language, but possibly extreme—to something that looks a lot more manageable. It’s a troublesome condition that will require a lot of action, but it’s not going to be the end of the world.

So, you actually had a paper some time ago where you nailed the trajectory of global warming with great precision. And that fantastic performance didn’t protect you in American academia. Meanwhile, people who wheel out the RCP 8.5 scenario, where everything is run on coal, get columns in major newspapers.

What on Earth is going on?

Extreme results are a lot more attractive to journals. And if you use an extreme climate scenario, you’re going to get extreme results. Journals like to put out press releases, and so the more shocking the headline, the more likely it is that it’s going to get picked up. At the same time, climate advocacy for decades now has focused on the notion of an existential threat, and extreme studies feed that notion.

Another factor is that the climate community updates its scenarios only every 10 to 20 years. Imagine doing economic policy with data from 2006 in 2026. It’s crazy. The energy system modelers update their energy scenarios every year. That’s one reason why it’s easy, I would say, to come up with better projections than you find in the IPCC, because they’re still using scenarios from two decades ago. If you use a more updated scenario, as we did, for energy consumption, population, and GDP, you’ll be much more accurate than one that was based on 2005 data.

It seems to me that the extreme environmentalist viewpoint has begun to come to an end. The break really came in 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the resulting spike in energy prices.

Do you agree with that?

Yeah, I think that’s right. The price shock in Europe following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was an eye-opener. People really do want action on the environment and on climate, but they don’t want to do it at the expense of their monthly utility bill.

I don’t think that the extreme environmental movement is going to completely disappear. The concern about overpopulation never really ended; it kind of faded away. I think that’s the best model for extreme environmentalism focused on climate. There will continue to be a segment of people, particularly in the scientific community, who emphasize apocalyptic scenarios and existential threats, but policymakers around the world have become much more focused on the security of energy, the price of energy, and energy access. For a long time, energy policy was discussed as if it were a subset of climate policy, and climate policy was the dominant framing. I think that has now reversed. Climate policy is now rightly viewed as a subset of energy policy. But don’t make any mistake: the radical wings on either side are going to remain with us.

The Human Progress Podcast | Ep. 78

Roger Pielke: What Climate Science Really Says

Roger Pielke Jr. joins Marian Tupy to discuss the latest climate research and how to think clearly about climate change.