By Aaron Dunbar October 24, 2026
Oct. 6 marked the date of the officially finalized merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Brothers Discovery into the mass media company Skydance Corporation, now co-owned by right wing billionaire, Trump acolyte, Oracle co-founder, and number one individual donor to the genocidal Israel Defense Forces, Larry Ellison, along with his son, founder and CEO David Ellison.
This newly mutated Frankenstein of a conglomerate celebrated its unholy genesis by taking to social media with a nauseating video showcasing the eye-watering panoply of brands and companies that now fall under its control. These include:
Paramount, Warner Brothers, CBS, Nickelodeon, HBO Max, DC, CNN, Paramount+, Paramount Animation, TVLand, Skydance Animation, GolfDigest, Hogar de HGTV, TNT, Warner Brothers Animation, Discovery, Paramount Sports Entertainment, Smithsonian Channel, NickJr., SkyShowtime, HLN, Warner Brothers Television, Discovery+, Pop TV, Paramount Television Studios, Eurosport, MTV, Harry Potter, Showtime, Adult Swim, Pluto TV, HGTV, Food Network, Network 10, Comedy Central, HBO, The Cooking Channel, CNN Espanol, Alloy Entertainment, Discovery Home & Health, Country Music Television, Cartoon Network, New Line Cinema, TLC, BET, Boomerang, Animal Planet, Miramax, Channel 5, DFC, CNN All Access, Bleacher Report, DMAX, Warner Brothers Clockwork, Discovery Turbo, Ananey, Cartoonito, American Heroes Channel, and Asian Food Network.
Opposition to this merger has been fierce, with vocal critics including Hulk actor (and notably for our region, star of the 2019 film Dark Waters about the C8 crisis in Parkersburg), Mark Ruffalo. Ruffalo was, predictably, smeared as “antisemitic” for his criticisms of the Ellison family, and took to social media to respond:
“This merger has real consequences for real people, and for the entire country. Scrutinizing the Ellisons, including Oracle’s business built on data, surveillance technology and government contracts, and the serious threat to editorial freedom and the loss of a livelihood for thousands of families, is fair and necessary. The $111 billion deal would hand one family control over CNN, HBO and Warner Bros., backed in part by foreign money whose influence on editorial decisions has never been fully explained to the public.”
It was against this backdrop, then, that Warner Brothers released its final film before its acquisition by the Ellison family, Alejandro Inarritu’s satirical black comedy film “Digger.” The film, described as the “Dr. Strangelove of the climate crisis,” and featuring an unforgettable lead performance from Tom Cruise, opened to catastrophic box office figures and was savaged by critics, who seemed practically delighted at the prospect of its failure.
The online reaction to the film, however, as well as that of numerous Hollywood actors and celebrities, could not be more different.
Director Guillermo Del Toro has been an eager champion of the film, tweeting shortly after its release: “BTW there is a “climate change” movie in release that Is NOT about climate change but the manipulation of narratives – and yes it is released by WB (possibly the very last movie WB as such will ever release) and has been deemed “excessive, overbearing” so – see it in a theatre…”
Singer Neil Young called it “the best film I have ever seen,” while actor Ben Affleck said of the film’s detractors: “It’s a little bit like the high-school bullying thing, with people who hadn’t even seen movies. You see it happening now, frankly, with “Digger” Everybody wants to celebrate this bomb as if it’s the most exciting thing to happen.”
“Digger” is a complex film with complex themes, and I would be doing you a major disservice by unraveling too many of its secrets here — you really should see it for yourself, if you can still manage to find it playing anywhere. But in broad strokes, the movie tells the story of fictional oil tycoon Digger Rockwell, whose reckless drilling practices in the Greenland arctic unleash a larger than life environmental catastrophe upon the world, threatening millions of lives.
Speaking on the seemingly outlandish chain of events depicted in the film, director Alejandro Inarritu noted that “When we started, nine years ago, all these events were a big stretch. The disasters we were imagining were only kind of possible. Scientists measured the ice shelf detaching in Greenland — it was possible, but a stretch. But reality changed so fast that by the time we were shooting, many of these events were already happening.”
Even as the film was being pulled from theaters due to poor box office performance, scientists announced that the so-called Thwaites Doomsday Glacier was “melting more aggressively than previously projected,” potentially doubling sea level rise, and President Trump made headlines by teasing an upcoming “massive” surge of oil, gas, and mineral exploration in Greenland.
There’s a key scene in the film that’s provoked a great deal of interesting discussion online, posted by Tom Cruise as a clip on social media and racking up over 16 million views on Twitter alone. The scene, which takes place following the devastating environmental catastrophe unleashed by Digger Rockwell, sees the swaggering Texas oil tycoon making a speech in defense of his disastrous actions in front of the European Parliament.
“And every one of you,” booms Rockwell, turning the accusatory finger back around toward his audience, “no matter how conscientious you pretend to be, you want to drive around in the cheapest fuel! You want to keep your lights on, your heating and air conditioning running! You want dirt cheap tickets to Mallorca so that you can roast your pale a–es in a hammock! You want to carve into a goood steak! You want a two day delivery of s— that you don’t need! You want to charge up them cell phone batteries so you can gawk at your TikTok and your YouTube! You want energy, energy so that you can ask AI to solve the very same disasters that it’s fueling! You want freedom — freedom to bask in the comfort of your unsustainable lives!”
Cruise’s performance here is spectacular, and for some viewers, this speech served as a perfect encapsulation of the film’s thesis: we’re all responsible for climate change, and scapegoating individual bad actors like Digger simply lets the rest of us off the hook for our own irresponsible behavior.
But this is a very surface level interpretation. Digger, in his fiery speech, uses almost the exact same strategy cooked up by the PR firm Ogilvy & Mather in 2004 in defense of British Petroleum, the concept of “individual carbon footprints” used to shift the focus away from the apocalyptic willful negligence of the fossil fuel industry, and onto everyday consumers.
I wouldn’t say, though, that the film absolves its audience of responsibility, either – again, I don’t want to spoil too much for those who haven’t seen it, but there’s a moment as the credits begin to roll that seems very much designed to shake viewers out of their own complacency, and quite effectively so.
“Digger,” at its core, is a story about stories.
Who are we allowing to tell the story of this extremely tumultuous moment in human history?
What story are they telling, how are they telling it, and why are they telling it in the manner that they are? Are we being strategically drip fed just enough of the truth in order to make the insidious narrative control of the ruling class go down more easily?
These are the questions we need to be constantly asking ourselves so long as the Rockwells and the Ellisons of the world are the ones dictating our sense of reality. To surrender control over these narratives is to surrender the future of the planet itself.
Aaron Dunbar is a member of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.
Posted: November 1, 2026 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: The election and safe drinking water
By George Banziger October 31, 20266
Although many voters in the Mid-Ohio Valley have cast their ballots through early voting, many more will express their preferences on Nov. 3. Among the most important issues for the voters in this region are injection wells and the danger they pose to our drinking-water aquifers. Several candidates have expressed their views on this topic, others have not.
In the gubernatorial race, Dr. Amy Acton made her position clear at a press conference in Marietta on Sept. 17. She endorsed the three-year moratorium on fracking wastewater (brine) injection activity, which specifies a shutdown of injection wells in Washington County. She has clarified that she is not against the oil and gas industry in Ohio, but describes the need for this industry to seek safe and responsible ways to dispose of its waste so that certain communities do not bear an unfair burden and risk of fracking waste contamination. Her opponent, Vivek Ramaswamy, has not made his position clear on this matter but has shown no interest in endorsing the moratorium.
The race for representation of the 94th Ohio House District pits Wenda Sheard against incumbent Kevin Ritter. Ms. Sheard has made her position on injection wells very evident in endorsing the moratorium. Her campaign literature features “safe drinking water” prominently in information that she and her supporters distribute. Mr. Ritter does not endorse the moratorium and makes the spurious claim that a moratorium is not needed because there is a pause on new permits. The point of the moratorium is not to place a pause on new permits for injection wells but to shut down injection well activity throughout the county for three years. Kevin Ritter has also engaged in misrepresentations of those who support the moratorium in social media by posting audio clips and video images (without permission). These postings give the false impression that members of the Washington County for Safe Drinking Water group are somehow supportive of Mr. Ritter’s actions.
There are two races for Washington County commissioner: a full-term position involving Stephanie Lang and Brian Whalin and an unexpired term involving Justin Harris, Greg Nohe, and John Rauch. Both Ms. Lang and Dr. Whalin, who has served on a local water board, have signed the petition calling for the moratorium on injection activity. Mr. Rauch, who has served on a local water board, has signed the petition, also. Mr. Nohe, the incumbent in this position, has signed the petition for a moratorium, but his campaign literature states “…calling for a moratorium on new injection wells…” At a recent meeting of the Washington County Commissioners, Mr. Nohe was asked to clarify his position and whether he supports a three-year shutdown of injection activity, as the petition states. His response was “…whatever it says in the petition…” This is confusing to voters who may question if Mr. Nohe knew what he was signing, or if he was deliberately trying to limit the scope of the moratorium. This distinction is important: a pause on new permits means that injecting brine waste into Washington County grounds through existing wells would continue. In July 2026 the Ohio Department of Natural Resources announced a voluntary shut down of four injection wells in the county (without mentioning a resumption date); we (Washington County for Safe Drinking Water) have asked ODNR if there will be compensatory increase in injection well activity at the remaining injection wells in the county and have yet to receive a response to that query. A pause on new permits does nothing to stop the current flood of migrating toxic, radioactive brine waste in Washington County.
Mr. Harris has stated that he would support a moratorium on the importation of brine waste from other states (mainly WV and PA) into Washington County, but he has not signed a petition calling for a moratorium. While many in Washington County are justifiably outraged by the interstate importation of brine waste, Mr. Harris’ position is virtually impossible to act upon. The interstate commerce clause in our U.S. Constitution prohibits any state from issuing bans on commerce between and among states. Currently, the State of Ohio charges $.05/barrel for injected brine waste from Ohio and $.20/barrel from other states. The county commissioners have no authority to ban brine waste from other states nor do they have authority to change these fees. The latter authority rests with the state legislature. One might argue that these rates are extremely low considering the risks and costs to Ohioans, especially those in Washington County, for dealing with brine waste and its immediate and potential consequences. We should ask Ms. Sheard and Mr. Ritter, who are candidates for the state legislature, if they would support raising these rates.
Recently, the Buckeye Environmental Network obtained through a public records request a letter from attorneys at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to the attorney for Deeprock Disposal Solutions LLC. This letter points out that the contents of an injection well owned by Deeprock has migrated beyond its injection zone to impact production wells in Washington County. Surprisingly, the letter states that Deeprock did not want a suspension order issued, so ODNR did not order a suspension of operations despite clear evidence of damage to production wells by migrating brine waste. The citizens of Ohio and the residents of Washington County deserve county commissioners who will demand the suspension of injection wells when evidence indicates a danger to health and safety. They also deserve state representatives who will press agency directors and division chiefs to enforce their own regulations, and a governor who will appoint agency directors and division chiefs who serve the interests of residents rather than the interests of injection well companies.
Voters in the West Virginia area of the Mid-Ohio Valley are not dealing with the issue of injection wells as they consider candidates on their ballots. But they do have clear choices of candidates when it comes to clean energy, energy efficiency, energy affordability, clean water, and public health and safety. Candidates who support the latter issues are: Rachel Fetty Anderson for the U.S. Senate seat, Ace Parsi for the second congressional district, Caci Petrehn for the WV Senate District 3, Chris Jones for the WV House District 10, Daniel Miller for the WV House District 11, Dennis Rempel for the WV House District 12, Marley Umensetter for the WV House District 13.
George Banziger, Ph.D., was a faculty member at Marietta College and an academic dean at three other colleges. He is a member of the Green Sanctuary Committee of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Marietta, a member of Washington County for Safe Drinking Water, and a contributor to Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action team.
Posted: October 24, 2026 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Dig deeper
By Aaron Dunbar October 24, 2026
Oct. 6 marked the date of the officially finalized merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Brothers Discovery into the mass media company Skydance Corporation, now co-owned by right wing billionaire, Trump acolyte, Oracle co-founder, and number one individual donor to the genocidal Israel Defense Forces, Larry Ellison, along with his son, founder and CEO David Ellison.
This newly mutated Frankenstein of a conglomerate celebrated its unholy genesis by taking to social media with a nauseating video showcasing the eye-watering panoply of brands and companies that now fall under its control. These include:
Paramount, Warner Brothers, CBS, Nickelodeon, HBO Max, DC, CNN, Paramount+, Paramount Animation, TVLand, Skydance Animation, GolfDigest, Hogar de HGTV, TNT, Warner Brothers Animation, Discovery, Paramount Sports Entertainment, Smithsonian Channel, NickJr., SkyShowtime, HLN, Warner Brothers Television, Discovery+, Pop TV, Paramount Television Studios, Eurosport, MTV, Harry Potter, Showtime, Adult Swim, Pluto TV, HGTV, Food Network, Network 10, Comedy Central, HBO, The Cooking Channel, CNN Espanol, Alloy Entertainment, Discovery Home & Health, Country Music Television, Cartoon Network, New Line Cinema, TLC, BET, Boomerang, Animal Planet, Miramax, Channel 5, DFC, CNN All Access, Bleacher Report, DMAX, Warner Brothers Clockwork, Discovery Turbo, Ananey, Cartoonito, American Heroes Channel, and Asian Food Network.
Opposition to this merger has been fierce, with vocal critics including Hulk actor (and notably for our region, star of the 2019 film Dark Waters about the C8 crisis in Parkersburg), Mark Ruffalo. Ruffalo was, predictably, smeared as “antisemitic” for his criticisms of the Ellison family, and took to social media to respond:
“This merger has real consequences for real people, and for the entire country. Scrutinizing the Ellisons, including Oracle’s business built on data, surveillance technology and government contracts, and the serious threat to editorial freedom and the loss of a livelihood for thousands of families, is fair and necessary. The $111 billion deal would hand one family control over CNN, HBO and Warner Bros., backed in part by foreign money whose influence on editorial decisions has never been fully explained to the public.”
It was against this backdrop, then, that Warner Brothers released its final film before its acquisition by the Ellison family, Alejandro Inarritu’s satirical black comedy film “Digger.” The film, described as the “Dr. Strangelove of the climate crisis,” and featuring an unforgettable lead performance from Tom Cruise, opened to catastrophic box office figures and was savaged by critics, who seemed practically delighted at the prospect of its failure.
The online reaction to the film, however, as well as that of numerous Hollywood actors and celebrities, could not be more different.
Director Guillermo Del Toro has been an eager champion of the film, tweeting shortly after its release: “BTW there is a “climate change” movie in release that Is NOT about climate change but the manipulation of narratives – and yes it is released by WB (possibly the very last movie WB as such will ever release) and has been deemed “excessive, overbearing” so – see it in a theatre…”
Singer Neil Young called it “the best film I have ever seen,” while actor Ben Affleck said of the film’s detractors: “It’s a little bit like the high-school bullying thing, with people who hadn’t even seen movies. You see it happening now, frankly, with “Digger” Everybody wants to celebrate this bomb as if it’s the most exciting thing to happen.”
“Digger” is a complex film with complex themes, and I would be doing you a major disservice by unraveling too many of its secrets here — you really should see it for yourself, if you can still manage to find it playing anywhere. But in broad strokes, the movie tells the story of fictional oil tycoon Digger Rockwell, whose reckless drilling practices in the Greenland arctic unleash a larger than life environmental catastrophe upon the world, threatening millions of lives.
Speaking on the seemingly outlandish chain of events depicted in the film, director Alejandro Inarritu noted that “When we started, nine years ago, all these events were a big stretch. The disasters we were imagining were only kind of possible. Scientists measured the ice shelf detaching in Greenland — it was possible, but a stretch. But reality changed so fast that by the time we were shooting, many of these events were already happening.”
Even as the film was being pulled from theaters due to poor box office performance, scientists announced that the so-called Thwaites Doomsday Glacier was “melting more aggressively than previously projected,” potentially doubling sea level rise, and President Trump made headlines by teasing an upcoming “massive” surge of oil, gas, and mineral exploration in Greenland.
There’s a key scene in the film that’s provoked a great deal of interesting discussion online, posted by Tom Cruise as a clip on social media and racking up over 16 million views on Twitter alone. The scene, which takes place following the devastating environmental catastrophe unleashed by Digger Rockwell, sees the swaggering Texas oil tycoon making a speech in defense of his disastrous actions in front of the European Parliament.
“And every one of you,” booms Rockwell, turning the accusatory finger back around toward his audience, “no matter how conscientious you pretend to be, you want to drive around in the cheapest fuel! You want to keep your lights on, your heating and air conditioning running! You want dirt cheap tickets to Mallorca so that you can roast your pale a–es in a hammock! You want to carve into a goood steak! You want a two day delivery of s— that you don’t need! You want to charge up them cell phone batteries so you can gawk at your TikTok and your YouTube! You want energy, energy so that you can ask AI to solve the very same disasters that it’s fueling! You want freedom — freedom to bask in the comfort of your unsustainable lives!”
Cruise’s performance here is spectacular, and for some viewers, this speech served as a perfect encapsulation of the film’s thesis: we’re all responsible for climate change, and scapegoating individual bad actors like Digger simply lets the rest of us off the hook for our own irresponsible behavior.
But this is a very surface level interpretation. Digger, in his fiery speech, uses almost the exact same strategy cooked up by the PR firm Ogilvy & Mather in 2004 in defense of British Petroleum, the concept of “individual carbon footprints” used to shift the focus away from the apocalyptic willful negligence of the fossil fuel industry, and onto everyday consumers.
I wouldn’t say, though, that the film absolves its audience of responsibility, either – again, I don’t want to spoil too much for those who haven’t seen it, but there’s a moment as the credits begin to roll that seems very much designed to shake viewers out of their own complacency, and quite effectively so.
“Digger,” at its core, is a story about stories.
Who are we allowing to tell the story of this extremely tumultuous moment in human history?
What story are they telling, how are they telling it, and why are they telling it in the manner that they are? Are we being strategically drip fed just enough of the truth in order to make the insidious narrative control of the ruling class go down more easily?
These are the questions we need to be constantly asking ourselves so long as the Rockwells and the Ellisons of the world are the ones dictating our sense of reality. To surrender control over these narratives is to surrender the future of the planet itself.
Aaron Dunbar is a member of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.
Posted: October 17, 2026 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: The death of natural history and why it matters
By Randi Pokladnik October 17, 2026
The Academy of Natural Sciences, located in Philadelphia, closed last month just shy of its 200th birthday. It was founded in 1812 and opened to the public in 1828. In 1868, the academy was the first place in the world to display a dinosaur skeleton. It housed a massive, irreplaceable library of over 19 million specimens, which included Thomas Jefferson’s fossil collection, and plant samples gathered by Lewis and Clark.
Since the Covid pandemic, visits to the museum had steadily declined, and financial instability played a major role in the decision to close the academy. The declining revenue from admission fees, along with reduced funding from the federal government and a drop in philanthropic donations, contributed to the closing. Many researchers and academics fear other museums may close as well.
These museums provide a place for us to experience and learn about the history of the natural world, something that is desperately needed today. Richard Louv, author of the book “Last Child in the Woods,” wrote about what he called “nature-deficit disorder.” He discusses the effects of a significant lack of exposure to nature and outdoor activities on today’s children which has been linked to trends like childhood obesity, attention deficit disorder, and depression.
I attended one of Louv’s lectures in 2010. He asked the audience to raise their hands if they had captured fireflies in jars; seen tadpoles in a stream; or camped out under the stars. After each question he told the audience to look around at who had their hands raised. It was mainly older folks, the boomer generation.
This is not a surprise. Today’s kids spend 5 to 8 hours a day in front of a screen and less than 1 hour outdoors. In addition, today’s teachers are not required to take any formal training in natural sciences. Since the 1990s, an accredited BS degree in biology does not require any natural history course. As natural history course offerings declined, the number of hard science courses increased and soon most universities dropped entire majors in natural history along with most coursework in the field. Joshua Tewksbury, a University of Washington professor and World Wildlife Federation International scientist said, “natural history provides essential knowledge for fields as varied as human health, food security, conservation, land management and recreation.”
When I was working on my doctorate degree in 2002, I was required to take a course in natural history. It was taught by Dr. Mitchell Thomashow, the author of the book, “Bringing the Biosphere Home: Learning to Perceive Global Environment Change.” One of our assignments was to pick one thing in our local environment and observe it for a month. I chose to observe Tappan Lake during the month of January. I watched as a thin film of ice formed on the lake during a stretch of zero-degree temperatures. By the end of the month, that layer was several inches thick. This was in the winter of 2003. In recent years we have seen little to no ice formation on the lake: maybe a possible sign of climate change? Without observations taking place in the outdoors, we miss valuable data.
A 2022 article in Science and Education said, “biology teacher education coursework and science methods textbooks have diverted attention away from direct encounters with living things and toward abstract, molecular models of life devoid of academically helpful context.”
I think our lack of connections to the natural world will only get worse as AI takes a greater role in education and our lives. No computer-generated model can ever replace a living organism. You cannot do fieldwork on a laptop; you must get outdoors and experience the entire ecosystem and all the abiotic and biotic parts of that ecosystem. Note the “A” in AI stands for artificial.
I have had wonderful encounters with the natural environment most of my life, especially birds. I started watching birds in fifth grade and continue to be fascinated by their tenacious nature. On the coldest days of winter, the bright red cardinals or black-capped chick-a-dees manage to brave the snow and visit my feeders. But, many older birdwatchers like myself will tell you that birds, and many plants and animals, are in trouble. The Audubon Society issued a report in 2025 stating, we have “lost 3 billion birds in North America over 50 years.” The recently published United Nations Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework report says we are failing to protect nature.
Citizen scientists have become invaluable in providing data through their observations of birds and wildlife at their homes. We are doing the jobs that previously were done by naturalists; observation and record keeping. A recent essay in INaturalist said, “citizen scientists contribute valuable data that professional researchers might otherwise struggle to collect.” This is especially true at a time when the current administration has significantly cut research funding for science projects.
In addition to cutting research funding, the current administration has proposed to: expand oil and gas exploration and exempt projects from public comments; roll back the roadless rules; and to significantly weaken the Endangered Species Act. Citizens are watching this administration gut their natural world.
In his 2012 book, “The Nature Principle,” Louv wrote, “We cannot protect something we do not love, we cannot love what we do not know, and we cannot know what we do not see. Or hear. Or sense.” We need natural history education more than ever. We also need to speak up in defense of the natural world because nature cannot advocate for herself. To quote Paul Avellino, “Many of us became accidental activists. Not out of rage but out of heartbreak. Because somewhere along the way we realized silence helps no one. Not the Earth, not our children, not each other.”
***
Randi Pokladnik, Ph.D., of Uhrichsville, is a retired research chemist who volunteers with Mid Ohio Valley Climate Action. She has a doctorate degree in environmental studies and is certified in hazardous materials regulations.
Last Updated: October 16, 2026 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Vote not just for climate, but affordability
Eric Engle October 10, 2026
The energy research company Energy Innovation recently completed an analysis, Associated Press coverage of which was published in last weekend’s edition of the Parkersburg News and Sentinel, that found that “households will pay an average of $6,500 more for energy, cumulatively, through 2040” because of policies and actions of the Trump regime and congressional Republicans.
The analysis “focused on the sweeping package of tax breaks that slashed funding for clean energy tax credits, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, Trump signed; environmental rollbacks, including clean air and power plant rules and the revocation of a scientific finding that underpinned the U.S. fight against climate change; the loosening of fuel economy standards and blocking of California’s novel rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035; and federal actions to stop wind, solar and hydrogen projects.”
The analysis found that “these changes will result in annual household energy costs rising in every state in the contiguous U.S., plus job losses in 47 of 48 states and losses to the gross domestic product in 46 states.” The analysis also projects “37,000 additional premature deaths from air pollution, $72 billion in additional healthcare costs and more than 9 billion tons of additional carbon pollution because of the environmental rollbacks.”
West Virginia’s entire congressional delegation, especially Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, were huge supporters of the One Big Beautiful Bill and of the environmental rollbacks the analysis covered. Meanwhile, West Virginians have been and continue to be hit particularly hard by rising costs of energy, due in large part to our state’s highest-in-the-country reliance on coal-fired grid power.
To quote from reporting by Charleston Gazette-Mail Reporter Mike Tony, “Citing an analysis of U.S. Energy Information Administration data, the U.S. Joint Economic Committee–Minority in November projected that West Virginia’s average 2025 household electricity expenses would reach $1,960, more than any bordering state except Maryland despite West Virginia having easily the lowest per capita personal income among those neighbors in 2024, per a Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis analysis.”
Tony continues, “The West Virginia Housing Development Fund last year published a state housing needs assessment that found there are more than 266,000 energy-burdened households in the state (37% of all households), meaning they pay more than 6% of their household income on electricity and other fuel expenses. One in every five burdened households were low-income and had among the top quarter of highest energy costs in the state, the report found…”
Fortunately, the West Virginia Office of Energy is finally implementing two home energy efficiency programs–the Home Owner Managing Energy Savings (HOMES) program and the Home Efficiency Appliance Rebate (HEAR) program–that are designed to help qualifying households offset the cost of whole-home energy improvements (HOMES) and support qualifying high-efficiency appliances, equipment and related home improvements (HEAR). These programs were funded with $88.2 million for West Virginia under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, energy legislation signed by President Biden that received no Republican support. Over four years after the passage of the IRA, we’re finally seeing these programs come into being. I plan to try qualifying for one of the programs to see if I can get a little help replacing my gas furnace with a far more efficient model. You can see if you qualify at bit.ly/WVHomeEnergyRebates.
I wish there were more good news but, unfortunately, energy ratepayers are also faced with the buildout of data centers. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that by 2030, data centers will use 11.8% of U.S. electricity, as much as the state of Texas, which is the U.S.’s most power-hungry state. A recent article in Forbes on the data center construction boom stated, “Over the next four years, they could eat up another 457 terawatt-hours of electricity–enough to power California for nearly two years.” A recent Gallup poll found that 70% of Americans opposed building AI data centers in their communities.
You wouldn’t know about that 70% opposition nationwide listening to Gov. Patrick Morrisey or most of the Republicans in the supermajority at the WV State Legislature. House Bill 2014 of 2025 made abundantly clear that they don’t particularly care how people feel about data centers in their communities. Friends of mine in Mason County have already suffered immensely from property damage and noise and loss of beloved woodlands from the early days of the building of a data center campus practically on top of them.
We don’t need more data centers; we need affordable, reliable, cleaner renewable energy. I have a 14.2 KW, 34-panel solar array on my home via a solar leasing program through the solar installation company Solar Holler. In just the last two weeks, my array has generated 576.3 kWh, while we have used 349.4 kWh, which has resulted in our exporting 220.3 kWh to the grid for credits. Even at the height of summer with air conditioning going almost around the clock, our array met 73% of our power needs.
I encourage you to check out Solar Holler and the numerous other installation companies working. Solar Holler did a fantastic job installing my array and they use only IBEW union labor and operate out of Huntington, WV, but there are other great companies getting in on leasing programs or offering other great financing options as well. Everyone should be able to maximize their home’s energy efficiency and take advantage of solar and other renewables. That starts with public policy.
We at Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, as our great yard signs say (we still have plenty of yard signs available), want you to be a climate voter, but we also want you to vote for lower utility bills and greater energy affordability across the board. Early voting starts Oct. 21 in WV and Election Day is Nov. 3
Eric Engle is board president of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.
Posted: October 3, 2026 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: When one person’s property rights become another person’s nightmare
By Jean Ambrose October 3, 2026
Property rights have never been absolute. Owning land gives a person important rights, but those rights do not mean that anything can be done on that land without affecting others. The law of nuisance has long recognized this basic idea: One person’s use of property cannot unreasonably interfere with another person’s use and enjoyment of his or her property.
This issue has become especially important as industrial activity moves into rural communities. Fossil-fuel development, waste disposal, mining, and other industrial operations can bring noise, dust, traffic, odors, pollution, and other changes to areas that were once quiet and largely agricultural.
Now, a similar debate is developing around large data centers. These facilities support cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and many other digital services. But they can also require huge amounts of land, electricity, water, cooling equipment, backup generators, roads, and transmission lines.
The question is not whether data centers provide useful services. They do. The question is whether the benefits and the costs are being fairly shared.
One of our neighbors, Deborah Baker, lives in Little Hocking on property her family has owned since 1964. It is rural farm country. A couple of years ago, Baker was in another state with her grandchildren when a fracking-waste disposal facility was built about a quarter-mile from her home.
When she returned in 2025, she noticed a loud, nonstop humming, a constant vibrating white noise that could be heard inside her house as well as outside. At night, she says she needs earplugs to sleep.
Baker learned that the nearby facility, Arrowhead Disposal Services, receives wastewater from hydraulic-fracturing operations in West Virginia and pumps it into a deep underground formation. She believes equipment at the facility is responsible for the noise.
Baker went to the facility several times and asked whether something could be done to reduce the noise. At first, she says, workers denied that the noise was coming from their operation. Eventually, personnel took a decibel measurement. Baker says the measurement was taken at the end of her driveway while she was not there. She therefore could not see how the measurement was taken or know the conditions under which it was made.
When she continued raising the issue, Baker says she was told that no regulations were being violated and that she should stop contacting the facility or the police would be called. Her response was simple: “I come here with a noise concern and your answer is to threaten me?”
That raises an important distinction. One question is whether a certain noise level violates a regulation. Another question is whether a person should have to live with constant industrial noise in her home.
Baker has also reported seeing water repeatedly running across a local road and saturating nearby farmland. Testing indicated that the water was groundwater rather than a leak from a municipal water system. More research would be needed to determine whether the disposal operation caused the groundwater to reach the surface.
But that question points to a larger problem. Industrial activity does not always stop at the property line.
Water crosses property lines. Air pollution can travel. Noise travels. Trucks use public roads. Changes to the landscape can affect neighboring properties. In other words, a company can legally own its property while its activities affect people who never agreed to those activities.
The same concern applies to data centers.
A community may welcome new investment, construction, jobs, and tax revenue. At the same time, residents may have legitimate questions about electricity use, water consumption, cooling systems, backup generators, noise, traffic, and new transmission infrastructure.
The basic question is simple: Who gets the benefits, and who pays the costs?
A company can purchase land and have every legal right to build on it. But the people living nearby may still experience consequences they did not choose.
A quiet rural landscape can become an industrial landscape. Roads can carry more construction and service traffic. Large cooling systems can produce constant noise. New power lines and other infrastructure may require additional land. Water and electricity that were once used mainly by homes, farms, and existing businesses may face new demands.
These concerns do not automatically mean that development should be stopped. They do mean that the costs of development should be considered along with the benefits.
Economists have a term for some of these costs: external costs. These are costs created by an economic activity that are imposed on people who are not part of the transaction.
A gas company may profit from extracting a resource. A mineral owner may receive royalties. Workers may receive wages. Governments may receive taxes and fees.
But what about the neighbor who hears the noise every night?
What about the homeowner whose property becomes less desirable because an industrial facility is built nearby?
What about the family that must deal with increased traffic, changes to the landscape, or concerns about water and air?
The same questions can be asked about a data center. The company may make a major investment and provide valuable digital infrastructure. But nearby residents may experience construction, noise, pressure on local utilities, and a permanent change in the character of their community.
As Baker puts it, “I’ve taken good care of this property all these years, but why would anyone buy it now with all of this nonstop noise? It’s daily torture!”
That is not simply a question about money. It is a question about what ownership means.
A fair system should ask whether the people who profit from an activity should also bear a meaningful share of the costs that activity creates. Economic development can be valuable, but the right to make a profit should not mean that someone else must quietly accept all of the consequences.
Clean air, clean water, quiet places to live, and healthy communities are not luxuries. They are part of what makes property valuable in the first place.
The law of nuisance recognizes an important principle: owning property does not erase responsibility. Saying “It is my property” does not end the discussion when activities on that property create serious and preventable effects on others.
The goal should not be to choose between property rights and economic development. The goal should be to protect both property owners and the communities around them.
People who own land should have meaningful rights. Companies should be able to invest and develop property. But neighbors should also have meaningful rights to live safely and peacefully in their own homes.
The real question is not simply what one person or company is legally allowed to do with its property. The larger question is what kind of community we want to create when one person’s economic activity changes the lives of everyone around them.
Ownership is a right. But ownership also comes with responsibility. Public officials must not give corporations permission to evade their responsibilities as an enticement to locate in our community.
Jean Ambrose is a founding member of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.
Posted: September 26, 2026 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: In Ohio, renewable sourced electricity can be an affordable choice
By Dawn Hewitt September 26, 2026
Most of the time I am grateful to live in Ohio. Ohio is one of only 13 states that allow consumers to choose their electricity supplier, and one of only 9 states to allow municipal energy aggregation. The city of Marietta, for example, is able to negotiate with electricity suppliers to get a good, fixed-rate deal for AEP customers within city limits. AEP owns and manages the grid in southeastern Ohio, and supplies electricity to those who don’t designate an alternative supplier. AEP’s standard service option (SSO) rate per kWh is 10.97 cents from July 1 through Sept. 30, 2026, and the City of Marietta’s aggregated electricity rate from October 2025 through December 2026 is 9.86 cents per kWh.
Even though Marietta negotiates good deals for electricity, I opted out long ago. Marietta’s aggregation supplier, Dynegy, sources 60.8% of its power from fossil fuels and 30.5% from nuclear. AEP’s SSO uses 59% fossil fuels and 32% nuclear. I’m willing to pay extra to power my home with sunshine and wind, but as it turns out, I pay less! My current electric rate per kWh is 8.91 cents. I’ve been paying that fixed rate since November 2025.
My house is 100% powered by renewable energy – even though I don’t have solar panels on my roof or my own private wind turbine. My electricity is unaffected by nighttime when the sun isn’t shining or when the wind isn’t blowing. Since my power comes from the same grid as everyone else in town, the actual electricity that flows into my outlets might well be generated by coal, oil, or natural gas (unfortunately). But when I pay my electric bill, I am paying for AEP to buy the amount of renewable energy I have consumed from Shipley Energy, who offered me that very good deal for 100% wind power.
I picked Shipley’s offer using “Apples to Apples” at Energychoice.ohio.gov. For years, each time my electricity supply contract expired I’ve searched that website for the best deal on fixed-rate renewable energy. I’ve consistently scored a contract that beats both the AEP SSO and Marietta’s aggregation rates — and I’m paying for pollution-free electricity.
Sadly, the City of Marietta does not offer a renewable-energy aggregation option. Some Ohio communities, including Athens, Cleveland, and Cincinnati, offer a 100% renewable aggregate option. Cleveland’s rate, from August 2026 to July 2027, is 10.457 cents per kWh – which is less expensive than AEP’s SSO and less than a penny more per kWh than the nonrenewable energy rate Marietta negotiated a year ago.
Of course, I have no idea what AEP’s SSO will be when the current rate expires in a few days, or what Marietta will be able to negotiate for its aggregation rate in January. No matter. I’m not going to power my house with yucky old dinosaurs as long as I have the choice to use clean, renewable energy – and it’s even at a competitive price!
My account with Shipley Energy will expire on Nov. 10, so once again I will have to compare and choose my electricity supplier. I’m going to wait until early November to make the decision, but as of late September, according to Apples to Apples, I could sign up for a three-month fixed rate of 8.89 cents per kWh for 100% renewable energy, which would get me through what are likely to be the coldest months of the year. I hope this offer is still available a month from now.
With such a short term fixed rate, I’ll have to go through this process again in January, which is a bit of a bother, but since the costs of renewable energy are falling, it’s possible that I’ll find another great deal. The costs of renewable energy are, indeed, falling, because unlike extraction of oil, gas, and coal, “extraction” of wind and sunlight is free. Furthermore, technological advances such as whole-house battery storage and plug-in “balcony” solar suggest that renewable energy options will continue to be even easier and cheaper. And unlike fossil fuel production, renewable energy isn’t subsidized by taxpayers. Even with an unfairly tilted playing field renewable energy is increasingly competitive.
I’m sorry that readers of this column in West Virginia can’t choose their electricity supplier – unless they generate their own. Mon Power, however, allows its customers to fund solar power in West Virginia for as little as $2 per month. For more information, see https://tinyurl.com/WV-solar. And if you think West Virginia should become the 14th state to allow energy consumers to choose their own electricity supplier, visit https://www.resausa.org, and encourage your state legislators to enable it!
Dawn Hewitt chairs the Green Sanctuary Committee of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Marietta, is managing editor of BWD magazine, and is active with Washington County for Safe Drinking Water.
Posted: September 19, 2026 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Are we prepared?
By Rebecca Phillips September 19, 20264 min read
2026 brought a summer of flash floods. We all remember the devastation inflicted on parts of West Virginia in July and August. Last month, as some areas began recovering while others were inundated, Charlise Robinson used this column to point out the need for more flood resilience in the state. More recent news has shown us more widespread devastation, and we in our river towns must face the question: are we ready for the next flood?
In mid-August, heavy rains and flash floods brought much of southern and central Ohio to a standstill, destroying homes and disrupting lives. In Indiana, seven people died in the floods. On Aug. 29, heavy downpours raced over baked, burned-over Arizona land and caused flash flooding that killed two hikers in the Grand Canyon and caused dozens to be evacuated. As of this writing, one man, a friend of the two dead hikers, is still missing. On Aug. 26, melting permafrost caused a glacier on the Nepal/Tibet border to collapse, registering as a magnitude 5.2 earthquake on seismographs. A wall of water and debris rushed down 45 miles of the Trishuli River, killing more than 1,300 people, with over 5,000 still missing. Some of the bodies were carried 150 miles downstream into India.
There is a common denominator to these far-flung disasters: climate change. The world’s oceans have warmed, leading to an increase in average air temperatures worldwide. For every 1°F of warming, the air can hold 4% more moisture, moisture that exits the atmosphere in the form of extreme precipitation events. A 2021 article in Climate and Atmospheric Science notes that, worldwide, 1 in 4 of the record rainfalls since 2010 can be attributed to climate change. Our country’s 2023 National Climate Assessment notes that rainfall events in this country have grown heavier over the last fifty years, with the Ohio River Valley experiencing one of the largest increases in hourly rainfall rates. These downpours are exceeding the soil’s ability to absorb them, leading to more floods.
We often associate increased heat with drought and wildfires, but, paradoxically, both of these can contribute to flood intensity. In places like the American West, extended periods of drought have created land so hard-baked that its ability to absorb rainfall is impaired. This impermeability was a factor in the intensity of the flash flood that tore through the Grand Canyon last month. Wildfires, besides exacerbating soil dryness, leave a lot of debris, creating debris flows that add to floods’ destructiveness. Though wildfire was not a factor in the Nepal flood, the US Geological Survey description of that event uses the term “debris avalanche” to describe the flow and its effects, which included the destruction of an international border crossing and the total inundation of many villages.
While the Mid-Ohio Valley is not at risk of the kind of flood that caused such devastation in Nepal, we are vulnerable. A 2017 study by the Army Corps of Engineers found that Ohio’s temperatures are likely to increase 16% by the end of the century, making our climate more like that of today’s Alabama. Stronger storms will be interspersed with longer periods of drought, leading to reduced water levels of as much as 50% in inland rivers like the Muskingum and more dessicated, impermeable soils. That same Corps of Engineers study found that, with the likely increase in extreme rainfall events, the Ohio River may start experiencing storm-induced surges of as much as 25% as soon as 2041, a mere fifteen years from now.
Most of our flood-prevention infrastructure was built more than 60 years ago for a very different climate. Our dams, levees, and floodwalls were built to prevent floods like those of 1913 and 1937, not those we are likely to see in the future. If our storms continue to intensify, will the current protections be enough? Only time will tell.
***
Rebecca Phillips is an Appalachian native, a WVUP retiree, and a member of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.
Last Updated: September 13, 2026 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: In my life
By Giulia Mannarino
September 12, 2026
As a child growing up in southwestern Pennsylvania, I remember the weather having four separate seasons during the calendar year. There seemed to be a specific winter, spring, summer and fall that were distinct and different. Although summers could be hot, daily temperatures rarely reached 100 degrees. Torrential rains and out of season snow storms were rare. Tornadoes and earthquakes never occurred locally or in nearby states. But the changes in the temperature and weather experienced in my own short life span seem astounding. Short at least as compared to the age of our universe or our planet. The seasons have changed over the years. Since the 1950s, average temperatures across the country have climbed steadily. Heat events have become more common. At the same time, there are fewer freezing days, record low snow levels and intense rainfalls. Not only are there more events like wild fires, flooding, droughts and other consequences of global warming but the duration and intensity of these events are increasing. Global warming acceleration itself has nearly doubled over the last decade. This situation is causing unusual and dramatic events such as the recent melting glaciers that flooded Tibet and Nepal villages and Grand Canyon hikers swept away by an extreme flash flood.
The concept of global warming first appeared in 1824 when French physicist Joseph Fourier proposed that Earth’s atmosphere traps heat acting like a blanket to keep the planet warm. In the 1850s, American scientist Eunice Foote and Irish physicist John Tyndall independently conducted experiments demonstrating that CO2 and water vapor are heat trapping gases. In 1896, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius was the first to hypothesize humanity could change the climate on a global scale. Further experiments and research continued throughout the 1900s. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson was the first president who warned about the dangers of burning fossil fuels when a report from a Science Advisory Committee titled “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment” was presented. An entire section detailed the modification to heat balance and marked changes in climate that will be caused by use of fossil fuels. This was a few years before prominent climatologist Dr. James Hansen’s testimony in Congress on June 23, 1988. At that time, Dr. Hansen was the lead witness before a landmark hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. His declaration that human caused global warming could be detected was significant in bringing anthropogenic climate change to the forefront of political and public discourse.
In the past, global warming was much less partisan. On June 12, 1992, at the Rio Earth Summit in Brazil, President George H.W. Bush signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC is the foundational international environmental treaty that laid the groundwork for all future global climate efforts, including the Paris Agreement. Its primary goal was to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system. In spite of the global reaction to this serious situation, the fossil fuel industry continued to be self-serving. It fired their employee scientists that legitimately reported on the seriousness of the climate crisis. The industry also continues to run disinformation campaigns that intentionally lead to confusion and politicization. The current administration is dismantling decades of science based public health and environmental protections that benefit polluters and in some cases enrich their own bank account.
President Harry S. Truman said; “Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician and I’ll show you a crook.” In fact, Trump earned $2 billion the first year he was back in office. It saddens me that the fossil fuel industry and certain politicians continue to show disregard for our environment and future generations. This past Friday was the anniversary of the horrific terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. Although this massive tragedy killed many, it led to significant changes in emergency response, aviation security and international cooperation. I recently came across a quote from Joan Baez, one of my “Sheros.” Her wise remark on the current situation was “I have hope, in people, in individuals. You don’t know what’s going to rise from the ruins.”
Let your hopes as well as your actions shape the future.
Giulia Mannarino of Belleville, is a grandmother concerned about her two granddaughters’ futures and a member of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action
Posted: September 5, 2026 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Dolly’s mountain legacy – keeping Appalachia wild
By Griffin Bradley September 5, 2026
News & Sentinel
On Aug. 25, the world lost a giant in so many respects. Especially in this day and age, you are hard pressed to find a person who bridges nearly every divide and who so few people, if any, have an unkind word to say about them. Dolly Parton, a self-proclaimed country girl from the mountains of east Tennessee, created a legacy that spans so many pieces of today’s popular culture, but almost none more than her love and respect for our natural world, and the lengths she went to keeping them as wild as could be.
If you’ve never heard Dolly talk about her beloved Smoky Mountains or nature in general, I implore you to stop reading, head to Google, and take a listen. In her witty, country tone, she told stories of her life in the mountains, recalling how the rolling hills and babbling streams of Appalachia shaped the way she viewed the world. While seeing its beauty, she also saw the negative impacts people were having on the lands that she so loved.
“We’re just mistreating Mother Nature — that’s like bein’ ugly to your mama,” she said. “We need to take better care of the things that God gave us freely. And that we’re so freely messin’ up.”
In her songs, the natural landscape around her was impressed upon you, drawing on imagery not unfamiliar to many of us in the Ohio Valley.
“Life is as peaceful as a baby’s sigh,” where, “crickets sing in the fields nearby,” she wrote in her 1972 song, “My Tennessee Mountain Home.” That song, named an official state song of Tennessee in 2022, is one of many odes to nature that Dolly sang throughout her over-60-year career.
Beyond just talking and singing about nature, what Dolly did to protect it is just as important.
Dolly was an avid philanthropic champion for environmental initiatives across Appalachia, giving her time, star power, and personal wealth to causes near and dear to so many of us. As in her music, she was unafraid to take on the challenges many thought to be too large or complex to tackle, seeing them as just the very things that needed her attention the most.
In 1991, Dolly partnered with the American Eagle Foundation to establish the Eagle Mountain Sanctuary, a facility for bald eagles and other birds of prey unable to survive in the wild. She participated in the opening of the sanctuary, and over the last 35 years has helped expose millions of people to the conservation and rehabilitation needs for these animals through her support.
Through programs at her famed Dollywood in Pigeon Forge, millions of park guests have been educated on issues of conservation and environmental need in a way only Dolly could provide. Using entertainment and style, Dollywood has acted as an ambassador for conservation across the Smokies, with guests taking the meaningful impact it has back home with them across the globe.
After the devastating 2016 Tennessee wildfires, Dolly established programs through her own charity and the Dollywood Foundation to provide assistance to impacted families as well as disaster cleanup. Dolly donated millions of dollars of her own alongside raising millions more through her fundraising effort, Smoky Mountains Rise. Without Dolly’s direct stewardship, there’s simply no telling how widespread the long-term environmental and community impacts of the wildfires may have been.
As we watch tributes to Dolly Parton roll in from all around the world, I hope we are able to find our own connections to the place that we call home, and are able to stand up for it when we know it’s right. For Dolly, I find National Geographic’s closing statement from their 2022 write-up on her life, music and legacy especially poignant.
“Parton is unafraid to stomp her glittery heel when it comes to caring for the environment — her message is clear and she is increasingly amplifying it wherever she travels.”
Thank you, Dolly, for all you gave us. We will always love you.
***
Griffin Bradley is a lifelong Wood County resident, graduate of West Virginia University, and a contributing author for Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.
Last Updated: September 9, 2026 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Let that sink in
By Linda Eve Seth August 29, 2026
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second-best time is now. — Chinese Proverb
Carbon is an essential element to all life on Earth. Like DNA and protein, it is one of the molecules that make up our bodies. Carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, or CO2, is part of the air we breathe in every day. It can also be found in plants, rocks, oceans and fossil fuels. However, in the form of carbon dioxide gas, it can be very dangerous, and since industries emit a lot of CO2, it causes the planet to get warmer. Fortunately, there are natural ecosystems that store this carbon dioxide in what are called “carbon sinks.”
A carbon sink is any natural or artificial reservoir that absorbs more atmospheric carbon dioxide than it releases. By removing greenhouse gases from the air, these systems play a critical role in the natural carbon cycle and mitigating global climate change. The most effective, important carbon sinks on Earth are oceans, forests, and soil. Just like a kitchen sink holds water, a carbon sink holds carbon. In nature, things that release carbon into the air (like burning fuels or human breathing) are called sources. Things that suck that carbon out of the air and store it are called sinks. CO2, is a greenhouse gas, which means it traps heat from the sun and warms up the planet. If we didn’t have carbon sinks like oceans and forests soaking up huge amounts of this gas, Earth would get much too hot.
When we burn too many fossil fuels, we release excess carbon into the air. The carbon sinks try to soak it all up, but climate change is making it harder for them to do their job in several ways:
Ocean Acidification: As oceans absorb too much CO2 the water becomes more acidic. This makes it very difficult for marine animals like corals and shellfish to build their shells.
Wildfires: Warmer, drier weather leads to intense forest fires. When trees burn, they release all their stored carbon right back into the air.
Warming Waters: Water, especially the ocean, also acts as a carbon sink. A warmer ocean is less able to dissolve and hold onto carbon dioxide.
Trees are nature’s carbon storage units. As they grow, trees pull CO2 out of the air through photosynthesis and use the carbon to build their trunks, branches, roots and leaves. Because that carbon is stored in the wood and other plant tissues, the tree acts as a “carbon sink” — it takes in more carbon than it releases and keeps it out of the atmosphere for years, or even centuries, depending on the life of trees — while releasing oxygen back into the air.
In one year, a mature tree can absorb the equivalent of a half a metric ton of carbon dioxide. Altogether, forests in the U.S. offset about 16% of greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trucks, power plants and other sources. In fact, forest ecosystems are the largest land-based carbon sink on Earth.
Forests have been quietly cooling the planet for decades, but their role is increasingly under threat. Historically, by removing CO2, forests have acted as a reliable planetary thermostat. They regulate Earth’s temperature, drawing CO2 from the atmosphere, and lock it in trees, roots and soil — carbon that is emitted if trees are cut down. In a typical year, forests and other vegetation absorb roughly 30% of the carbon that humans emit from burning fossil fuels — a vital climate service performed at virtually no cost by trees around the world, from tropical rainforests to temperate and boreal forests. Deforestation reverses this absorption, releasing stored carbon and turning these areas into carbon sources
The past several years have not been typical. Recent research reveals that extreme fires have caused forests to absorb far less carbon than usual in 2023 and 2024, weakening their cooling effect. During those years, forests absorbed only a quarter of the carbon dioxide they do in an average year. 2023 marked the lowest “forest carbon sink” in over two decades when considering the loss of trees’ stored carbon and greenhouse gases caused by burning.
This recent sharp drop is also part of a longer-term decline, where the margin between forest emissions and carbon removals appears to be narrowing. With emissions from deforestation and other forest disturbances rising, the world’s forests risk shifting from a carbon sink to a carbon source.
Losing the world’s forest carbon sink will have catastrophic consequences for people and the planet. Without urgent intervention, a continued decline in forests’ ability to absorb carbon could accelerate climate change, increasing the frequency of deadly extreme weather events, and disrupting rainfall patterns that underpin water and food security.
Until next time, be kind to your mother Earth.
***
Linda Eve Seth, SLP, M.Ed., is a mother, grandmother, concerned citizen and member of MOVCA.
Find Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action on the following social media:
Check out our Facebook group and join a conversation
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Categories
Meta