Climate Corner: Profit, people, planet

Mar 8, 2025

Jean Ambrose

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

Is it true that government should be run more like a business? This seems to be a given these days, but it couldn’t be further from the truth.

The goal of a business is straightforward: to return a monetary profit to its owners or shareholders. The objectives are clear and simple.

However, the goals of government — our government — are not as easily defined. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution outlines our national purpose: to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. Nowhere in our national purpose statement do we find efficiency or profit as objectives. Rather, the Constitution describes how we will make decisions together to achieve these ambitious goals.

Our Founding Fathers set forth a challenge: to balance multiple, often competing, priorities. Running a democratic government successfully requires a level of competence, experience and intelligence far beyond that needed to run a business. The general welfare of the people does not lend itself to the cheapest option possible. If “We the People” truly means all the people, then ensuring access to health care, education, housing, nutrition and safety is not just a financial decision — it is a shared commitment to long-term prosperity and a resilient nation.

While such a mandate from the past requires resources, an unhealthy, uneducated and unskilled population is no asset to a nation. Smart governments invest in their people and their environment with confidence that the general welfare and prosperity will be strengthened, just as smart businesses invest in research and development. The current obsession with slashing government spending is akin to taking a chainsaw to our Constitution instead of making thoughtful, measured adjustments. Using efficiency as the primary benchmark for government success ignores its fundamental responsibilities. A better approach — the Triple Bottom Line — considers more than just cost reduction.

The Triple Bottom Line concept, introduced by John Elkington over 25 years ago, holds that sustainable decision-making requires balancing three key pillars: People, Planet and Profit. Including social and environmental considerations alongside financial factors provides a more accurate picture of an organization’s true impact. Yet, economic priorities often overshadow the other two, putting long-term sustainability at risk.

Many businesses have come to embrace this philosophy, endeavoring to ensure that their economic decisions actively support human and environmental interests rather than harm them. They have successfully integrated social impact initiatives into their business models, and they expect places where they operate to have similar ambitions. Examples include Ben and Jerry’s, LEGO, Mars, Starbucks, Unilever, Patagonia, Intuit, Dannon and IKEA. There are many more.

West Virginia provides one example of the Triple Bottom Line in action. Since 2019, communities across the state have participated in the SNAP Stretch program, created by the WV Food and Farm Coalition in partnership with the USDA. This initiative provides access to fresh, affordable food while supporting small agricultural businesses and promoting environmental sustainability. Local food production reduces long-distance transportation, cutting fossil fuel use and benefiting the environment. To date, the program has benefited nearly 80,000 families and generated $3 million in agricultural sales but its future is threatened, like many state/federal partnerships that have been incubators for new ways of doing things.

The Triple Bottom Line challenges the idea that financial goals should override human and environmental well-being. Sustainable economic decisions must support people and the planet rather than exploit them. This 3P approach should also guide policy decisions today, rather than allowing financial goals to be the sole driver of governance.

This kind of forward-thinking approach is what we should demand from leaders at the community, state and federal levels — not short-sighted, indiscriminate budget cuts. We need to demand to know the costs to people and to the environment of budget cuts. If we are to thrive as a nation and as a state, we must recognize that prosperity is not just about profit — it is about people and the planet as well.

***

Jean Ambrose lives on a ridge near Mountwood Park.

Film Festival!

10 films from 4 continents in 2 hours! Climate Future Film Festival!

 

Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action invites you to join us (and co-host Green Sanctuary Committee)

for Merlyn Climate Grants Climate Future Film Festival, in the social hall at First Unitarian Universalist Society of Marietta, (232 Third St.).

We plan two, free-admission screenings:

 

Thursday, March 20, at 7:00pm

or

Saturday, March 22, at 2:00pm

 

This traveling festival of award-winning short films explores the full range of human and artistic response to what may be coming next. The 10 short films – drama, satire, comedy, films of hope and films of sadness, documentary and animation – were created by filmmakers from four different continents.

Bill McKibben, one of  America’s leading voices and authors on climate, is the Festival’s Honorary Judge and introduces it on screen.

While climate change is front-page news, in our own back pages many are grieving. Or numb. Or outraged. Or frightened. Or isolated and feeling hopeless. Others may be oddly celebrating a future of climate disorder. Watch the trailer and see the descriptions of the films at https://www.climatefuturefilm.com

Calling all filmmakers: The Festival is produced by Merlyn Climate Grants (Merlyn Education and Climate Protection Project), a Rhode Island 501(c)3). Merlyn is currently accepting short film submissions for their second Festival, which will premiere in Rhode Island in late 2025 and  tour throughout 2026. Rules and information about submissions are available at https://filmfreeway.com/ClimateFuture

Adeline Bailey, MOVCA program organizer.

Climate Corner: No movies on a dead planet

Mar 1, 2025

Aaron Dunbar

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

This weekend marks the occasion of the 97th annual Academy Awards. This year’s Oscars come on the heels of the January wildfires that devastated much of Los Angeles, scorching nearly 57,000 acres of Southern California. Among the untold victims of these deadly conflagrations, which were made an estimated 35% more likely due to climate change, was the widely acclaimed and visionary filmmaker David Lynch.

Lynch, a lifelong smoker from the age of eight, announced in August of last year that he’d been diagnosed with emphysema and had become largely housebound, requiring supplemental oxygen to perform even the most basic of tasks. Being forced to evacuate during the L.A. fires ultimately proved fatal for Lynch, robbing us of one of the most iconic and influential directors of his era. As one article published in The Vermont Cynic aptly puts it: “David Lynch’s death represents the intersection of the two major addictions of the twentieth century: tobacco and fossil fuels.”

Not so coincidentally, the brood of vipers once selling cigarettes to 8-year-old David Lynch is the same one currently brainwashing today’s children into believing that climate change is a hoax (see the 2014 documentary “Merchants of Doubt.”)

These events got me thinking about the subject of climate change as it’s depicted in film. Despite the misguided conservative notion of Hollywood as some devious purveyor of leftwing propaganda, I generally find myself quite disappointed with the scant supply of popular media attempting to meaningfully explore the most urgent crisis of our times.

Still, there are a handful of decent climate films I’ve managed to stumble across through the years, so I thought I’d share my abbreviated thoughts on a few that have made a lasting impact on me.

* Snowpiercer (2013), directed by Bong Joon-ho

From the Korean filmmaker who directed 2020 Best Picture winner Parasite (also, arguably, an excellent climate film in its own right), Snowpiercer is a dystopian scifi tale set a mere six years into the future. Humanity, in its attempt to restore the balance from catastrophic global warming, has unwittingly unleashed a new Ice Age on the planet via a doomed attempt at geoengineering. The few remaining survivors of this disaster are housed aboard a train whose tracks encircle the Earth, and whose passengers are sorted into different cars by adherence to a rigid class structure. The film presents a relentlessly bleak and brutal vision of the future, wherein environmental desecration intersects with a hellish society of total elite domination- one which we presently find ourselves knee-deep in the process of creating.

* Don’t Look Up (2021), directed by Adam McKay

Often described as “Dr. Strangelove for the climate crisis,” this Oscar nominated film depicts global society’s widespread failure to respond to the impact of an approaching comet, which threatens to destroy the Earth. An obvious metaphor for climate change, the film has been dismissed by some critics as too heavy-handed or on-the-nose. Curious, then, that our entire society should still be acting identically to the one depicted in the film.

* Four Souls of Coyote (2023), directed by Aron Gauder

A gorgeously hand-drawn animated feature of the kind that seldom gets produced these days, Four Souls of Coyote is initially set in the present day, depicting a group of Indigenous land protectors as they attempt to halt an oil pipeline being constructed on their ancestral lands. From here the film leaps back for most of its runtime to explore humanity’s larger, fraught relationship with nature through the telling of ancient Indigenous Creation stories.

There are some potential issues with representation in this film, being a Hungarian production centered around Native American folklore, that I do want to make a point of acknowledging. That said, I find the visuals and underlying themes of this movie to be deeply impactful.

* Take Shelter (2011), directed by Jeff Nichols

Having loved this film for years, I only recently had the belated epiphany that it could, in fact, be considered a climate change movie at all.

Take Shelter tells the story of Curtis LaForche, an Ohio construction worker with a family history of schizophrenia, who begins suffering from vivid nightmares and hallucinations of biblical storms that threaten him and his family. He begins to work obsessively at building an elaborate storm shelter in his backyard, convinced that these visions will soon come to fruition. His panicked doomsaying soon alienates members of his close-knit community and puts the security of his wife and hearing impaired daughter at risk. Powerfully acted by the incomparable Michael Shannon, this film essentially explores the premise: what if God told Noah to build the ark, and everyone, including himself, thought he was insane for doing so?

There’s little doubt in my mind that many of our readers must surely view folks like myself with a disdain similar to LaForche’s own community, with his seemingly hysterical warnings of a coming apocalypse, and very little in the way of tangible proof he can offer for his claims. This sort of evangelizing on behalf of the climate puts one in a strange position of wanting to be proven both right and wrong at the same time. Obviously, the accusation that one is delusional makes one all the more eager to vindicate oneself, and yet I can safely say that most climate activists would love nothing more than to be proven incorrect, if it meant being able to somehow spare the world from the coming storm that awaits it.

* First Reformed (2017), directed by Paul Schrader

A favorite film of mine, and arguably the darkest one on this list. First Reformed features a harrowing performance by Ethan Hawke as Reverend Ernst Toller, the troubled minister of a small Dutch Reformed church. One Sunday, a pregnant parishioner asks Toller to provide counseling to her husband, a radical environmentalist caught in the grip of hopelessness over climate change, who believes that it’s wrong of them to be bringing a child into a doomed world.

Toller’s own demons leave him highly susceptible to the influence of the conversation that ensues. The crisis of faith he’s been experiencing becomes sharply accentuated by climate despair, and his psychological state grows increasingly disturbed as his personal circumstances worsen.

Toller is further vexed upon realizing that the Albany megachurch bankrolling his tiny congregation is heavily funded by a major industrial polluter, a conflict of interests that prevents the church from meaningfully addressing the issue of climate change. This puts me in direct mind of a comment I once received from a reader some years back, about how the preacher at her church refused to discuss climate change and its spiritual implications, for fear of offending pipeline workers present in her congregation. This is, I think, the exact sort of moral cowardice that would have Jesus Christ of Nazareth flipping over tables in outrage.

Regardless of one’s religious affiliation, this film asks a question that will haunt the viewer long after the credits have rolled: “Can God forgive us for what we’ve done to this world?”

***

Aaron Dunbar is a member of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action

Climate Corner: Pulling the plug

Feb 22, 2025

Giulia Mannarino

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

Since the purchase of the White House by the unelected Elon Musk, who contributed $288 million to back Republicans including Donald Trump and others, there has been a flurry of activities from the Oval Office, most motivated by revenge. These include unjustified firings, unqualified appointees, pardons of violent criminals and several executive orders. There is no legal basis for many of these actions. The oligarchs are in power and their policies are focusing on tax breaks for the rich, tariffs passed on to consumers and fewer services for the needy. There also is an unhealthy interest in dismantling as many of the environmental policies put in place by prior administrations as possible. Although lawsuits are being filed, presently, chaos reigns. An example is an executive order signed by Trump on his first day, that pauses billions in funding for a nationwide buildout of fast electric car chargers. These funds had been allocated to states through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula program. The Federal Highway Administration, which distributes NEVI funding, recently told states to stop carrying out their plans, pending new guidelines.

This announcement creates uncertainty and means that states with projects in the works or those currently contracting for them, are to be halted immediately. And there is no information on if or when they will be able to proceed and request reimbursement. This is only one example of the administration’s illogical backpedaling decisions in support of the polluting fossil fuel industry. The dismantling of this particular environmental policy makes no sense. The transportation industry’s use of gasoline vehicles, known as internal combustion engines is the number one contributor to the pollution that is warming the planet. Due to market forces and technological progress, ICEs will soon be a thing of the past. The switch to electric vehicles and the infrastructure necessary to support this transition is critical. Elon Musk is amenable to Trump’s action because the reduced subsidies will hurt other competitors and could provide a boost for Tesla sales. The federal buildout is not the only effort to install EV charging across the nation. Private companies have collectively spent billions on this infrastructure. Experts agree that although Republicans may slow down a transition to EVs, they will not be able to stop it. No matter who is in the White House, automakers have a financial interest in promoting EVs.

The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, don’t deny the fact that global warming is real and caused by human use of fossil fuels. However, neither party, regardless of which has control of Congress, has done much of anything to address the seriousness or the urgency of the climate crisis. However, Trump’s campaign promises of “Drill, Baby, Drill” go overboard in contradicting overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus. “Kill, Baby, Kill” is more accurate for the future of the planet and the grandchildren. Climate change which emerged as an issue in the 1970s led to the establishment of Earth Day. Throughout the 1980s scientists testified before Congress about the problem of global warming caused by human use of fossil fuels. In 1990, with the issue of their first report, the problem of global warming was given international attention by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group organized through the Paris Agreement. Since that time, regular reports have been issued and predictions that were made in the earlier reports have come true.

Now Trump has once again withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, but the other members of the United Nations that have endorsed this document continue to take actions necessary to combat the climate crisis. There is a growing trend of countries and regions across the globe that are moving to replace ICEs with the cleaner, cheaper alternatives of EVs. The European Union phaseout of ICEs will take place by 2035. Twelve U.S. states also have announced official targets or similar plans. Although the world is switching to EVs, the Republicans want the U.S. to go backward. This slowdown will put the U.S. auto industry further behind the rest of the world. As Aldous Huxley wisely noted: “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

Climate Corner: Tough times in Margaritaville

Feb 15, 2025

Linda Eve Seth

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

National Margarita Day – Feb. 22, 2025

If you are planning to celebrate National Margarita Day on Saturday, Feb. 22, 2025, here is something to think about as you make your plans: The margarita — triple sec, tequila, and lime juice — created in 1938 in Mexico, is facing a sustainability crisis. The delicious concoction’s main ingredient is threatened by changing weather patterns.

Beyond the lime wedges and salt lies a complex ecological story involving the blue agave plant – the cactus-like plant which forms the base ingredient of tequila – and bats, which are both under threat due to current shifts in the climate and agricultural practices.

Climate change is impacting agave plants primarily through increased drought conditions and extreme weather events which can disrupt their growth cycle and potentially threaten the production of tequila, as agave is the key ingredient for these spirits. While agave is naturally drought-tolerant, extreme fluctuations in temperature and unpredictable rainfall patterns still negatively affect its development and impact pollination, which are crucial for its reproduction.

The spiky plants are sensitive to sudden shifts in weather, such as extreme heat followed by unseasonable storms. These shifts caused by climate change, coupled with overgrazing from cattle ranching and other human activities, disrupt the distribution and cultivation of agave, the main ingredient of tequila. Agave plants also grow more quickly in hotter seasons, but they don’t concentrate as much sugar in their cores. This means that more agave plants need to be planted to meet the growing popular demand.

Compounding the problem, the only animal that pollinates this special plant is rapidly disappearing as its natural habitat and food sources succumb to a warming world. Agave plants are pollinated by bats. If you like tequila, you should love bats! Without bats, you can have no tequila because that’s the only thing that pollinates the agave plant that makes tequila. The bat-plant association is so strong that the disappearance of one would threaten the survival of the other.

Warming temperatures have become a growing concern for the Mexican long-nosed bat — a key species for tequila. Leptonycteris nivalis, known as the greater long-nosed bat or Mexican long-nosed bat, and the lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae), are the primary pollinators of this economically and ecologically valuable plant.

This agave-bat relationship is mutually beneficial. These one-ounce mammals fly over 750 miles each year — from their winter roosts in central Mexico to birthing caves along the U.S.-Mexico border — in search of flowering cacti and agaves. The bats rely on agave nectar to fuel their return trip, and the agaves depend on the bats to cross-pollinate their flowers so they can produce seeds.

A 2019 study showed that suitable environments for the species are being reduced due to the changing climate. New research has shown its natural habitats are disappearing and its food sources are starting to dwindle as temperatures rise higher in the region. Scientists warn that as bat numbers dwindle, their interaction with agave plants will be reduced by 75%.

The potential extinction of the bat would have negative effects on the sexual reproduction and genetic variability of agave plants, further increasing their vulnerability to future environmental changes.

But don’t despair! Help might be on the way: By combining educational resources with financial incentives, there is an opportunity to make sustainable practices more appealing to farmers. The goal is to strike a balance that benefits the environment, particularly the bats, while ensuring the long-term viability of the blue agave crop.

Scientists have recently learned that agave has a nocturnal “body clock” which allows it to “breathe” at night and withstand the driest of conditions. New research has shown that agaves have evolved to supply most of their nectar after dark to attract the nocturnal fliers. Now scientists are hoping to harness this reverse molecular clock to engineer new drought-resistant crops that will be able to adapt to our changing climate.

So, if you are celebrating National Margarita Day on Feb. 22, take a moment to raise your glass and drink a toast to the hard laboring scientists, wildlife organizations, and farmers who are striving to help keep tequila and margaritas available at your local bar/liquor store. SALUD!

Until next time, be kind to your Mother Earth.

***

Linda Eve Seth, SLP, M Ed., mother, grandmother, concerned citizen and member of MOVCA.

Climate Corner: The right path forward

Feb 8, 2025

Eric Engle

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

An AP newswire piece in the Parkersburg News and Sentinel last weekend contained a section that jumped out at me. The piece read, in part, “…a Chinese upstart, DeepSeek, said it developed a large language model capable of competing with the world’s best, without having to use top-flight chips. The disruption raised questions about whether all the investments expected for AI chips, data centers and electricity is really needed.”

Intriguing. While politicians from both parties used news of DeepSeek to generate another hair-on-fire panic about China and the national security implications of Chinese everything, a little easily missed reporter’s analysis in an AP piece I found on the back pages of a local paper revealed a key truth: we don’t need all these power-hungry data centers, we just need a little global cooperation.

Truths like this, though, don’t sit well with industries like fossil fuels. You see, they want to power these data centers with gas and coal and hydrogen derived from gas. They want countries overseas to do the same so they can build their liquified natural gas and coal export facilities with all the related infrastructure here, predominately in environmental justice communities, while this new administration rids the federal government of the very concept of environmental justice.

AI is another genie let out of a bottle impossible to put back in. Like a genie, it can help accomplish some amazing things that humanity could really benefit from in both the short and long term. But, also like a genie, it can be extraordinarily dangerous (think deepfakes, mis-and-disinformation bots, even SkyNet from the Terminator movies). AI’s most pressing immediate threat is soaring electricity consumption at a time when all human beings need to consume less electricity, more efficiently than ever, sourced from renewables.

Leave it to those profiting inconceivably from the status quo to spend hundreds of millions of dollars electing a president and congressional majorities sympathetic to protecting their profits. They have already begun dismantling portions of crucial renewable energy and energy efficiency gains desperately needed to combat the global climate crisis. Only now, they’ve rebranded. Instead of bringing to mind images of filthy old coal plants and frack pads and blighted tar sands fields in Canada, they want you thinking about supercomputing and AI and “clean” hydrogen and all that futuristic fancy stuff!

It makes me think of a Golden Girls episode (I’m a die-hard Golden Girls fan) where a funeral director named Mr. Pfeiffer (the “p” is not silent) tells the girls that “here at Forever Peaceful Mortuary, we’ve gotten rid of all that morbid death stuff.” To which Sofia replies “whaddya runnin’ here, a sushi bar?” We need a wisecracking Italian lady like Sophia Petrillo to ask these oil and gas and coal companies with their hydrogen schemes and efforts to eliminate competition from renewables what they think they’re runnin’ here! Actually, our incredible member Giulia Mannarino fills that role very well!

It’s not that a lot of these companies can’t also make money in renewable energy. They can and they have. It’s not that renewables require any more government subsidy than fossil fuels. They don’t. In fact, fossil fuels have consistently been some of the most heavily government subsidized commodities in the world. The trouble is that once you provide customers with the means to capture the electrons of the sun’s rays and of moving wind and water, you can’t keep charging them (with heavy markup) for the costs of securing more inputs.

Once you solve for intermittency with battery and other storage and delivery options and given the high degree of recyclability of the component parts of renewable energy and energy storage methods, you’re out of excuses to constantly “drill, baby, drill.” If you also manage to use GREEN hydrogen (hydrogen derived from separating water molecules using a renewably powered electrolysis process) to decarbonize sectors like steel and cement production, well, there goes that remaining demand for things like metallurgical coal.

Technological improvements in heat pumps, to give another example, are driving down the popularity of gas utilities in homes for indoor air and water heating and cooking due to greater efficiency and lower costs. While plastics polymers and petrochemicals are still a driving force for use of natural gas liquids, 40% of the plastics market could be gone tomorrow (disposable plastics) and sustainable agriculture and research into polymeric alternatives will continue to address the rest.

The best path both today and going forward is in renewables, maximized energy efficiencies, sustainability, and a circular waste economy. One promising potential for AI and super or quantum computing is finally solving nuclear fusion, which would permanently solve our energy woes, but we can’t get there from here by continuing to rely heavily on filthy, dangerous, expensive, and climate-destabilizing fossil fuels. Doing so just doesn’t make sense or cents.

***

Eric Engle is board president of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.

Climate Corner: Jimmy Carter – visionary

Feb 1, 2025

Vic Elam

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

Recently deceased former President Jimmy Carter grew up close to the land, hunting, fishing, and farming his family’s property near Plains, Ga. From those experiences Carter developed an ethic of environmental stewardship that remained with him throughout his life and influenced his political leanings.

Early in his political career as the governor of Georgia, Carter stood in the way to save a river from being dammed after paddling the river and seeing the natural beauty that would be destroyed. As president, Carter struggled to protect the environment from development and instead pivoted to provide protections for more than 150 million acres of federal lands.

Climate science was not as well established in the late 1970s, when Carter was in office, but even then, it was showing undeniable evidence that carbon dioxide gas build-up in the atmosphere was contributing to a green house effect. Carter was the first global leader that understood the science and its implications and took measures to decrease carbon emissions. Although some of Carter’s actions had unintended consequences that may have increased carbon emissions, he led with intention that was unmistakable. Many of Carter’s mandates were well ahead of their time and set the stage for much of the advances in energy efficiency that we enjoy today.

Oil shortages at the time also forced Carter to look at renewable energy sources to help us reduce our dependency on oil. This phenomenon is not unlike the energy situation that we are finding ourselves in today. The state of Virginia is one such example; by providing sales tax incentives, data centers needed to support the burgeoning artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency markets are increasing and expected to dramatically increase further electricity demands. The projected 183% increase in power demand by 2040 would require an additional large natural gas plant every year and a half, along with wind energy that is expected to come online and combined with increased solar and potentially nuclear plant additions to meet the needs.

Virginia consumers may have to bear the burden of all this power development by paying much higher utility rates and suffering environmental degradation. The Mid-Ohio Valley may not be immune to similar impacts as the quest for more and faster data ramps up.

Without the energy crisis that his administration had to endure and with the environmental impact information available now, there’s no telling what President Carter may have accomplished. He stepped forward into the dark trusting the available science, yet as science has improved and shed more and more light on the climate change problem, most leaders since Carter have largely put sunglasses on and ignored the light. Now it seems that the light is as bright as a welding arc, and still our elected lawmakers are donning a welding helmet and pretending the issue will just go away or refusing to acknowledge it. We need everyone to see the light that science has cast upon our condition and act accordingly, our future depends on it.

Carter did more than any president in history following his presidency to create peace and prosperity, but following his presidency he was looked upon as one of the worst for a few reasons. In retrospect, President Carter was a role model who was well ahead of his time, and he is now regarded among the greatest.

Rest in peace President Carter.

***

Vic Elam is an avid outdoorsman and contributor to organizations that share his concern for our environment, including Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.

 

Climate Corner: Having it both ways – a cleaner environment and economic growth

Jan 25, 2025

George Banziger

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

It’s a frequently held assumption, often promoted by fossil-fuel interests, that in order to pursue a cleaner environment, we need to make sacrifices for economic development. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Recent events, internationally, nationally and locally, have put into stark relief the urgency required to address climate change and to reduce the risks and costs associated with the extraction of fossil fuels. Data from around the world have revealed that 2024 was the hottest year in recorded history (National Centers for Environmental Information). The devastating wildfires in southern California are the product of an extended drought in that area and extreme Santa Ana winds. Jordan Thomas, a retired California firefighter, quoted in a recent edition of the New York Times (Jan. 16, 2025), said: “To (prevent) catastrophic fires like these we must stop burning fossil fuels…” The Ohio legislature allowed — even encouraged — hydraulic fracturing, i.e., fracking, under public lands, including state parks in a bill (HB 507) that took effect in 2023. With more fracking comes more brine waste, that is, produced waste, much of it coming to Washington County, which leads the state in the volume of this waste material injected into its grounds. As my Climate Corner colleague, Dr. Randi Pokladnik, pointed out in her piece a week ago, much of this waste is radioactive (containing Radium 226 and 228) and contains PFAS (forever chemicals), carcinogenic substances, and other toxic chemicals.

In its economy so dependent on fossil fuels, especially natural gas, the Mid-Ohio Valley is more of a dumping ground for waste products than an economic growth engine. But where are the profits, jobs, and prosperity from these extractive industries going and how much benefit to the Appalachian region accrues from these investments? In a study done by the Ohio River Valley Institute (July 2021), it was reported that from 2008-2019 in the 22 counties in Ohio, in western Pennsylvania, and in West Virginia, which produce 90% of the natural gas in Appalachia, economic prosperity, in terms of jobs, income, and population growth, trailed the U.S. measures of these factors. The demographics of our region continue to show a decline of population as young people choose to leave. Natural gas extraction and plastics manufacturing are capital-intensive enterprises. What is needed for job creation and sustained prosperity in the region is activity that is labor-intensive and that produces wealth which remains in the region.

There are many opportunities for economic development in Appalachia, even in manufacturing, which can serve as alternatives to extractive industries. Biomaterials, such as hemp, which can be readily grown in the region, algae, and mycelium (mushroom roots) can serve as a phased-in alternative to plastics (Patton and Rudek, 2024). Production of batteries for vehicles which reduce greenhouse gas emissions is another promising idea. Locating and capping abandoned oil and gas wells can provide many jobs in the region (32,000 such jobs according to ORVI). There are now more jobs in the solar and wind industries in Ohio than in the coal industry (U.S. Energy and Jobs Report, U.S. Department of Energy, 2023). Research on the use of coal tailings to produce rare-earth metals, which are used in electric vehicles and other modern applications, is producing promising results. Parts for wind turbines can be manufactured in Appalachia.

ReImagine Appalachia, a group committed to transforming the economy of this region from one based on extractive industries to one based on sustainable practices, has promoted the concept of circular manufacturing. The latter strategy assumes that materials never become waste and that nature is regenerated when products and parts are used over again according to a principle of reduce, reuse, repurpose.

Appalachian communities where economic investments are being made should be assured that their communities will receive long-term benefits from any major investments in their areas including the following: that local labor will be hired on construction and manufacturing jobs (to be paid at prevailing wages), that environmental standards will be applied (e.g., clean air and clean water), and that green space and affordable housing will be provided. These assurances have been formalized into community benefit agreements, now a requirement for grant-funded projects supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Job-training programs are being developed in Appalachia for those who have been involved with the criminal justice system, through drug-related crimes and those in drug-treatment programs. These efforts seek to address one of the critical endemic social problems of Appalachia.

***

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, Citizens Climate Lobby, and of the Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action team.

Climate Corner: The Ohio Valley has a radiation problem

Jan 18, 2025

Randi Pokladnik

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

During the 60s, I remember the government conducted Civil Defense drills in my school. We were told to climb under our school desks, duck down, and cover our heads. We might have survived a bomb blast but the radioactive fallout could not be stopped. The nuclear disasters at Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have taught us that the radiation emitted during an accident or bombing will travel across the planet via prevailing winds and the jet stream and distribute some radiation to all of us.

Decades later, while pursuing my masters degree, I had the opportunity to visit Los Alamos, N.M. This city was built to house scientists secretly working on nuclear weapons and was the setting of the 2023 movie about J. Robert Oppenheimer, “father of the atomic bomb.” He was an American theoretical physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project and was the director of the Los Alamos Laboratory where the atomic bomb was developed.

I saw streets lined with barbed wire fencing, cameras mounted on every telephone or power pole, and guard stations at every corner. During our time there, we learned about the many experiments conducted by the federal government on unknowing citizens. When they detonated the Trinity bomb “officials chose not to evacuate the area, nor to warn residents of potential health effects.”

Native Americans who worked in Uranium mines died from radiation exposures. “From 1944 to 1986, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from Navajo lands.” Officials knew the mines (which were often located near or on reservations) exposed entire communities to radiation, but they failed to alert the workers and the families living in the region.

On Jan. 6, 2025, “The Environmental Protection Agency and Navajo Nation finalized a plan to transport one million cubic yards of waste from the Quivira Mines site to a disposal cell near Thoreau, N.M. The Quivira Mines are one of the largest and most high-risk uranium mine sites on the Navajo Nation” and according to EPA spokesman Michael Brogan, have high concentrations of Radium-226 and Uranium. The Safe Drinking Water Act sets the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Radium-226 in drinking water at 5 pico Curies per liter (pCi/L).

Unfortunately, a similar scenario has been occurring in Southeastern Ohio. Since 2012, when fracking for oil and gas started in earnest in the tri-state area, communities, citizens, and oil and gas workers continue to be exposed to brine and fracking sludge that can contain alarming amounts of radioactive isotopes like Radium-226 and Radium-228. Every day, brine trucks that are lacking any warning placards or Material Safety Data Sheets, drive along our roads and through our towns transporting oilfield wastes from fracking well pads to Class II injection wells. In addition to bromine and chlorine salts, these trucks can also carry toxic chemicals, pit waste, refuse water, sludge, and even used frack sand along with water soluble Radium-226.

Justin Nobel’s book, “Petroleum 238” is an excellent source of information detailing how the oil and gas industry has been allowed to spew radiation across the United States in the form of billions of gallons of oilfield wastes. Oil and gas exploration and production wastes (brine and drilling muds) were exempted from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C in 1978. They are also exempted from Ohio’s hazardous waste regulations. This isn’t because the wastes are safe, in fact, officials admit the wastes could indeed be harmful to human health and the environment.

The primary reason for the exemption was “if the immense volume of oil and gas wastes were regulated as hazardous it would economically harm the industry.” When the law was revisited in 1980 under President Reagan, the Environmental Protection Agency kept the exemption, saying regulations would “cause a severe economic impact on the industry and on oil and gas production in the U.S.” Basically, as far as politicians and regulatory agencies are concerned, industry profits supersede any concern for the health of our communities.

A big fear is that the radiation from Radium-226 (which has a half-life of 1600 years) and Radium-228 (half-life 5.75 years) will be poisoning the tri-state region long after the fracking boom is over. Radium isotopes have been shown to cause bone, liver, and breast cancer in humans. “The Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) has set environmental discharge limits for Radium 226 and 228 at 60 pCi/L each,” yet it is not unusual for brine trucks to carry fluids testing above 3,000 pCi/L, with some as high as 7,300 pCi/L, according to the Buckeye Environmental Network brine factsheet on conventional and horizontal well brines; both contain Radium isotopes.

In 1985, Ohio’s General Assembly approved the use of vertical well oilfield brine to be used on roadways as a deicer and dust suppressant. In 2004, Ohio passed HB 278, “which took away local control on oil and gas regulation and granted Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) sole authority,” meaning local communities cannot stop an injection well from being constructed. There is an injection well less than ten miles from my home. Ohio has over 234 Class II injection wells and accepts wastes from out-of-state. Each day, countless brine trucks loaded with toxic horizontal well wastes travel along Tappan Lake, a drinking water source for Cadiz, Ohio.

We cannot depend on the ODNR or Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to safeguard our communities from oil and gas wastes. Several grassroots groups have taken on the task of educating the public about this radioactive nightmare. One of these is the Ohio Brine Task Force. “The Brine Task Force is a group of thoughtful and committed Ohioans interested in stopping the hazardous practice of brine spreading in our communities.”

The Buckeye Environmental Network is hosting a Statehouse Symposium at the State Capital- “Spreading Oilfield Brine on Ohio’s Roadways” on March 6 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. where attendees will hear from workers affected by oilfield brine contamination and scientific experts on why this is an urgent issue to address.

***

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.

Climate Corner: Cost, convenience and conservation

Nov 2, 2024

Dean Banziger

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

I like to consider myself a conservationist, or in other words, concerned about our environment and limited resources. However, if I am honest with myself, it is not always a top priority. Cost and convenience are more often a deciding factor for me than impact on the environment. I just do not have unlimited funds or unlimited time to always make the “green” decision.

Often, though, cost and conservation due coincide. My recent car purchase is a good example.

Before making a final decision on buying a car, I debated first between gasoline and electric vehicles. Being a math teacher and former actuary, I crunched the numbers. Based on driving an average amount of 1,000 miles per month and getting 30 miles per gallon at $3.50 per gallon, a gas-powered vehicle would cost $1,680 to fuel each year. An average electric car gets 4 miles per kilowatt hour, and an average West Virginia household pays $.12 per kilowatt hour for electricity. So, based on traveling the same 1,000 miles per month, an average Wet Virginian would pay $360 to fuel a fully electric vehicle. I have kept my previous cars for about 10 years. So, looking only at fuel, I would save $1,392 per year, or $13,020 over the 10 years that I plan to own the vehicle.

Next, I looked at sticker prices. For new 2024 vehicles, the average cost of cars, after taxes and fees was around $30,000. Looking at EVs, the average new car cost was $40,000, after taxes and fees. The initial sticker price of EVs was significantly higher, but the federal government is now offering a $7,500 rebate for buying new EVs assembled in the United States (https://www.energy.gov/save/electric-vehicles). The rebate combined with the $13,000 in fuel savings make a new EV $3,000 less.

So, a new EV would be less expensive, over time, than new gas vehicles. While I could afford a payment on a $30,000 or even $40,000, this just seemed too much for me to spend. Also, if I financed the EV, the interest on the bigger loan would eat up a lot of my savings. To me, cars are a mode of transportation, not a fancy item to show off to friends. My wife and kids will be the first ones to tell you that I can be quite a miser.

So, I considered used cars. After talking a lot with others, I found a neighbor looking to sell their 2017 Chevy Bolt (fully electric) for the same cost that I was finding gas and hybrid cars of similar age. Well, what about battery life? After a little more research, I found that EVs lose just 2.3% of their battery life each year (https://www.evconnect.com/). This would give me the 10 years of life that I was looking for. As a bonus, Chevrolet recalled the batteries on the 2017 vehicle. So, the one I purchased had a brand new battery installed in 2022. Even if I had not had the good fortune of getting a new battery, the low battery loss each year still makes used EVs an affordable and practical option. The federal government also provides tax rebates on used cars like this one, as well (see energy.gov for details).

If the battery has no issues, the cost of maintenance on an EV will be less. Like my battery powered mower (that I love and have had for 5 years), I never have to change the oil, replace a spark plug, or flush coolant. There is not even a transmission to have issues.

OK, so “the man” will get me on car insurance rates, right? Surprisingly, when I shopped for my car insurance, I found the same coverage that my wife has on her Subaru Forester for less cost (Chevy Bolt cost: $375 per year, Forester cost: $500 per year). The stories that I have heard about EV batteries “blowing up” are mostly just rumors and not affecting insurance costs.

Along with cost, convenience is important to me. Will buying an electric car keep me from driving long trips? My children each live about 120 miles away, well within the 300-mile radius of most EVs. So, I can visit either of my kids in an EV without having to charge until I get back home. My wife and I go on one to two big trips a year. While newer EVs can “super-charge” in less than an hour, my wife and I plan to still use her gas-powered Subaru Forester for these long trips. Having one gas vehicle gives us a lot of flexibility. I am helping the environment with an EV, and not sacrificing convenience much, by having a gas vehicle in our household.

In the end, looking at cost, convenience, and conserving natural resources like fossil fuels, buying an EV was the right decision for me. I hope that this helps you in making balanced decisions that protect our limited resources and your pocketbook.

***

Dean Banziger, M.S. is a mathematics teacher at Williamstown High School.