Mar 12, 2022
Randi Pokladnik
- editorial@newsandsentinel.com
When COVID-19 closed down restaurants and affected food distribution, we were reminded of how important food sources were and how quickly those sources could be jeopardized. One of the greatest threats to food security today is climate change. Amanda Little’s 2019 book “The Fate of Food: What We’ll Eat in a Bigger, Hotter, Smarter World,” “explores what it will take to continue feeding 7.5 billion people in a world where farming practices are becoming dangerously compromised due to the effects of a climate crisis that includes catastrophic droughts, record-breaking heatwaves, and wildly swinging weather systems.”
There are ways we as consumers can adjust our diets to be less carbon intensive, and rather than exacerbating climate change, we can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to a 2018 study in Science, what we eat might be the most significant personal choice we can make to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the past 50 years, foods and fossil fuels have become united in a toxic marriage where modern technology bends nature at its will. Small family farms have been erased. Industrialized farming (Big Ag) now controls the majority of our foods from planting to harvesting. Genetically modified seeds, pesticides, antibiotics, synthetic chemical fertilizers, and monocultured fields of corn, soybeans, and cotton are now the norm in the Midwestern farming regions.
While proponents of industrialized farming claim this is the only way to feed the world, the techniques used have many drawbacks including a lack of biodiversity in our diets and a large carbon footprint. A 2018 study in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems states “75% of the world’s food comes from just 12 plant species and five animal species.”
A 2017 USDA report titled “The Role of Fossil Fuels in the U.S. Food System and the American Diet” said “in 2007, fossil fuels linked to U.S. food consumption produced 13.6% of all fossil fuel emissions in the U.S.” Farming activities, agrochemical production, and large-scale food production facilities all require large amounts of energy. Fuels are needed to power the heavy farm machinery, to process foods, to transport the food in refrigerated vehicles across the country, and to make the plastic packaging. Petrochemicals are also needed to make the fertilizers and pesticides used on crops. Indeed, foods today have a large carbon footprint.
According to Ms. Little’s book, it will take a blend of many approaches to create a sustainable food system by 2050. Some questions that need to be addressed include: What do we eat? How do we grow it? Where do we grow it?
The production of meat and dairy is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gases. According to a study in March 2021 Nutrition Journal, “the livestock industry accounts for about 14.5% of total global manmade greenhouse gases.” Red meat is the biggest culprit emitting up to 66 pounds of carbon dioxide per one pound of meat produced. Even the U.S. dietary recommendations are not eco-friendly as they are higher in carbon emissions that those of the six other countries used in the study (India, Germany, Oman, Netherlands, Thailand and Uruguay).
Beef and lamb top the charts for greenhouse gas emissions. One reason is these animals have multiple stomachs made to digest very fibrous materials. In the process they expel methane gas, a very potent greenhouse gas.
Additionally, large amounts of land are needed to raise beef cows. Tropical forests that once sequestered carbon have been cut and burned in order to create grasslands to raise cattle. Studies show that “beef and soy production are driving two-thirds of habitat loss in Brazil’s Amazon and Cerrado regions, and Argentina and Paraguay’s Gran Chaco region.” The majority of soy produced is used for feeding chickens, pigs, farmed fish, and cows.
Pastures for grazing often rely on nitrogen-based fertilizer and water. Water is needed for the animals themselves, for processing the meat, for cleaning, for irrigating crops used to feed the animals, and for agrochemical production. If you add in all sources of water, including rainwater falling on pasture land, beef requires approximately 2,400 gallons of water per pound of beef.
Another factor to consider is transportation. We certainly want to avoid shipping products across the country if a local source is available. However, while many people argue in favor of local meat production, studies show carbon emissions from transporting food tends to be relatively small when compared to other inputs for meat production.
What about those new meat substitutes? On average, “emissions from plant-based foods are 10-50 times smaller than those from animal products.” The carbon footprints for the Beyond Burger made from pea protein and the Impossible Burger made from soy and potato protein are about 20 times smaller than the same amount of beef. Dairy milk emissions are almost double those of plant-based milks with almond milk being the lowest for emissions. However, the high amounts of water and pesticides used for almonds makes the next best milk substitute, oat milk, a better choice.
How will we grow our food? One idea is to use practices that incorporate indigenous knowledge. The University of Arizona is researching ways to grow foods in a warming climate. Their research facility, dubbed Biosphere 2, is looking at methods that will produce foods in areas of droughts and intense heat. Some methods include: growing crops under the shade of solar panels, using heat-resistant varieties of heirloom seeds, and passive use of rainwater and storm water to irrigate crops.
The final question that must be addressed is where will we grow our foods? We know that the western portions of the USA are seeing significant dry spells, the most recent being referred to as the worst since medieval times. Forty-two percent of the soil moisture loss in the past twenty years is directly attributed to man-made climate change according to a recent study in Nature Climate Change. Some of the crops affected include: mint, safflower, peas, oats, rice, melons, sunflowers, millet, onions, beans, sugar beets, sorghum, cotton, onions, potatoes, legumes, barley, corn and hay.
Growing regions may shift due to increases in precipitation and temperature extremes. Instead of plowing up grasslands and clear-cutting forests, farmers could be incentivized to limit the destruction of these carbon rich ecosystems and adopt techniques like agroforestry. Keeping forests and grasslands areas in-tact is important as these are places where carbon is sequestered.
One area that we all can improve on is the amount of food wasted. “The U.S. alone wastes 133 billion pounds of food every year.” The 2017 book, “Drawdown,” ranks the top 80 ways to address the climate crisis. Reducing food wastes is number three, and adopting a plant rich diet is number four. Over 40% of all foods produced in the USA never make it to the table. Foods can be lost during production, harvesting, and shipping, and when they do arrive at our homes, they are often thrown away. “Wasted food is a major contributor to climate change, producing more GHG emissions than 37 million cars.”
The next time you walk into your kitchen or open your refrigerator think of this, “what effect does this food, its packaging, its production, its shipping have on our planet?” Are there options I can adopt? In the end, what we eat affects us as well as the planet. Those effects can be positive it we consider them one forkful at a time
***
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: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Tackling climate change one forkful at a time
Mar 12, 2022
Randi Pokladnik
When COVID-19 closed down restaurants and affected food distribution, we were reminded of how important food sources were and how quickly those sources could be jeopardized. One of the greatest threats to food security today is climate change. Amanda Little’s 2019 book “The Fate of Food: What We’ll Eat in a Bigger, Hotter, Smarter World,” “explores what it will take to continue feeding 7.5 billion people in a world where farming practices are becoming dangerously compromised due to the effects of a climate crisis that includes catastrophic droughts, record-breaking heatwaves, and wildly swinging weather systems.”
There are ways we as consumers can adjust our diets to be less carbon intensive, and rather than exacerbating climate change, we can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to a 2018 study in Science, what we eat might be the most significant personal choice we can make to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the past 50 years, foods and fossil fuels have become united in a toxic marriage where modern technology bends nature at its will. Small family farms have been erased. Industrialized farming (Big Ag) now controls the majority of our foods from planting to harvesting. Genetically modified seeds, pesticides, antibiotics, synthetic chemical fertilizers, and monocultured fields of corn, soybeans, and cotton are now the norm in the Midwestern farming regions.
While proponents of industrialized farming claim this is the only way to feed the world, the techniques used have many drawbacks including a lack of biodiversity in our diets and a large carbon footprint. A 2018 study in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems states “75% of the world’s food comes from just 12 plant species and five animal species.”
A 2017 USDA report titled “The Role of Fossil Fuels in the U.S. Food System and the American Diet” said “in 2007, fossil fuels linked to U.S. food consumption produced 13.6% of all fossil fuel emissions in the U.S.” Farming activities, agrochemical production, and large-scale food production facilities all require large amounts of energy. Fuels are needed to power the heavy farm machinery, to process foods, to transport the food in refrigerated vehicles across the country, and to make the plastic packaging. Petrochemicals are also needed to make the fertilizers and pesticides used on crops. Indeed, foods today have a large carbon footprint.
According to Ms. Little’s book, it will take a blend of many approaches to create a sustainable food system by 2050. Some questions that need to be addressed include: What do we eat? How do we grow it? Where do we grow it?
The production of meat and dairy is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gases. According to a study in March 2021 Nutrition Journal, “the livestock industry accounts for about 14.5% of total global manmade greenhouse gases.” Red meat is the biggest culprit emitting up to 66 pounds of carbon dioxide per one pound of meat produced. Even the U.S. dietary recommendations are not eco-friendly as they are higher in carbon emissions that those of the six other countries used in the study (India, Germany, Oman, Netherlands, Thailand and Uruguay).
Beef and lamb top the charts for greenhouse gas emissions. One reason is these animals have multiple stomachs made to digest very fibrous materials. In the process they expel methane gas, a very potent greenhouse gas.
Additionally, large amounts of land are needed to raise beef cows. Tropical forests that once sequestered carbon have been cut and burned in order to create grasslands to raise cattle. Studies show that “beef and soy production are driving two-thirds of habitat loss in Brazil’s Amazon and Cerrado regions, and Argentina and Paraguay’s Gran Chaco region.” The majority of soy produced is used for feeding chickens, pigs, farmed fish, and cows.
Pastures for grazing often rely on nitrogen-based fertilizer and water. Water is needed for the animals themselves, for processing the meat, for cleaning, for irrigating crops used to feed the animals, and for agrochemical production. If you add in all sources of water, including rainwater falling on pasture land, beef requires approximately 2,400 gallons of water per pound of beef.
Another factor to consider is transportation. We certainly want to avoid shipping products across the country if a local source is available. However, while many people argue in favor of local meat production, studies show carbon emissions from transporting food tends to be relatively small when compared to other inputs for meat production.
What about those new meat substitutes? On average, “emissions from plant-based foods are 10-50 times smaller than those from animal products.” The carbon footprints for the Beyond Burger made from pea protein and the Impossible Burger made from soy and potato protein are about 20 times smaller than the same amount of beef. Dairy milk emissions are almost double those of plant-based milks with almond milk being the lowest for emissions. However, the high amounts of water and pesticides used for almonds makes the next best milk substitute, oat milk, a better choice.
How will we grow our food? One idea is to use practices that incorporate indigenous knowledge. The University of Arizona is researching ways to grow foods in a warming climate. Their research facility, dubbed Biosphere 2, is looking at methods that will produce foods in areas of droughts and intense heat. Some methods include: growing crops under the shade of solar panels, using heat-resistant varieties of heirloom seeds, and passive use of rainwater and storm water to irrigate crops.
The final question that must be addressed is where will we grow our foods? We know that the western portions of the USA are seeing significant dry spells, the most recent being referred to as the worst since medieval times. Forty-two percent of the soil moisture loss in the past twenty years is directly attributed to man-made climate change according to a recent study in Nature Climate Change. Some of the crops affected include: mint, safflower, peas, oats, rice, melons, sunflowers, millet, onions, beans, sugar beets, sorghum, cotton, onions, potatoes, legumes, barley, corn and hay.
Growing regions may shift due to increases in precipitation and temperature extremes. Instead of plowing up grasslands and clear-cutting forests, farmers could be incentivized to limit the destruction of these carbon rich ecosystems and adopt techniques like agroforestry. Keeping forests and grasslands areas in-tact is important as these are places where carbon is sequestered.
One area that we all can improve on is the amount of food wasted. “The U.S. alone wastes 133 billion pounds of food every year.” The 2017 book, “Drawdown,” ranks the top 80 ways to address the climate crisis. Reducing food wastes is number three, and adopting a plant rich diet is number four. Over 40% of all foods produced in the USA never make it to the table. Foods can be lost during production, harvesting, and shipping, and when they do arrive at our homes, they are often thrown away. “Wasted food is a major contributor to climate change, producing more GHG emissions than 37 million cars.”
The next time you walk into your kitchen or open your refrigerator think of this, “what effect does this food, its packaging, its production, its shipping have on our planet?” Are there options I can adopt? In the end, what we eat affects us as well as the planet. Those effects can be positive it we consider them one forkful at a time
***
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: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Job creation from fossil fuels – Where’s the beef?
Mar 5, 2022
George Banziger
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
In a recent opinion piece, the writer asserted the fossil fuel industry has a positive impact on job creation and the economy. This assertion was made without any evidence to support it. Nothing could be further from the truth in the Mid-Ohio Valley. As a capital-intensive industry, the oil and gas business is inherently poor at job creation and contributing to economic growth.
Hydraulic fracturing of natural gas has established well pads, pipelines, processing facilities, and other infrastructure. The shale gas region comprises about 22 counties in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia; these counties produce about 90% of the gas of the region yet the region trails the nation on key measures of economic prosperity. For example, jobs increased by just 1.6% in the region compared to 8% nationally; the region lost approximately 37,000 residents, while the U.S population grew by 18% in the past decade. Little of the profit from oil and gas has entered the local area; trained workers and service providers are generally from outside the area. The revenue from local natural resources is not returning to Mid-Ohio Valley.
Many of the jobs in oil and gas, particularly in the shale-gas industry are held by outsiders, which has been confirmed with the reports of workers at these sites driving cars with out-of-state license plates. Oil and gas companies should at least be contributing to the local economy through severance taxes, impact fees, and other revenue-generating opportunities that will stay here, benefiting our region and offsetting the health and environmental costs these industries exact upon our population and land.
The recent crisis created by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought the question of energy sources and energy costs to the forefront. Russia provides 40% of Europe’s natural gas, and according to a recent report (National Memo, Feb. 28, 2022), the threat of a decline in Russian gas has led many Europeans to accelerate their adoption of solar and wind sources of energy–for example, by placing solar panels on the roofs of their houses. If the Europeans accelerate their investment in renewable sources of energy and enhanced power grids, it will eliminate Putin’s strongest non-nuclear weapon.
Solar and wind sources of energy have been described as “intermittent” sources of energy. Recent advances in smart power grids and in battery technology have rendered this criticism moot. If the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining where you are, it is somewhere else and enhanced power grid transmission can get that power to you.
Many of those who advocate for renewable energy acknowledge that there will be an inevitable transition period from fossil fuels (preferably natural gas) to renewable sources. But shale-gas advocates who describe this transition in terms of 30 or 50 years are asking for a sacrifice of significant degradation of human health and environmental degradation.
Last weekend the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released Part II of its Sixth Assessment. Among some of their conclusions is the following:
The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future.
There is a case study of economic transformation for the 21st Century from the small city of Centralia, Wash. (in Lewis County–about the same size as Parkersburg and Wood County, respectively). This case study has been documented by two researchers from the Ohio River Valley Institute (Hunkler & O’Leary, https://ohiorivervalleyinstitute.org/2021) with the expectation of applicability to Appalachia. There were two major employers in the city, each owned by the same company: a strip mine and a coal-fired power plant, which employed 600 and 300 workers, respectively. Both of these employers shut down their operations about ten years ago. The community obtained some significant investment funds and embarked on a program to transform their economy by establishing three funds: a community development fund, an energy technology fund, and a weatherization fund. Through these funds, which totaled $55 million, provided by the previous owner of the company that had shuttered its two facilities, the community developed several labor-intensive projects including: new sources of energy (mainly renewable), renovation of residences and businesses for energy efficiency, education and training. These investments led to enrichment of local suppliers, growth in businesses such as HVAC and lighting.
The results of this broad-based and local investment were: a rise in GDP (twice the U.S. rate), increase in the number of jobs (to 2,800, which was an increase of 12% in the total number of jobs in the Centralia area), wage growth, increase in population (in the city and the county), improvement of community health, energy efficiency, and a reduction in the poverty rate in the community.
The need to address climate change is urgent and cannot wait until the fossil-fuel industry declares their readiness to move to renewable sources of energy. What the Mid-Ohio Valley can gain from an accelerated adoption of renewable energy is indeed a stronger, sustainable, locally based economy and job creation for its residents.
***
George Banziger, Ph..D., was a faculty member at Marietta College and an academic dean at three other colleges. Now retired, he is a volunteer for Mid-Ohio Valley Interfaith, and Harvest of Hope. He is a member of the Green Sanctuary Committee of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Marietta, Citizens Climate Lobby, and the Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action team.
Last Updated: April 30, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Evolution of climate fight includes faith community
Feb 28, 2022
Eric Engle
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
I usually ignore ridiculous and nonsensical diatribes like a letter to the editor in the Feb. 20 edition of the Parkersburg News and Sentinel titled “Trust God on climate,” but since the author mentioned Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action by name, I feel compelled to respond. I have been in the leadership of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action from its inception six-and-a-half years ago, and I will always defend the wonderful people in this organization against attack.
First of all, I know literally hundreds of people who work tirelessly to address anthropogenic (from the Greek “anthropogenes, meaning “born of man“) global climate change from a faith-based perspective. These people, both as individuals and in collective groups and organizations, have become members of and donated to Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action over the years and have worked as part of other organizations in multiple states as Christians, Jews, Muslims and members of numerous other faith traditions and belief systems to engage in what many of them refer to as “creation care.” They believe the deity or deities they worship call on them to care for this earth and they act upon that belief.
As I have affirmed in these pages many times, I myself am an atheist Humanist. The writer of this letter can threaten me and others like me all he wants with the eternal damnation he believes we’re in for, but these are empty, idle threats of no consequence and are quite juvenile. Anthropogenic global climate change is not waiting for any deity to address it meaningfully. A rapidly warming Arctic and Antarctic, rising seas, record-setting droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, precipitation events, floods, and storms like hurricanes, rapidly acidifying and deoxygenating oceans, habitat losses, species extinctions, crop failures, loss of potable water, the massive spread of vector-borne diseases, desertification and so much more are leading to humanitarian crises, migration events, stress on health care systems and widespread death right now, today. These have been definitively linked to human-caused changes in climate and will indisputably worsen with each fraction of a degree more of warming.
The author repeats long-refuted and discarded talking points like “the climate has always changed” and that we as humans cannot affect the status and trajectory of a global climate system. This is bunk. The greenhouse effect has been well understood since at least the 18th century and is occurring at a rate unprecedented since the dawn of the geological epoch known as the Holocene, during which we evolved, leading many geologists to label our current geological age the Anthropocene — translated from the Greek as anthropo for “man” and cene for “new.” The author subscribes to a creationist notion of the earth being only 6,000 years old, so I guess it’s not surprising that he’d fail to understand this.
The author also seems to lack any understanding of energy use or energy policy. He talks about the foolishness of closing coal-fired power plants and asks why the President of the United States doesn’t just load the White House property down with renewable energy. He also suggests that we members of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action are likely hypocrites who fail to use renewable energy and engage in other sustainable living practices. While it would be nice if the President followed in Jimmy Carter’s footsteps and put a solar array on the White House roof, the President does not have the unilateral ability to site and build any energy installment he likes on White House property. There are laws, rules and regulations for siting and constructing power-producing facilities. There are costs involved (albeit falling costs that are already far cheaper than energy production using coal). As for our members, all of us either have solar arrays and/or have maximized energy efficiency in our dwellings and on our properties, drive hybrids and EVs or don’t have cars at all, are organic gardeners, have eliminated single-use plastics in our consumption patterns, recycle, compost, utilize wind or geothermal or hydro energy or some mix, eat vegan or vegetarian diets, are conservationists and much more. We walk the talk in countless ways.
Rather than writing hateful and willfully ignorant screeds, I’d suggest the author engage in this Information Age and learn more about human-caused climate change, energy generation and energy policy, geologic history, atmospheric physics and so much more. Before impugning others, maybe read more than one book.
***
Eric Engle is Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action board president.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Make friends with a tree
Feb 19, 2022
Nenna Davis
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
Shel Silverstein wrote a book called “The Giving Tree” that I would read to my son when he was a wee child. The basic premise of the book is how trees are our friend. For many, trees have provided so much joy for climbing, or a swing or even a treehouse. When I was a child, I remember a particular maple tree in my grandmother’s yard that I considered my summer friend. On lazy summer afternoons it provided a place of solitude and shelter from the hot sun. I loved to lay under the tree and watch the dappled sunlight filter through the leaves. This tree gave me so much pleasure. Trees have always been a part of my life. My mother taught me to appreciate trees for their beauty.
As we continue to fell these beautiful creations, we are adversely affecting our climate. We have spent a great deal of effort in using trees for everything from a source of heat to furniture to housing while not considering the impact of the barren land left behind. This deforestation has had devastating impacts on the wildlife as well as climate. Deforestation can be a planned occurrence like harvesting of timber or felling trees because of insect/disease infestations or from a natural catastrophe such as a wildfire. Quickly responding to such occurrences can help with increased redevelopment of local flora as well as fauna.
Reforestation, or the natural or intentional replacement of the flora of the woodlands and forests is part of the response to these changes that cause climate change.
The Paris Agreement is asking governments around the world to commit to low-carbon emissions. One method is to mitigate carbon emission by reforestation. You may wonder how this will help with climate change. As I have shared before one of the biggest culprits to climate change is carbon emissions. Therefore, if we have remedies to help us with air quality, we may be able to help ourselves remedy climate change.
Around 2000 The Jane Goodall institute started what they titled the Million Tree Project in the Inner Mongolia region of China. China was able to use about 24 million hectares of forest to “offset 20% of Chinese fossil fuel emissions in 2000 and by 2012 had offset the carbon emissions by 33%.” (NASA). The trees become a carbon sink, an area where the carbon from our atmosphere is used and stored by the trees. With the recent fire in the Amazon, the reforestation of these forests would lead to even more absorption of carbon.
The concept of managing forests is not new, but could be a great help in our fight against carbon emissions. The target of the United Nations Strategic Plan for forests is “to increase forest area by 3% by 2030.” Even though reforestation efforts have been established, the goal set is pretty rigorous and most likely will not be achieved in the timeline planned. One of the keys to the reforestation process of forest management is not to only replace the trees, but to provide the same biodiversity that existed before deforestation. Thus, forest management needs to include not only the trees but other flora indigenous to the area.
In 2020 the World Economic Forum, created a Trillion Tree Campaign to plant 1 trillion trees across the globe. These trees would be tailored to the location and the environment. We still have a lot to do.
So, I ask myself what does this mean to me? Well, I can plant trees, most certainly not a forest. But we all can plant trees. Consider planting a tree this Arbor Day, April, 8 or Earth Day, April 22. Consider planting a tree to commemorate your birthday or anniversary. Even consider planting a tree when your child is born, you can watch it grow together. Another way to help conserve wood products and even help with recycling would be to use planks made of recycled plastics to replace your decking or other wooden repairs.
As for the tree in my grandmother’s backyard — When I grew up and visited it later, it seemed smaller than I had remembered it, but it did still provide the same joy it had given me as a child. Eventually it was taken down because the shade, which I had loved as a child, was detrimental to the roof of the house. My tree had met the same end as “The Giving Tree.”
***
Nenna Davis has a bachelor’s degree in zoology/botany, and a master’s degree in organizational communication.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: A little cleanup makes a big difference
Feb 12, 2022
Reed Byers
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
As the snow melts and we draw closer to the brighter days of Spring, I’ve begun to feel some relief. Relief not in the sense of wishing the winter away, but from the opportunity and inspiration Spring can often provide. I’ve learned that winter is an ideal time to plan for the wonders that spring can bring. With firm ground, longer days, and new perspective I’m looking forward to us all joining together outdoors in the coming months.
Last time I wrote, I emphasized the importance of focusing on our local environment and illustrated the impact that volunteerism can have on our community. I extended an offer to the community to organize a neighborhood cleanup in an effort to make a tangible difference in the world around us. Considering we were headed into what has been a snow- and ice-filled winter at the time of publication, it was no surprise that I haven’t been contacted by any readers yet. Thankfully, we are at a time where clearer weather is in sight and the holidays are behind us.
I’d like to thank the group of volunteers that generously gave their time to assist Parkersburg City Councilwoman Wendy Tuck and me with a small neighborhood cleanup in District 4. With everyone’s help we were able to remove well over 10 bags of trash from areas of 14th Street, Lynn Street, and St. Marys Avenue. It was very encouraging to witness the transformation a neighborhood can make in just a few hours with a small group of people. It was also very sobering to observe the amount of trash in the areas we were unable to reach. It will take a sustained effort over time to beautify Parkersburg and I am confident that our community will continue to step up and take action to make the Mid-Ohio Valley a more desirable place to live.
If you’ve seen trash in your neighborhood or surrounding areas, how does that make you feel? Do you contemplate your duty to do something about it? Or does it shift your attitude toward one of lost hope for our neighbors? Would you like to be part of the solution but don’t know where to start? I implore you to consider how big an effect a small piece of waste can have on our neighborhood, emotions, perceptions, behavior, and life in general. The ability to overlook a problem and the tendency become complacent in our actions leads to problems that we cannot estimate or measure.
Beginning Feb. 20, each Sunday at 1 p.m. feel free to join us at 13th and Avery streets to take some small steps towards leading by action and treating our community in a way that models stewardship and responsibility to all.
Hopefully, through concerted positive efforts like these, we create an atmosphere of unity — a communal force of individuals that isn’t concerned about differences or disagreements, only creating solutions, together.
It is my vision and belief that by starting on common ground, we open the door toward solutions for the greater problems we are facing in our society and the world.
Be sure to follow Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action on Facebook and join our group to stay up to date on climate related issues.
Please RSVP for our cleanup at 304-812-2884 or reedbyers18@gmail.com. If you have ideas for ways to improve our community through action, please reach out. I am happy to help in any way I can.
Until greener days.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Let the Games begin
Feb 5, 2022
Giulia Mannarino
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
More than 2,700 years ago, in Olympia, Greece, the words “Let the games begin” were spoken to start what has become a global sports and cultural event known as the Olympic Games. This past summer the postponed (due to Covid) 2020 Tokyo Olympics were held, and the 2022 Beijing Olympics will be under way Feb. 4-20. The group that is responsible for supervising, supporting and monitoring the organization of the Olympic Games is the International Olympic Committee.
The not-for-profit, independent, volunteer IOC was established in June 1894. Today, it is a “carbon-neutral” (net zero carbon dioxide emissions) organization that has a strong commitment to not only “building a better world through sport” but also helping the world address the climate crisis. Their headquarters, Olympic House, in Lausanne, Switzerland, is one of the most sustainable buildings in the world. The IOC also has a fleet of 8 hydrogen cars as well as one of the first hydrogen stations in Lausanne, which supplies them with hydrogen sourced from renewable energy. It’s ambition is to become a “climate-positive” organization, meaning that the carbon savings they create will exceed the potential negative impacts of their operations. On March 4, 2020, the IOC’s Executive Board met and announced two important decisions that will help them achieve that goal.
One of the decisions announced was that, in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Program, the IOC will contribute to the Great Green Wall project in Africa, an initiative to combat the effects of desertification. This project will support communities in Africa’s Sahel region working toward the sustainable use of forest, range lands and other natural resources. Led by the African Union, the initiative brings together more than 20 countries. The epic result will be an 8,000 km natural wonder of the world across the entire width of Africa that will improve food security and help communities mitigate and adapt to climate change. The IOC’s contribution will include the planting of an Olympic Forest from 2021 on.
“Climate change is a challenge of unprecedented proportions and it requires an unprecedented response,” said President Thomas Bach. “Looking ahead, we want to do more than reducing and compensating our own impact. We want to ensure that, in sport, we are at the forefront of the global efforts to address climate change and leave a tangible, positive legacy for the planet. Creating an Olympic Forest will be one way in which we will work to achieve this goal.”
The IOC’s involvement in the initiative creates opportunities for athletes and other organizations within the Olympic Movement to contribute to it as well.
The Great Green Wall project is not the IOC’s only collaboration with the United Nations. In 2018, in a partnership with U.N. Climate Change, the IOC launched the “Sports for Climate Action Framework.” Signatories to this framework take responsibility for their organization’s carbon footprint and identify commitments and strategies to achieve specific climate goals. Almost 100 sports organizations joined within the first year of launch and there are, across the globe, over 340 sports organizations now involved. The IOC also supports Olympic athletes in their individual efforts to combat climate change. An example is Hannah Mills, a member of the British sailing team who won a gold medal in Rio in 2016. Her concern over the fact that our oceans could contain more plastic than fish by 2050 led her to establish the “Big Plastic Pledge” campaign that has the goal of eradicating single use plastics in sports.
The other decision announced by the IOC’s Executive Board on that day was that all Olympic Games will be climate positive from 2030 on. After 2030, the carbon savings created by the Olympic events will exceed the potential negative impacts of their overall operations. The IOC and Olympic games have been actively addressing climate change since 2014 when sustainability was adopted as one of the three pillars of Olympic Agenda 2020, a reform program introduced by President Bach. Since that time, the IOC has been working with the Organizing Committees for the Olympic Games to ensure sustainability principles are embedded across its activities as an organization and that all Olympic Games are carbon neutral and have a significantly reduced carbon footprint.
Tokyo 2020 committed to prioritizing the use of renewable energy and compensating unavoidable emissions. Its carbon offsetting program considered the full scope of emissions related to the Games including the construction of permanent and temporary venues, as well as Games operations, such as the transportation of athletes, officials and spectators. Carbon neutrality is also the objective of Beijing 2022 which has committed to using 100 per cent renewable energy for all Olympic venues. The first Olympic Games to fully benefit from Olympic agenda 2020 will be Paris 2024. From the outset, each stage of the Paris Olympics has been designed with sustainability in mind. Milano Cortina 2026 and LA 2028 also have committed in their Host City contracts to achieve carbon neutrality.
Of course, there would be no Olympic Games without the participation of the athletes. These individuals, supported by coaches, families and sponsors, devote part of their lives to their goal of an Olympic medal. Regardless of the season, global warming is impacting all aspects of human activity including sports. The athletes involved as well as the host cities are having to make adaptations for present conditions. Tokyo 2020, which was held July 23 to August 8, 2021, was one of, if not the, hottest and most humid Games on record. Temperatures reaching the high 80’s/90’s with high humidity made all events high risk. To mitigate the effects of the heat, starting times were changed to later in the day and access to shade and water sprays was improved. Amid the heat concerns, some events were moved away from Tokyo. The marathon took place almost 500 miles North in Sapporo where temperatures were cooler and the course was covered with a reflective layer to cut pavement temperature. Despite these measures, all sports were impacted and all athletes, as well as officials, were at risk of sunburn, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, cognitive impairment and dehydration. These border line dangerous conditions put extreme strain on the athletes and certainly effected their performance with several athletes needing medical attention.
The upcoming Beijing Olympics will also be putting the impacts of climate change on display. It will be the first winter Olympic Games to use almost 100% artificial snow to cover ski slopes. In their sustainability report, the OCOG claims the “smart snow making system” uses 20% less water than traditional snow machines and most of the water used is recycled or rain water. But man-made snow doesn’t act the same as natural snow. It gets icier faster and is much firmer. A report written by researchers from the Sport Ecology Group at Loughborough University and Protect Our Winters environment group notes, “This is not only energy and water intensive, frequently using chemicals to slow melt but also delivers a surface that many competitors say is unpredictable and potentially dangerous.”
Global warming is also reducing the number of climatically suitable host venues for winter Olympics. In a 2018 study by Canada’s University of Waterloo it was determined that by 2050 less than half of 21 cities that have hosted these events will be cold enough to host games again. Although being outside in the natural mountains is a large part of a ski experience, skiing indoors may become the norm. Dubai has opened the first indoor ski resort in the Mid East.
Climate change is making it increasingly difficult to host sporting events like the Olympics. The fact that the not-for-profit IOC is concerned about the problem and doing more than its fair share to address it is heartening. What is disheartening; however, is that the fossil fuel industry does not have that same sense of duty and continues to disregard their responsibility for man made global warming. This polluting for-profit industry and their evil corporate billionaire CEOs continue to put profits before people. This is truly unfortunate, not only for the future of the Olympic Games, but for the future of our planet and our grandchildren.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate advocates won’t be silenced
Marietta Times
Jan 31, 2022
Aaron Dunbar
A few days ago, I learned that an acquaintance of mine, a whip-smart environmental scientist and educator, would no longer be publishing her long-standing weekly column in a small-town Ohio newspaper. To quote her directly on the matter: “I was told advertisers and management were not pleased with my columns.”
The topic of so many of her controversial pieces, which she cites as “the most important issue of our lives,” is climate change.
A few days before this, another friend of mine said he was asked to resign from the board of an environmental organization he’d been on for four years, for writing publicly about the fossil fuel corruption of a powerful political figure. This figure allegedly had a “major problem” with the individual’s involvement with the organization in question, thus leading to his involuntary resignation.
Bear in mind, neither of these two said they were penalized for saying anything whatsoever that was false or misleading in any way, shape or form. In fact, I have the utmost confidence that neither of them would have lost their respective positions had they simply been lying their backsides off every week, as long as what they were saying was pleasing to the ear of those in positions of power.
Their mistake, you see, was daring to speak the truth about the climate crisis. About how the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that we now have fewer than ten years before the damages of industrial greenhouse gas emissions to our biosphere become irreversible. About how we are witnessing a mass extinction event in real-time — and not only witnessing it, but actively driving it — leading to the eventual collapse of our civilization.
And their biggest mistake of all? Daring to accuse those merchants of death most responsible for this catastrophe right to their faces. For having the audacity to say an unkind word about the politicians raking in millions of dollars from fossil fuel lobbyists while shooting down climate legislation, the oil executives lying for decades about global warming while raking in billions or the fracking PR goons paid to spew lies about the natural gas industry.
To all those poor, sensitive powers-that-be who would prefer us to keep our mouths shut about their mass destruction of life on this planet, I have one thing to say to you: Too bad.
You can censor us, de-platform us and do everything in your power to try and shut us up, and it’s only going to make us louder. We refuse to be silent about what is perhaps the greatest threat ever faced by our species, about how we got to this point and about who is directly responsible for getting us here.
We are going to keep speaking out, and you are going to be held accountable. Live with it, the way we’re forced to live with the desecrated shambles of a planet you’ve created for us.
Lowell
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Not all West Virginians are Manchin fans
Jan 29, 2022
Eric Engle
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
In a recent edition of The Charleston Gazette-Mail, President of the West Virginia Manufacturer’s Association Rebecca McPhail, stated “People outside our great state are entitled to their own opinions, but here in West Virginia we know Joe Manchin and we’re grateful for him.” How very presumptuous of Ms. McPhail to speak for all West Virginians. And how very thoughtful of her (sarcasm intended) to declare that the rest of the country are entitled to their own opinions about a Senator whose egotistical obstruction of extremely popular and crucial legislation directly and negatively impacts their lives.
The audacity of the fossil fuels and chemical industries in West Virginia and their lobbyists and representatives in our state legislature never ceases to amaze me. No price is too high for energy consumers to pay to keep burning coal. Cleaning up after coal, oil and gas is the taxpayer’s responsibility in West Virginia, not the responsibility of these profitable industries. Make utilities compete in open markets? Not in West Virginia. Pursue environmental justice initiatives for low-income communities and communities of color disproportionally harmed by pollution like ethylene oxide? Maybe the state Department of Environmental Protection will get around to it, but they’ll probably just hold more meetings where folks can share their trauma from this exposure and then go back to giving polluting industry whatever it wants and occasionally issuing fines that polluting industry considers the cost of doing business. Regulatory capture in this state is a given.
If these folks are not “married to the mineral,” as so many of them like to say, and they just care about miners and power plant workers and local tax revenues, how about they pass policy, create regulations and make investments that will make a tangible difference in the lives of the people of this state given the inevitable decline of finite fossils? Not only must we dramatically reduce CO2 and equivalent greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade to preserve the most stable global climate system we possibly can, but fossil fuels cannot compete with renewable energy and storage indefinitely without massive amounts of public subsidy and favorable treatment.
A study by the International Monetary Fund found that $5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017, and an analysis by Simon Buckle, the head of the climate change, biodiversity and water division at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, found that the $649 billion the U.S. spent on fossil fuels subsidies in 2015 was more than the country’s defense budget and 10 times the federal spending for education.
Another example of how ridiculous our legislature can be when it comes to the fossil fuels industry can be found in the current legislative session. The West Virginia State Senate wants to set up a private, nonstock mining mutual insurance company funded by $50 million from Department of Environmental Protection-specified funds meant to ensure that state mine cleanup funds don’t become more insolvent. The DEP, however, has testified that it has no idea where that $50 million is going to come from. A recent piece on this proposed legislation by Charleston Gazette reporter Mike Tony quotes Sierra Club Senior Attorney Peter Morgan as saying, “It’s hard for me to see that as anything other than a way to lose $50 million of West Virginia’s money because given what’s happening with the coal mining industry, anyone who issues those sorts of bonds is going to have to pay out the full value of those bonds, and that’s going to quickly deplete the $50 million and any additional money the state might put into that.”
No, Ms. McPhail, not all of us West Virginians are grateful for Sen. Joe Manchin III–a man who has placed the profits he makes from the coal brokerage he founded, held in a not-so-blind trust run by his son, over the well-being of the Mountain State. Thousands of us have begged and pleaded with Joe to care more about the people of this state than about his yacht in the Potomac and his Maserati, but he doesn’t want to hear it. The corporate and industry largesse pouring into his future campaign coffers and the attention he’s getting to feed his narcissistic megalomania is just too good for those dopamine receptors in his brain. Maybe one day West Virginia will be able to thrive in a 21st Century economy, but not until the insatiable appetite for destruction of the industries of the past has been either forcefully curbed or sated.
***
Eric Engle is chairman of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Habitat
Jan 31, 2022
Vic Elam
Letter to the Editor Marietta Times
Often referred to in terms of the wildlife needs of shelter, water, food, and space, habitat also applies to humans. In ecological terms habitat is often defined as an assemblage of animals and plants that live in a particular environment.
Without proper habitat we will cease to exist, and one irreplaceable component of our habitat is water. Humans have an advantage over the assemblage of animals and plants that coexist and make it possible for us to live. We can normally take contaminated water that would make us extremely ill and filter it and treat it and render it harmless and even make it life sustaining.
I say normally because we usually start out with water that is relatively clean. But the fate of our water supply is constantly under attack from threats from contamination and usually those threats are unforeseen and accidental. We take clean drinking water for granted whereas many parts of the world would be thankful to have our water supply.
To paraphrase a great adage, “With great gifts comes great responsibility” and we are not taking the precautions needed to protect our water. Of the many threats out there, we as humans allow ourselves to remove millions of gallons of perfectly good water from the environment and contaminate it by pumping it under ground through rock fissures (fracking) where it picks up radiation and multitudes of harmful compounds. When this water comes back to the surface it is a biohazard, although the petroleum industry has used its power to avoid that label and instead refers to it as “brine”.
Humans are great at problem solving, but when there is financial incentive, it seems that solutions often impact those that are unaware or without the wherewithal to protect themselves. Certainly, the other part of our habitat, the assemblage of animals and plants are powerless to defend themselves.
Apparently the cheapest and easiest disposal method is to inject the “brine” down wells. This disposal method is fraught with potential for environmental harm, most troubling is the threat of water contamination. These injection wells are drilled to depths well below our drinking water sources, but there are many pathways where the brine can find its way into the water supply. Trucks carrying the “brine” can wreck and spill, pipelines that carry “brine” to the well site can rupture and spill as happened near Marietta last year, injection wells can leak, injection wells under pressure can force “brine” through fissures to unplanned places, etc.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to provide oversight on these injection wells and delegates that role to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management (ODNR). ODNR has regularly failed to complete inspections as required by USEPA and penalties for violations are rare or absent. Inspection authority should be taken away from ODNR, who receives payment for each barrel of injected “brine”. Secondly, if we have not learned anything from the mining industry it’s that we should have plenty of revenue set aside for reclamation. Currently, there is no surcharge or tax per barrel of “brine” disposed to go into a fund set aside for when something goes wrong. Perhaps the counties should impose a fee or tax to collect funds for reclamation, although this is a Genie that will be very hard to put back in the bottle.
I hope that we all can continue to take for granted the abundant clean water that we enjoy and the full compliment of animals and plants that come with it. Vigilance will be required to ensure that these benefits are protected.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Economics, energy and employment
Jan 22, 2022
George Banziger
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
There are certain demographic and economic trends that have been evident for decades in this region of Appalachia and that can be addressed given the opportunities presented by the investment of federal funds now available. Included in these problems are:
* The continued inexorable pattern of population decline and aging (due to many young people leaving the area)
* Relative to the U.S., the region’s high poverty rate, high unemployment, and low wages
* Corporations headquartered elsewhere, draining wealth from the region
* Coal companies having left their mark
* The region’s high opioid abuse and addiction problems
* Limited broadband access in rural parts of the county.
People in the Mid-Ohio Valley have accepted on faith that the oil and gas industry contributes to the health of the economy in the region. For many years there has been an unfulfilled promise that fossil fuels, particularly shale gas, would enhance the economy of the region and provide jobs. Hydraulic fracturing of natural gas has established well pads, pipelines, processing facilities, and other infrastructure. According to a study by the Ohio River Valley Institute (2021), the shale gas region comprises about 22 counties in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia; these counties produce about 90% of the gas of the region yet the region trails the nation on key measures of economic prosperity. For example, jobs increased by just 1.6% in the region compared to 8% nationally; the region lost approximately 37,000 residents, while the U.S population grew by 18% in the past decade. Little of the profit from oil and gas has entered the local economy; trained workers and service providers are generally from outside the area. Royalties for local families with mineral rights have declined with lower natural gas prices. The oil and gas industry is capital intensive, not labor intensive, and the revenue from local natural resources is not returning to the Mid-Ohio Valley. Oil and gas companies should at least be contributing to the local economy through severance taxes, impact fees, and other revenue-generating opportunities that will stay here, benefiting our region.
The fossil-fuel industry has enjoyed a myriad of federal subsidies, which has given it an unfair advantage in the energy market. Evangelical climate scientist, Dr Katherine Hayhoe, in her recent book, “Saving Us,” has written that these subsidies amount to $600 billion per year and include tax breaks, direct production subsidies, and leases on public lands that are far below market rates. It is time for the federal government to support renewable energy, which is safer, better for the environment, and more supportive of sustainable job growth and economic development than fossil fuels.
Many individuals and organizations have seen the handwriting on the wall and are divesting their interests in fossil fuels. Dr. Hayhoe, has cited these facts related to divestment: over 1,300 organizations and 60,000 individuals representing about $14 trillion of assets have made the decision to divest in fossil fuels. These organizations include pension funds and insurance companies, which are reluctant to support an industry that is the direct cause of global warming and extreme weather that results in damage and loss claims in the billions. Banks and investment companies are joining this movement; Goldman Sachs announced recently that it is no longer going to invest in Arctic oil exploration.
An alternative to continued reliance on the oil and gas industry for economic development is to reimagine this region and seek growth opportunities of the 21st Century. A study by UMass-Amherst has reported that good jobs in renewable energy could employ 250,000 in the region in the next 10 years! These opportunities are numerous and include the following:
* Repairing the damage done by extractive industries, e.g., plugging orphaned oil and gas wells, repairing leaks, repairing dams and levies
* Modernizing the electric grid
* Developing new locally based manufacturing of solar-panel and wind-turbine parts
* Expanding manufacturing with energy-efficient facilities, e.g., repurposing coal-fired power plants
* Building sustainable transportation, e.g., railways and electric vehicle infrastructure
* Re-establishing the Civilian Conservation Corps (first created by FDR in the 1930s) for projects that might include carbon farming, and expanding forests and wetlands, which could in turn create job opportunities for recovering opioid addicts.
The American Rescue Plan and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), which have both been passed by Congress can provide resources for this re-imagining of Appalachia–if local officials will make the asks. The Build Back Better plan, if it is finally passed in some different form from its current version or in separated packages, can provide even more resources for this purpose.
There are 21,000 fewer jobs in the fossil fuel industry –half need re-training and re-employment. These are challenges that can be addressed by educational institutions and employee-training programs in the region.
***
George Banziger, Ph..D., was a faculty member at Marietta College and an academic dean at three other colleges. Now retired, he is a volunteer for the Mid-Ohio Valley Interfaith, and Harvest of Hope. 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.
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