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: What can one person do?
Apr 9, 2022
Linda Eve Seth
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
In a world of more than seven billion people, each of us is a drop in the bucket. But with enough drops, we can fill any bucket. — David Suzuki
***
As our climate changes, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense; sea levels are rising, prolonged droughts are impacting food crops, and many animal and plant species are being driven to extinction. It’s hard to imagine what we as individuals can do to resolve a problem of this scale and severity.
The following suggestions, while all valuable and do-able, are simplistic and just scratch the surface of what individuals can do to help the planet.
GO CAR-FREE: This is one of the most effective actions an individual can take. Cars are more polluting compared to other means of transportation like walking, biking, public transportation.
Walk, ride your bike, take a bus, ride-share with neighbors, travel less, combine errands. Try doing them each on just one day each week. Choose more efficient vehicles and, whenever possible, switch to electric vehicles
CHANGE YOUR DIET: After fossil fuels, the food industry — especially the meat and dairy sector — is one of the most important contributors to climate change. The meat industry contributes to global warming in three ways: cows’ burping releases lots of methane, a greenhouse gas. Secondly, we feed them with other potential sources of food, like maize and soy, which makes for a very inefficient process. And they require lots of water, fertilizers that can release greenhouse gases, and plenty of land — increasing amounts of which come from cleared forests, another source of carbon emissions. To make your diet more climate-friendly:
Eat more meat-free meals
Buy organic and local whenever possible
Don’t waste food
Grow your own
You don’t have to go vegetarian or vegan to make a difference; cut down gradually. By reducing your consumption of animal protein by half, you can cut your diet’s carbon footprint by more than 40%?
USE ENERGY WISELY: By becoming more energy-efficient, you pollute less and save money too.
Swap your furnace for a heat pump, which extracts heat from one location and transfers it to another.
Install a programmable thermostat. Let the house remain cooler/warmer when no one is at home.
Swap your gas stove for an electric stove, which actually lowers indoor air pollution.
Unplug energy vampires (computers, printers, TVs, other electronics) when you’re not using them.
Wash clothes in cold water. Hang-dry your clothes when you can and use dryer balls when you can’t (they help fluff and dry your clothes).
Winterize your home to prevent heat from escaping and to keep it cool in the summer without an air conditioner.
Change to energy-efficient light bulbs.
URGE THE GOVERNMENT — SPEAK OUT: Write letters and emails, make phone calls, attend meetings … encourage our legislators and officials to take bold, ambitious climate action now. Voting is important. Keeping action going at governmental levels and national levels to fight climate change is critical.
Join the members of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action in calling on our government to cooperate and encourage more action on climate change with the urgency this crisis requires.
Where climate change is concerned — KIDS COUNT! Young people can write notes asking for more pro-climate actions. Their voices may be especially impactful when heard by local officials like mayors and city council members.
While climate change won’t be solved by one individual’s buying or driving habits alone, these actions are important and can influence others to make changes, too. Studies have demonstrated that when one family makes a conscious, helpful change designed to aid in slowing climate change, others around them will also become motivated to undertake similar changes in their daily habits. By doing some of the things we’ve mentioned here, you and your family can become citizen climate leaders.
Whether you are a farmer in Colombia or a homeowner in West Virginia, climate change will have an impact on your life. Your actions will influence the planet for the coming decades — for better or for worse.
You can take action NOW. You can make a difference NOW.
Until next time, be kind to your Mother Earth.
***
Linda Eve Seth, SLP, M.Ed. is a mother, grandmother, concerned citizen and member of MOVCA.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
The war we cannot afford to lose
Marietta Times
Apr 6, 2022
Dr. Randi Pokladnik
Dr. Svitlana Krakovska, a Ukrainian climate scientist and member of the International Panel on Climate Change recently said, “Human induced climate change and the war on Ukraine have the same roots, fossil fuels, and our dependence on them,” Europe’s dependence on fossil fuels from Russia is “funding the war” in Ukraine.
Russia, the second largest producer of natural gas, has been accused of using the resource in a geopolitical way against European countries dependent on its gas.
Europe views the worsening situation in Ukraine as justification to double up its investments in renewable energy and cut Europe’s demand for natural gas. The IEA and EU leaders want to fast-track permitting for wind and solar projects, revisit decisions to phase out nuclear energy, and double the rate of conversions from natural gas boilers to electric heat pumps in buildings.”
However, oil and gas companies in the US, along with many politicians including Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Bill Johnson of Ohio CD 6 are using the war to rationalize more drilling and fracking in the US, basically, ignoring the real war at our doorstep; the war for a livable planet. Natural Resource Chair Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona) said in a recent op-ed, “Doubling down on fossil fuels is a false solution that only perpetuates the problems that got us here in the first place.”
The newly released UN Climate Report clearly shows we are losing the battle against climate change. UN Secretary General Antonio Gutteras said “the evidence detailed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is unlike anything he has ever seen, it is an “atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership.”
Make no mistake, we all are witnessing a war; a war waged on our planet by the fossil fuel industry and those who benefit financially from these industries. Like most wars, money is needed to fund this endeavor. Federal taxpayer-funded grants, subsidies, and tax incentives help fuel the climate crisis by providing financial incentives for continued extraction.
“Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year, with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil.”
Just like a conventional war, propaganda and lies are used to mold public opinion. “The fossil fuel industry has perpetrated a multi-decade, multibillion dollar disinformation propaganda and lobbying campaign to delay climate action by confusing the public and policymakers about the climate crisis and its solutions.”
It is difficult to win a war when the cards are stacked against you, but the war for a livable planet is one we cannot afford to lose. It is time to demand renewable energy and stop subsidizing the companies responsible for the destruction of our planet. As Dr. Svitlana Krakovska of Ukraine said, “We will not surrender in Ukraine, and we hope the world will not surrender in building a climate-resilient future.”
Dr. Randi Pokladnik
Uhrichsville
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
The fossil fuel quandary
Marietta Times
Apr 5, 2022
Vic Elam
Much is being made nowadays about a perception that the United States needs to increase fossil fuel production in the form of natural gas (methane) and oil production. The argument being that because of sanctions, we no longer receive oil from Russia and that we must, therefore, make up for that loss by producing more domestically. Another argument is that for Germany to reduce its reliance on Russian gas, we must again produce more domestically to ship to Germany. Furthermore, arguments have been made, that pipelines previously halted for environmental reasons, must now be fast tracked to completion to facilitate the transport of Canadian tar sands oil and for the transport of natural gas to coastal areas for shipment overseas.
Another school of thought is that we should heed the warnings of climate scientists and push hard at converting our fossil fuel dependency and replacing it with cleaner, greener, cheaper alternatives in the form of renewable energy such as solar and wind power. There are arguments for and against this transition to renewable energy and just as with fossil fuels there is a lot of misinformation. Thorough effort to verify the information presented has been made.
The argument for increasing natural gas production for exportation really doesn’t work. Even if pipelines were in place to bring natural gas to seaports, the gas would need to be converted to liquified natural gas for shipping and additional capacity to complete that conversion would have to be constructed. Construction would take substantial time; I don’t think anyone has a good handle on how long – how may have been impacted by the inability to get needed parts in this post-covid world? Also, the liquified natural gas would have to be converted back to gaseous form in Europe and facility capacity for that is lacking as well.
Similarly, increasing domestic oil production is not a quick process, nor is completing pipelines to transport oil. The dilemma is that as we try to move toward reducing our contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, we are at odds with the sudden need to increase fossil fuel supplies. Further complicating the issue is that easily accessible fossil fuel reserves have long been depleted and extraordinary measures are required to extract remaining fuel reserves. The measures necessary to reach remaining reserves are often environmentally damaging as well.
The renewable energy advocates point to environmental harm from extracting remaining fossil fuel reserves, the climate change concerns from burning those fuels, the lives lost from fighting over fossil fuel reserves and more. The transition to renewable energy will take some time, yet climate scientists will tell you that time has about run out.
So, what’s a person to do. I like to put challenges like this through a cost benefit analysis. Simplified, my analysis looks like this: ramping up of fossil fuel production has many negative ramifications that are of a magnitude that we are really, just beginning to fully recognize. For increasing renewable energy, the ramifications are all positive except for the delay, and high fuel prices, which are artificially high but that is a whole different conversation.
Pushing aside our transition to renewable energy would be a huge mistake and ramping up domestic production is like hitting your thumb with a hammer to cure a headache – you might forget about your headache for a while, but it’s still there and now you have a sore thumb as well. Let’s do the right thing and move to a bright future free from our reliance on fossil fuels, if we put our minds to it, we can do it and the world will be a much better place for it.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Faith important in climate rescue
Local columns
Apr 2, 2022
Angie Iafrate
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
When I was younger, my grandpa related the “Parable of the Drowning Man.” It’s the one about the guy who is caught in a catastrophic storm, but as the floodwaters rise, he refuses to accept help. “No, I believe the Lord will save me,” he proclaims as one boat, then another, and finally a helicopter attempt to rescue him from the rising waters. When the man ultimately drowns and later enters the pearly gates, he asks God why he, a man of such faith, was not saved by the divine hand. God replies, “I sent you two boats and a helicopter! What more did you want from me?”
When my grandpa, a remarkably faithful man, shared this parable with me nearly four decades ago, he undoubtedly was not thinking about climate change, which was not even a blip on the average person’s radar then. As a six-year-old in that era, I certainly wasn’t thinking about it. However, in my current role of Outreach Coordinator with West Virginia Interfaith Power and Light, a state affiliate of the national Interfaith Power and Light network, which promotes climate action from a faith-based perspective, it’s hard to hear or retell the story without making the connection.
Today, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that our climate crisis demands a similar urgency as that which brought two boats and a helicopter to our drowning man. In fact, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released a stunning report that clearly states the global community is on the verge of “miss[ing] a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all” if we do not take bold climate action now. After decades of warnings by scientists, it seems we’ve already waved away the first and second boats; we’re at the helicopter rescue stage of this impending disaster.
While the IPCC tells us action must be taken on the global stage to affect large-scale change, at WVIPL, we encourage faith communities to be examples of the change and take local action. A growing number are doing so, including two West Virginian congregations that have won national awards in recent years from the IPL network for their energy efficiency projects. We have also seen environmental committees established in faith settings, discussion forums about climate hosted by faith communities, and over 150 registrants signed up for our online discussion series last year. And while there is inevitably some resistance to the idea that climate action and faith should coexist, with a sometimes-vocal preference for the human-hands-off approach, it does not deter us.
At WVIPL we know from firsthand experience with communities and individuals from across the state and varied faith traditions that bold climate action and faith not only can coexist, but for many of the faithful, MUST coexist, as the latter demands the former.
Climate action, after all, is a demonstration of gratitude (for the beauty of the earth), compassion (for those most vulnerable to the catastrophic effects of climate change), justice (as marginalized populations bear the brunt of the polluting practices that contribute to climate change), and community-mindedness (in seeking not to squander for personal gain what others will one day need). While these values are of course not exclusive to the faithful, they tend to be at the core of the faith traditions in our midst, making climate action a logical fast friend.
If you and/or your faith community would like to get involved in this work, we invite you to contact us — whether you are a faith leader who has an entire community behind you, an individual lay person with just your personal convictions, or something in between. IPL’s Faith Climate Action Week taking place later this month in conjunction with Earth Day and the year-round Cool Congregations energy efficiency program are great starting points.
In the meantime, let’s do what we can to avoid becoming a new punchline to The Parable of the Drowning Man, as the experts predict will happen if we do not heed their warnings with the urgency they deserve. “I sent you a panel of climate scientists and some renewable energy!” God might quip in the updated version. “What more did you want from me?”
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Choose to refuse
Mar 26, 2022
Giulia Mannarino
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
Before the creation of plastics the world was totally dependent on nature for the materials needed to produce everyday items. Because these other materials; such as metals, stones, bones, horns, fangs and tusks, were not easy to obtain or process, scientists and chemists looked for alternatives. The search began for a material that was not entirely dependent on natural resources and that was strong, durable, lightweight and could be mass produced. Through the mid-1800s and early 1900s various types of synthetic polymers, later known as plastics, were developed. This was the beginning of the plastic revolution in the industrial world. As a senior citizen, I have watched this plastic revolution increase tremendously just in my own lifetime. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, two million tons of plastic were created in 1950 and by 2015, this amount had increased 200 fold.
No one can deny the fact that plastic has proven to be useful in modern lives. In the field of health care, for example, medical instruments have been improved and various medical conditions can be helped because of plastic. But two other facts no sensible person can deny is that the most heinous plastic products overwhelming the globe today are “single use” plastics and that too many of these single use plastic products have been produced too fast! Single use plastics are goods made primarily from petrochemicals which are fossil fuel based chemicals. These goods are meant to be disposed of right after use, sometimes within minutes. These petroleum based single use plastics are most commonly used for packaging and service ware. These items are things like plastic bags, straws, coffee stirrers, soda and water bottles and most food packaging. And the United States is one of the top contributors of this type of plastic waste globally.
The nature of petroleum based disposable plastic makes it difficult to recycle. Petroleum based plastic usually goes into a landfill where it is buried or incinerated. It is not biodegradable and will not decompose into natural substance like soil. Instead petroleum based plastic will degrade (break down) over years into tiny particles and in the process release toxic chemicals which make their way into our food and water supply. These toxic chemicals are now being found in our bloodstream and the latest research has found them to disrupt the endocrine system which can cause cancer, infertility, birth defects, impaired immunity and many other ailments. It has been well established by many studies that the entire life cycle of plastic, from production to disposal, contributes to ocean and community pollution, health issues and climate change. At this point in time, plastic pollution is everywhere from ocean floors to mountain tops and even, as noted above, inside our bodies. A “bioplastic” that is easier to degrade has been developed and is being promoted as a safer alternative. However, bioplastics are in fact just as toxic as other plastics. According to an article published in late October 2020, in the journal Environment International, “Bio-based and biodegradable plastic are not any safer than other plastics,” said the lead author, Lisa Zimmermann from Goethe University in Frankfurt.
Last year, 170 nations pledged to “significantly reduce” use of plastic by 2030. Many countries have already taken nation wide action on plastic pollution including Canada, United Kingdom, European Union, China, Kenya and Zimbabwe. And earlier this month, the U.N. Environment Assembly unanimously voted to develop a treaty to end plastic pollution. This treaty mirrors the Montreal Protocol, which gradually removed ozone-depleting substances from use, and is an important first step toward reducing plastic waste. The Center for International Environmental Law, based in Washington D.C., is very involved in helping develop this new global agreement on plastics. This organization has 3 focus areas: Climate and Energy; Environmental Health; and People, Land and Resources. CIEL has funds available to provide monetary support to help front line groups stop plastics and petrochemical build out across the United States. MOVCA recently received a grant from CIEL and is looking forward to conducting our local campaign.
In the United States there is no federal legislation for limiting single-use plastics. A bill called the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act was introduced in 2020. As of March 2021, the bill was still with the Senate Finance Committee for review. It can take years for a bill like this to pass at the federal level. Until then, the responsibility for the restriction of single-use plastics falls to states, cities and counties. There are eight states that have completely banned certain forms of single-use plastics, mainly plastic bags. These include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. There’s also a long list of other states that have plastic bag bans in process. If the state chooses not to regulate single-use plastics, the decisions fall to the cities and counties. This is where you find most of the plastic straw bans; cities like New York and Miami Beach have enacted their own bans on plastic straws and stirrers. There are countless cities in Florida and California with straw bans, as well as hundreds more scattered across the country including D.C.
In our local area, trying to live without single use plastic products is challenging. However, there are many resources available, including books, websites and videos, that give tips for living with less plastic and help your household minimize single use plastic in as many areas as possible. It’s important for everyone to be a conscious consumer and do our part for the good of the planet. Although it does take a little foresight and planning any one can choose to refuse single use plastic. It’s easy to decline a straw for your drink, take your own cloth reusable bags to the stores for shopping, bring containers for leftovers at restaurants and carry a small set of reusable cutlery instead of accepting plastic utensils at fast food establishments. The world can, and in fact has to, eradicate single use plastics and learn, once again, to live without them. Abandoning single use plastics and the fossil fuels necessary for their production should certainly not be considered irrational by anyone, conservative or liberal. Our transition to no single use plastics is an important solution, along with other solutions, that will help provide a livable future on our planet for both marine life and our grandchildren.
***
Giulia Mannarino, of Belleville, is a member of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Transition time is now
Mar 19, 2022
Eric Engle
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
Vladimir Putin is a petrostate autocrat, meaning Russia is a nation heavily dependent on oil and gas revenue and Putin, as an authoritarian who has made a mockery of any semblance of Russian democracy, is reliant on this revenue to achieve his aims. This includes his current aim of the violent takeover of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.
With Russia being a major player in global oil markets and the continent of Europe getting approximately 40% of its fossil gas (aka “natural gas,” the word “natural” being an industry-created term to make fossil methane sound friendlier), a heated discussion (pardon the pun) is underway on how best to deprive this petrostate autocrat of his most important source of wealth and power.
Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as the rest of West Virginia’s congressional delegation, are insisting that we deprive Putin of petro largesse and power by massively driving up production of oil and gas in the U.S. Manchin wants to see the Mountain Valley Pipeline completed and Rep. David McKinley wants to see the Keystone XL pipeline reinitiated and completed. Gov. Jim Justice says that renewable and non-carbon sources of energy are just parsley around the plate and that our oil, coal and gas resources are the meat and potatoes. I find this line of “reasoning” interesting, to put it nicely.
The argument here is that we will deprive a petrostate autocrat of his greatest asset and the core source of his power by feeding the petroleum and methane beast. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. To quote Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Our entire congressional delegation, as well as our governor, know where their bread is buttered.
Thankfully, European Union leaders are living in reality. They understand that, while diversifying their sources for gas in the short-term can help boost reserves, they cannot replace Russian gas entirely and are therefore better-suited to abandon it as quickly as possible, along with all fossil fuels. To quote Executive Vice President for the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, “It is time we tackle our vulnerabilities and rapidly become more independent in our energy choices. Let’s dash into renewable energy at lightning speed. Renewables are a cheap, clean, and potentially endless source of energy and instead of funding the fossil fuel industry elsewhere, they create jobs here. Putin’s war in Ukraine demonstrates the urgency of accelerating our clean energy transition.”
The Keystone XL Pipeline was a planned extension and replacement of the Keystone Pipeline that was intended to pipe Canadian tar sands oil (the dirtiest oil resource in the world) from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast, almost entirely for shipment overseas. Alberta tar sands oil is extremely difficult to refine into gasoline and therefore more expensive, so it wouldn’t really help domestic gas prices anyway. The pipeline was only 8% complete after longer than a decade when President Biden had his State Department deny it a key permit on his first day in office. It would not lower gas prices here or assist our European allies.
The Mountain Valley Pipeline has been fined millions of dollars by both West Virginia and Virginia regulators for failing to control soil erosion and prevent water contamination. Not only that, but the argument for it from its inception was to boost domestic gas supplies. Now Manchin wants to discuss it as an answer for Europe. Which is it, Senator? Europe’s liquified natural gas facilities can’t handle additional imports right now and importing LNG across the Atlantic is not going to offset the loss of Russian gas.
By the way, all of this exporting of oil and gas since the ban on doing so was lifted under the Obama administration is part of the reason for increased prices at home. But the oil and gas industry isn’t interested in meeting demand with supply here at home anyway. Their profit margins are so high that it’s more convenient to blame “inflation” and keep consumers paying more. Now they have a new price boogeyman with Putin.
Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action joined with 200 organizations in a letter to President Biden recently asking that the president use the Defense Production Act to ramp up the deployment of renewable energy to transition the world off fossil fuels and generate millions of good-quality, union jobs. Specifically, the letter asks the President to:
* Rapidly scale up production, manufacturing, and deployment of renewable energy technologies, heat pumps, storage, and weatherization technologies here and abroad
* Create millions of long-term, high-paying domestic jobs while doing so, and
* Accelerate the transition to zero-emission public transportation, alternatives to car based transportation and related infrastructure domestically, and deploy it nationwide, especially to the most vulnerable communities.
The answer to Putin’s madness and to the climate crisis that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II recently continued to detail in a 3,675-page report is not “drill, baby, drill!” The answer is a transition to renewable energies, maximization of energy efficiency, sustainable agriculture and development, and massive decarbonization.
***
Eric Engle is chairman of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.
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.
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