Sep 25, 2021
Randi Pokladnik
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
While I was researching my masters thesis in 1998 on organic farming in Ohio, I came across a disturbing event in Jack Dole’s book, “Altered Harvest: Agriculture, Genetics and the Fate of the World’s Food Supply.”
In 1970-71, the USA lost over 15 percent of its corn crop. “In the late summer and early fall of 1969, a few corn fields in southern Iowa began behaving erratically. Ears rotted inside husks and stalks fell to the ground.” Soon the blight, which was found to be a fungus (Helminthosporium maydis) or Southern Corn Leaf Blight, began moving across corn fields from Florida to the Midwest. Unusually high humidity aided the spread of the fungus spores.
The fungus was able to reproduce within a few days of landing on corn, and in ten days a new generation formed. It was resilient and could survive temperatures of twenty degrees below zero. It rapidly moved into northern states and eventually into Canada. Some farmers lost 50 percent of their corn.
The underlying cause of this agricultural disaster was blamed on the type of corn grown. Over 80 percent of the corn in the USA contained T-cytoplasm and this particular hybrid was extremely susceptible to the blight.
The National Academy of Sciences said, “because of a quirk in technology, the redesigned corn plants of America had become as alike as identical twins. Whatever made one plant susceptible made them all susceptible.” Heirloom varieties of corn survived the fungus but the majority of America’s corn were hybrids from “six inbreed lines.”
Monocultures, or raising only one variety of crop on large acreages of land, whether it is corn or pine trees, leaves the species vulnerable. It also reduces biodiversity. A healthy biodiverse forest can be habitat for many different birds, plants, insects and animals. A monoculture is not a healthy ecosystem. It allows for some insect species to grow out of control or a single predator or disease to wreak havoc in a short period of time. This was the case with the corn crops.
Biodiversity matters more than most people realize. Our world is becoming less biodiverse; species populations are declining at an alarming rate, and entire species are becoming extinct. The journal Science reported that in the past five decades, bird populations have dropped 29 percent: a loss of three billion individuals.
In 2020, thousands of dead birds were found in the southwest USA. The event remains a mystery to scientists, but the American Birding Association cites some factors that might have caused the massive fatalities. In Albuquerque, N.M., on Sept. 8, 2020 the temperatures dropped from a sunny high of 96 to a record low of forty and experienced a windstorm with speeds of 70 mph. During the same week, Colorado, Montana and parts of New Mexico experienced a snowfall and record-breaking low temperatures.
Adding to the plight of migrating birds are the massive fires that continue to burn in the Western States. The birds were forced to leave the region before they had a chance to “replenish their fat stores.” Many areas adjacent to the fires saw a major influx of migratory birds over the past two weeks.
Starvation is another factor. All of the above weather events killed the insects these birds rely on in order to fatten up for the long journey south. Birds whose diets consist heavily of insects, like swallows and warblers, saw the highest rates of mortality. These incidents are all tied to climate change.
Biodiversity is also affected by habitat loss, overexploitation, and invasive species. Habitat loss is pervasive over the entire planet. We see this as the forests of the world are logged and land is converted from natural landscapes to urban uses. Additionally, habitats are degraded and fragmented. We see this in our own region with oil and gas development, logging, and farming.
Fracking requires a huge amount of infrastructure with roads, well pads, and pipelines eating away acreage. There are enormous water withdraws, which affect wetland ecosystems. Large fracking operations use evaporation pits containing toxins to reduce waste volumes. These pits are often mistaken by birds looking for bodies of water. The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds are killed annually in oil pits and evaporation ponds. Also, birds are often burned to death by gas flares as they fly over gas and oil infrastructure.
A prime example of overexploitation occurs in our oceans. The now multi-million-dollar high-tech fishing industry allows fish to be taken from deeper depths and from every location in the ocean. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization said, “over 70 percent of the world’s fisheries are overexploited and significantly depleted due to overfishing.”
Invasive species have wreaked havoc on native species. Losing elm trees to the invasive fungus Ceratocystis ulmi, and chestnuts to the fungus Cryphonectria, caused a dramatic change in the structure of eastern forests and a loss of biodiversity. More recently, the USA is being invaded by the “spotted lanternfly.” These bugs came to us from Asia and can cause serious damage to trees, eventually resulting in death. The bug affects many species including grapes, apples, and hops as well as hardwoods.
However, the biggest contributor to a massive loss of biodiversity are the changes on our planet caused by climate change. Inside Climate News reported that “biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history and a million species are on the brink.” In order to avoid the collapse of entire ecosystems we need to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The flora and fauna of our planet simply cannot adapt to the current rate of climate change.
What are humans losing as we lose biodiversity? We will lose the ecosystem services like flood mitigation, crop pollination, cures for diseases, soil formation, nutrient recycling, pests and pollution control, and regulation of the climate. Most of these services are not valued on the New York Stock Exchange but make no mistake, the economic effects will be felt globally, especially within the food sector.
How can we help? As we near the end of the growing season, leave the garden and flower cleanup till spring to allow a shelter for insects and other organisms. Grab those seed catalogs and plan for a pollinator garden next year, one that use native species rather than non-native. Support nature preserves and government decisions that protect natural habitats, like the Endangered Species Act. Stay alert for invasive species like the Spotted Lanternfly. Reduce your carbon footprint.
Teach others that we share our planet with millions of other species and our existence depends on their existence.
***
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
The dangers of dioxins
Randi Pokladnik in The Bargain Hunter
October 2, 2021
The first time I heard the name of the chemical compound dioxin was back in the 1970s. Dioxin is a compound found in the herbicide Agent Orange, which many of our troops were exposed to while serving during the Vietnam War.
My father-in-law spoke about being exposed to the substance when he was an aircraft mechanic during that era. He said the mechanics would get the “oily” substance on their skin while working on the planes.
Agent Orange was used as a defoliant, and in many cases it was sprayed in heavily forested regions to clear a path for airplanes to land. The planes’ undersides would become coated with the substance, and when mechanics worked on these planes, they would be exposed. The substance also was sprayed around military bases and to kill crops, as well as to clear forested areas where enemy troops might be hiding.
There were several different herbicide formulations used by the military during that era; Agent Orange was just one of them. The name comes from the regulatory requirements of identifying each herbicide with colored stripes painted around the 55-gallon drums containing them. Orange, purple, blue and white were colors used by the manufacturers to ensure the contents were easily identifiable in shipment and use. Agent Orange differed from the others as it had an unintentional contaminant, dioxin, in the formulation.
In six years, from August 1965 through February 1971, an estimated 18 million gallons of herbicides were sprayed over 3.6 million acres in Vietnam. The program of defoliation was called “Operation Ranch Hand.”
“The Red Cross estimates that 3 million Vietnamese have been affected by dioxin including at least 150,000 children born with serious birth defects. Millions of Americans and Vietnamese are still affected, directly and indirectly, by the wartime U.S. spraying of Agent Orange and other herbicides over Southern and Central Vietnam.”
Dioxin was first prepared by two German chemists in 1872. The effects of dioxin were not discovered until 1957 when a lab worker was accidentally exposed to the substance. He was sprayed in the face and later on developed lesions on his skin. A dermatologist described the condition as “chloracne.” Soldiers returning from Vietnam as well as Vietnamese civilians exhibited this condition.
Dioxin is made of oxygen and carbon atoms with chlorine atoms attached to 6-sided hydrocarbon benzene rings. Its IUPAC name is 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). There are many other health effects associated with this compound. It is very persistent in the environment, and though the production of Agent Orange was banned in the USA in 1971, it will be with us for decades to come.
Dioxin is extremely toxic to mammals, and testing shows long-term exposure can affect reproduction, cause birth defects, damage the liver and suppress the immune system. The substance is listed as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization. Along with Vietnam vets, “generations of Vietnamese people have been plagued by cancer, miscarriages and birth defects as a result of Agent Orange.”
Agent Orange was produced primarily by the Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical. Both companies say the defoliant was made according to strict military specifications, stating the U.S. government told them the chemical recipe and how and when the product would be used in the field.
But a 1990 report compiled by Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. for the Department of Veterans Affairs that recommended compensation for ailing veterans who’d been exposed to Agent Orange also detailed evidence Dow Chemical knew as early as 1964 that dioxin was a “byproduct of the manufacturing process and that the dangers of exposure were clear.”
In 1978 Paul Reutershan, a former helicopter pilot, told viewers of the “Today” show that he died in Vietnam. He was referring to the fact that his exposure to Agent Orange was substantial enough to ultimately result in his death. Each day while in Vietnam, he flew through clouds of herbicides that were discharged from C-123 cargo planes. He described how the mangrove forests died, leaving “dark swaths cut in the jungle by the spraying.”
He also said he wasn’t worried then as he was assured by the Army the substance was “relatively nontoxic to humans and animals.” He died nine months after the “Today” show interview on Dec. 14, 1978, at the age of 28 from cancer that had invaded his colon, liver and abdomen.
There are other ways people, especially workers, can be exposed to dioxin. Farmers and forestry workers who deal with pesticides and herbicides may be exposed to the compounds.
“Farmers used 2,4,5-T to kill broadleaf plants in pasture lands. Foresters including the U.S. Forest Service and other federal agencies having jurisdiction over national lands, forests and parks have used herbicides to keep down brush and undergrowth and to eliminate unwanted hardwoods in pine forests.”
Pulp and paper mill workers can be exposed, as the necessary precursors to produce dioxins are present in the form of cellulose and bleach used in the paper-making process. In addition, discharges from these mills can contaminate waterways with dioxins. These fat-soluble substances can be absorbed by fish and other aquatic life. Dioxins are present in the Ohio River and are monitored by ORSANCO.
Another process that results in the formation of dioxins is incineration, especially incineration of industrial wastes that contain hydrocarbons and chlorinated compounds. “Dying from Dioxin” by Lois Gibbs of Love Canal fame is an excellent book that describes the stories about dioxin including the battle to stop East Liverpool’s hazardous waste incinerator on the Ohio River. Residents of the upper Ohio Valley now get exposed to dioxin through their air, water and food. East Liverpool “has a staggeringly high cancer rate. In 2009 data showed that East Liverpool’s cancer rate is 615.8 people per 100,000. The Ohio average is 450.4.”
If you think you are safe from dioxin because you aren’t exposed via your occupation or don’t live close to a facility associated with dioxin, think again. People who use burn barrels to destroy their garbage can be exposed to dioxins from plastic wastes. Additionally, we all get a bit of dioxin from foods. Because dioxins are fat soluble, they can be found in trace amounts in foods like meats and dairy products. They are persistent and do not easily biodegrade and therefore they build up in our fatty tissues.
Sadly, my father-in-law died at the age of 65 from a very fast-spreading cancer: pancreatic cancer. We will never know for sure if his two tours of duty in Vietnam were to blame.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: How to talk to kids about climate change (part 2)
Oct 2, 2021
Linda Eve Seth
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; We borrow it from our children.” — Native American proverb
Our instinct as parents is to protect our kids from the harshness of the world or from ever feeling bad. But once they are old enough to be in school and to understand a bit of the news, that may not be possible in the case of Climate Change.
You might be surprised by how much your kids already know about climate change. Children are constantly observing changes happening to our planet, and many of them are curious about how it might impact their lives. While it is important to educate your kids about the climate crisis using terms that they are familiar with, don’t feel like you need to oversimplify the topic. If you do, you may risk leaving out critical points that could help them understand what their future might look like — and how they can help prevent climate catastrophe.
Consider your child’s age.
You know your kids best, so try to make sure the level of information you’re giving them is appropriate and not too graphic or upsetting. If she’s under 8, it may be best not to broach the subject unless you have to. Instead, work toward strengthening her relationship with the environment so that when the time comes, she will have already developed a passion and appreciation for nature. Hiking, camping, canoeing, gardening, and just stopping to notice natural beauty are all great ways to enhance this relationship. Reading books about forests, oceans, plants, or animals are also great ways to foster a relationship between your child and the natural world.
The key is to find ways to relate it to their daily lives. For example, you might start by talking about the weather, which changes almost every day and can impact anything from our moods and health, to the rate at which plants grow. Simply put, climate is just a pattern of weather over a longer period of time. To illustrate this to your children, look online and compare the weather today to the weather 50 years ago: Are there any major differences you can find? Is it hotter or drier now? While it is natural for the climate to fluctuate over time, it is important to explain the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate, and many people/scientists think that humans are causing these changes.
Give your kids the basic facts.
We can’t always control what they may be hearing elsewhere, so it’s good to be proactive at home with the simple facts. Climate change is easier to understand with visuals. To demonstrate what drives global warming, try showing your child a picture of a greenhouse or visit an actual greenhouse. Essentially, the glass structure housing the plants traps the sunlight within that space, making it a lot hotter inside — and we are doing the same thing with our planet when we burn fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gas emissions that trap sunlight in our atmosphere, creating a hotter planet. A hotter planet means bigger storms, melting ice at the poles and rising oceans. This makes it harder for animals to find places to live.
Consider spending as much time as possible exploring the outdoors, from forests to parks to vegetable gardens. You don’t have to live near mountains or the ocean to expose your kids to nature. You can start with pollinators in the garden. Everything has a role to play here. The goal is to help the kids understand the web of relationships in nature rather than dwelling on ecological damage.
You can talk about some of the ways you are doing your part to mitigate the effects of climate change, such as reducing your family’s carbon footprint to greenhouse gas emissions. You can discuss some of the ways you can act as a family, such as recycling, reducing food waste, turning out lights in empty rooms, planting trees.
The bottom line: Be realistic about the challenges and avoid painting either an overly rosy picture, or a dark, dismal future. Your child will be able to cope with the disappointments and challenges of climate change as they mature, but you don’t have to sugarcoat it for now.
When parents focus on solutions and highlight success stories, it can fundamentally change the way children think about climate change — and what role kids see for themselves in changing the planet’s future.
***
Linda Eve Seth, M.Ed., SLP, is a member of MOVCA, mother, grandmother, and concerned citizen.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Time for Manchin to act on climate
By Eric Engle
Sep 27, 2021
West Virginia’s senior senator, Joe Manchin III, is certainly the talk of the town these days, so to speak. Or, perhaps, more like the talk of the world.
The only way that should be looked at positively is for all the sustained attention our state has been getting. Outside of the attention, well, Manchin, D-W.Va., is mostly failing us.
Those of us alive today are at a critical historical juncture. We’re alive at a time when humankind is facing our last, best hope to avoid climate catastrophe. I won’t go quite as far as columnist Paul Krugman in saying that Manchin alone may decide earth’s fate, but Manchin does hold a considerable amount of power at a time when policymakers like himself are tasked with making crucial decisions for virtually all of posterity.
I always flinch a bit when I read or hear someone say that we’re “destroying the planet” or that we need to “save the planet.” Earth itself will go on until such time as something on a cosmic scale, like our sun dying, occurs (an event predicted not to take place for billions of years yet). Earth will find new equilibrium. What’s at stake is us and countless other species of flora and fauna on Earth as we know it. The existential crisis pertains to our existence. We’re destroying biodiversity and a habitable planet.
On Sept. 17, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change released a report synthesizing what are referred to as the Nationally Determined Contributions of the signatories to the Paris Climate Accords ahead of crucial upcoming world meetings in Glasgow, Scotland. The UNFCCC found that, unless the world’s countries dramatically speed up the needed energy transitions to renewable energy and accelerate other climate-related policy changes, the world is on track to reach 2.7 degrees Celsius (nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming over a preindustrial baseline by the end of this century. This would be absolutely devastating.
Manchin and others are fond of arguing that we can’t afford a rapid transition to renewable energy and sustainability, especially in states like West Virginia. I beg to differ, and I’m not alone.
A recent study from the Institute for New Economic Thinking, at the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University, found that, “The belief that the green energy transition will be expensive has been a major driver of the ineffective response to climate change for the last forty years. This pessimism is at odds with past technological cost-improvement trends, and risks locking humanity into an expensive and dangerous energy future. … a greener, healthier and safer global energy system is also likely to be cheaper.”
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Why biodiversity matters
Sep 25, 2021
Randi Pokladnik
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
While I was researching my masters thesis in 1998 on organic farming in Ohio, I came across a disturbing event in Jack Dole’s book, “Altered Harvest: Agriculture, Genetics and the Fate of the World’s Food Supply.”
In 1970-71, the USA lost over 15 percent of its corn crop. “In the late summer and early fall of 1969, a few corn fields in southern Iowa began behaving erratically. Ears rotted inside husks and stalks fell to the ground.” Soon the blight, which was found to be a fungus (Helminthosporium maydis) or Southern Corn Leaf Blight, began moving across corn fields from Florida to the Midwest. Unusually high humidity aided the spread of the fungus spores.
The fungus was able to reproduce within a few days of landing on corn, and in ten days a new generation formed. It was resilient and could survive temperatures of twenty degrees below zero. It rapidly moved into northern states and eventually into Canada. Some farmers lost 50 percent of their corn.
The underlying cause of this agricultural disaster was blamed on the type of corn grown. Over 80 percent of the corn in the USA contained T-cytoplasm and this particular hybrid was extremely susceptible to the blight.
The National Academy of Sciences said, “because of a quirk in technology, the redesigned corn plants of America had become as alike as identical twins. Whatever made one plant susceptible made them all susceptible.” Heirloom varieties of corn survived the fungus but the majority of America’s corn were hybrids from “six inbreed lines.”
Monocultures, or raising only one variety of crop on large acreages of land, whether it is corn or pine trees, leaves the species vulnerable. It also reduces biodiversity. A healthy biodiverse forest can be habitat for many different birds, plants, insects and animals. A monoculture is not a healthy ecosystem. It allows for some insect species to grow out of control or a single predator or disease to wreak havoc in a short period of time. This was the case with the corn crops.
Biodiversity matters more than most people realize. Our world is becoming less biodiverse; species populations are declining at an alarming rate, and entire species are becoming extinct. The journal Science reported that in the past five decades, bird populations have dropped 29 percent: a loss of three billion individuals.
In 2020, thousands of dead birds were found in the southwest USA. The event remains a mystery to scientists, but the American Birding Association cites some factors that might have caused the massive fatalities. In Albuquerque, N.M., on Sept. 8, 2020 the temperatures dropped from a sunny high of 96 to a record low of forty and experienced a windstorm with speeds of 70 mph. During the same week, Colorado, Montana and parts of New Mexico experienced a snowfall and record-breaking low temperatures.
Adding to the plight of migrating birds are the massive fires that continue to burn in the Western States. The birds were forced to leave the region before they had a chance to “replenish their fat stores.” Many areas adjacent to the fires saw a major influx of migratory birds over the past two weeks.
Starvation is another factor. All of the above weather events killed the insects these birds rely on in order to fatten up for the long journey south. Birds whose diets consist heavily of insects, like swallows and warblers, saw the highest rates of mortality. These incidents are all tied to climate change.
Biodiversity is also affected by habitat loss, overexploitation, and invasive species. Habitat loss is pervasive over the entire planet. We see this as the forests of the world are logged and land is converted from natural landscapes to urban uses. Additionally, habitats are degraded and fragmented. We see this in our own region with oil and gas development, logging, and farming.
Fracking requires a huge amount of infrastructure with roads, well pads, and pipelines eating away acreage. There are enormous water withdraws, which affect wetland ecosystems. Large fracking operations use evaporation pits containing toxins to reduce waste volumes. These pits are often mistaken by birds looking for bodies of water. The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds are killed annually in oil pits and evaporation ponds. Also, birds are often burned to death by gas flares as they fly over gas and oil infrastructure.
A prime example of overexploitation occurs in our oceans. The now multi-million-dollar high-tech fishing industry allows fish to be taken from deeper depths and from every location in the ocean. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization said, “over 70 percent of the world’s fisheries are overexploited and significantly depleted due to overfishing.”
Invasive species have wreaked havoc on native species. Losing elm trees to the invasive fungus Ceratocystis ulmi, and chestnuts to the fungus Cryphonectria, caused a dramatic change in the structure of eastern forests and a loss of biodiversity. More recently, the USA is being invaded by the “spotted lanternfly.” These bugs came to us from Asia and can cause serious damage to trees, eventually resulting in death. The bug affects many species including grapes, apples, and hops as well as hardwoods.
However, the biggest contributor to a massive loss of biodiversity are the changes on our planet caused by climate change. Inside Climate News reported that “biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history and a million species are on the brink.” In order to avoid the collapse of entire ecosystems we need to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The flora and fauna of our planet simply cannot adapt to the current rate of climate change.
What are humans losing as we lose biodiversity? We will lose the ecosystem services like flood mitigation, crop pollination, cures for diseases, soil formation, nutrient recycling, pests and pollution control, and regulation of the climate. Most of these services are not valued on the New York Stock Exchange but make no mistake, the economic effects will be felt globally, especially within the food sector.
How can we help? As we near the end of the growing season, leave the garden and flower cleanup till spring to allow a shelter for insects and other organisms. Grab those seed catalogs and plan for a pollinator garden next year, one that use native species rather than non-native. Support nature preserves and government decisions that protect natural habitats, like the Endangered Species Act. Stay alert for invasive species like the Spotted Lanternfly. Reduce your carbon footprint.
Teach others that we share our planet with millions of other species and our existence depends on their existence.
***
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
Time for Manchin to move on
Aaron Dunbar in The Parkersburg News and Sentinel
Sep 18, 2021
I have a message I’d like to deliver to Sen. Joe Manchin: Get out of the way, old man.
Now, it’s not in my usual nature to address someone so rudely. But given Manchin’s recent patronizing choice of language referring to his colleague Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (a year older than myself) as “that young lady,” using her age and gender to belittle her status as a fellow legislator, it seemed only appropriate that I address him similarly.
Manchin and Ocasio-Cortez’s most recent exchange of unpleasantries comes as a result of sparring over Democrats’ proposed $3.5 trillion spending package, which Manchin has managed to singlehandedly capsize.
It’s worth noting that this piece of legislation might be the one and only chance the Biden administration has to meaningfully take on the climate crisis for the foreseeable future. Setting aside political realities, the overwhelming consensus among the scientific community is that we have less than a decade to drastically slash emissions or else face a certain future of runaway climate catastrophe.
One might think that, following a summer of warming-fueled (un)natural disaster after (un)natural disaster, along with record-shattering global temperatures, Manchin might have a better response to such vital climate legislation than to shrug his shoulders and say that it “makes no sense at all.”
But then again, if you do think that, then you probably don’t know Joe Manchin very well.
It actually makes perfect sense that an irredeemably corrupt politician like Manchin, who owns millions of dollars of stock in coal brokerages, and to whom climate denying monster corporations like ExxonMobil refer as “crucial” to undermining climate action in Congress, would be opposed to such important legislation as the reconciliation package.
I’m not a West Virginian, and I’m sick of every single attempt at passing any kind of meaningful legislation being hamstrung by a single corrupt Senator who doesn’t represent me. And speaking often as I do with those who are in fact represented by Manchin, he doesn’t actually seem to care about his constituents whatsoever. He’s perfectly content to let the West Virginians who voted for him stay poor and miserable, sacrificing thousands upon thousands of good-paying jobs in clean, renewable energy, as long as he can continue to line his pockets with as much dirty money as he can get his hands on.
And so to Senator Manchin, I say this:
You’re a 74-year-old man. You’re at the twilight of your years, and leaving behind a legacy of perverse greed and human suffering for those of us who follow in your wake. Americans who are AOC’s age, my age, and younger, will remember you only as a great villain of history. As a corrupt old man who let the world burn in order to serve his corporate puppetmasters.
This is your legacy, Senator. You can either save face now and do what’s right for the sake of future generations, or else get out of the way for those of us who will.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Re-imagine Appalachia
Sep 18, 2021
George Banziger
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
There has been a lot of frightening and vividly portrayed news about extreme weather lately that has brought our collective attention to the urgent need to address human-caused climate change. Unstoppable wildfires caused by sustained droughts, Tennessee floods, Hurricane Ida, and other weather events worldwide have put the issue of climate change front and center. The recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a “red alert” about the urgency of addressing climate change.
In the face of all this discouraging news one can feel hopeless and inconsequential as a single individual. But there is an opportunity to take immediate action as a concerned and informed citizen in the current “climate” of the Congress. The U.S. Senate will soon be discussing a budget reconciliation bill. A carbon pricing feature will likely be incorporated into this bill if senators hear from their constituents that it is important to them. The Senate Finance Committee has already announced that they are considering the inclusion of carbon pricing in this bill. Budget reconciliation may be adopted by the senate if 51 of its members agree to certain adjustments in spending and revenue. A price on carbon involves a fee assessed on the producer for oil, natural gas, or coal. These fossil fuels are what account for a large share of the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the climate change, the effects of which we are all experiencing. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., is a key person is these senate discussions.
A price on carbon will provide quality jobs in renewable energy (the U.S. Department of Labor, for example, lists solar panel installer as the fastest growing job in the U.S.). This action will strengthen the manufacturing base for products like solar panels and wind turbines, much of which are made from glass products that were once manufactured in this part of Appalachia. Carbon pricing will help the U.S. toward energy independence–by reducing the demand for fuel and for the consumption of fossil fuels. It will provide affordable energy by leading to an equal carbon dividend for consumers. The U.S. is being left behind in pricing carbon–European countries are imposing a price on carbon and will impose a tariff on our carbon exports if we don’t have a price on carbon; we need to stay internationally competitive.
One may think that making the transition to renewable energy will be expensive. But consider the alternative of doing nothing. Extreme weather has caused more than $450 billion in damage nationwide since 2005; the number of disasters causing more than $1 billion in damage reached 22 last year, a record. The Government Accountability Office has warned those costs may be unsustainable. Yet the demand keeps increasing. When the Federal Emergency Management Agency introduced a new program to help cities and states prepare for disasters, the requests far outstripped the amount of money available. The increasing frequency and severity of hurricanes poses another dilemma: Even if the money could be found for projects to protect places like southern Louisiana, are such efforts a good way to spend public money, especially as the need for climate resilience around the country is growing and coastlines disappear farther every year?
A price on carbon will, furthermore, get us to net zero emissions by 2050 with a blend of renewable fuel sources that provide clean, affordable energy. The move to carbon pricing will send a signal to the economy and to industry to attend to energy efficiency, electric energy from renewables, and carbon capture. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will save 4.5 million lives over 50 years by decreasing premature deaths due to air pollution. Energy companies will, of course, raise their prices for products like gasoline, but economists have shown that up to 85 percent of individual Americans can cover the increased costs by the dividend that is provided to them through the carbon pricing program. In a re-imagined Appalachia that can advance from a dependency on coal and other extractive industries, carbon pricing and increases in investment in renewable energy can bring sustainable good jobs to our region as well as cleaner air and water.
Please contact Manchin soon and urge him to include carbon pricing in the budget reconciliation bill.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Save the grandchildren
Sep 11, 2021
Dr. Randi Pokladnik
What will it take to motivate Americans into action?
Two of the happiest days of my life were when we welcomed our two granddaughters into the world in 2004 and 2005. At that time their futures were full of possibilities. Today, I fear what the future holds for the next generation and the planet, as nations (especially the USA) fail to take meaningful action to address the climate crisis.
This summer we’ve watched unrelenting wildfires in the western states. Over 7 million acres of federal land and 3 million acres of non-federal land has burned in California to date this year. Hurricane Ida hit the coastline of Louisiana just a few miles shy of a category 5 and was the second most damaging hurricane in that region since Hurricane Katrina, which left 1,800 dead and $125 billion in damages in 2005. As Ida moved along the northeastern coast it brought record rainfalls to the area and caused monumental flooding in parts of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Estimates of the economic damage top $95 billion, and 71 deaths have been attributed to the storm to date.
A question I struggle with on a daily basis is: Why are many Americans, including politicians, unknowledgeable or unwilling to take action on what has been referred to as “an existential threat to humanity?” The answer might be multifaceted. We lack the knowledge; we don’t feel a sense of urgency; and we lack the political will.
In his book, “The Death of Expertise,” Tom Nichols says, “the foundational knowledge of the average American is now so low that it has crashed through the floor of uninformed, passed misinformed and is now plummeting to aggressively wrong.” We live in a world where many people think, “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Our response to wearing masks and getting vaccinated are proof of that mindset.
It seems media has done little to educate the general public on the issues surrounding the climate crisis. Rarely does a weather reporter mention the term “climate crisis.” In fact, a 2019 report by Media Matters America said that broadcast news only “devoted four hours” to climate coverage in that year. That’s less than one percent of broadcast time.
A few pivotal events have affected the amount, accuracy and types of information Americans receive on a daily basis from our media sources. The Fairness Doctrine which said “controversial issues of public importance had to be reported in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced” was repealed by the FCC in 1987.
Today, news stories can be reported without allowing for an opposing viewpoint or factual data.
Another issue is media consolidation. In 1983, fifty companies owned 90% of radio, television, newspapers, books, internet, cable, and movies. Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, ninety percent of US media is now owned by six corporations. This allows thousands of small media outlets to be controlled by a handful of people. For example, Clear Channel owns over 1,200 stations. When an incorrect or “fake news” story is broadcast, millions of people are getting this false information.
We might blame some of our hesitancy to take action on a “lack of knowledge” or our inability to get real facts, but it is nearly impossible to ignore the death and devastation occurring from record-setting weather events. A recent study showed the 2018 wildfires in California cost $148 billion, killed 97 civilians and 6 firefighters, and destroyed 24,000 buildings. The current wildfire season is on track to break all records. At least 176 people died this past February in the record-breaking Texas snowstorm. The estimated cost of the storm is $20 billion.
If we believe the science and we acknowledge the destruction including lives lost and the costs, why aren’t we screaming in the streets? Are we too anesthetized by lifestyles based on consumerism? Do we care nothing about the other sentient species we are destroying by our addiction to convenience? Have we been lulled into complacency by a media that remains silent on the issue? Are we counting on a solution coming from a political system bought and paid for by fossil fuels?
In fact, many scientists believe that we have less than a decade to make significant changes or face irreversible consequences. The United Nations scientists have called a “code red” for humanity in August saying in their 3,000-plus page report, “unless rapid and deep reductions are made to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions” we will exceed the 1.5 C threshold by 2030.
A major threat to solving or even addressing climate change continues to be the lack of political will. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, “we have the scientific knowledge and the technical means but we lack the political will to put a price on carbon, to stop subsidies on fossil fuels, to stop building coal power plants, and to shift taxation from income to carbon.” Ansel Adams accurately describes the situation, “it’s horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save our environment.”
But sadly, this is what we have to do; fight our own government. Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, the courts have extended corporations rights that were previously only granted to citizens. Corporations are not citizens; their main concern is their bottom line.
Corporate power has increased with the passage of Citizens United. With endless amounts of lobbying money, we now have the best politicians money can buy. Until we end Citizens United and get money out of politics, many politicians will continue to thwart any efforts to hold fossil fuel corporations responsible for their role in the climate crisis. Instead, they will placate the industry and cling to false solutions like carbon capture, blue hydrogen, and recycling.
If you need any motivation to act on climate change and demand politicians take the issue seriously, look at your grandkids. Do you want them to know you sat by and watched their world burn?
***
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
A Price on Carbon
By George Banziger Sept. 6, 2021 Appearing in the Marietta Times
There has been a lot frightening and vividly portrayed news about extreme weather lately that has brought our collection attention to the urgent need to address human-cause climate change. Unstoppable wildfires caused by sustained droughts, Tennessee floods, Hurricane Ida, and other weather events worldwide have put the issue of climate change front and center. The recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a “red alert” about the urgency of addressing climate change.
In the face of all this discouraging news one can feel hopeless and inconsequential as a single individual. But there is an opportunity to take immediate action as a concerned and informed citizen in the current “climate” of the Congress. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee this very week is discussing a budget reconciliation bill. A carbon pricing feature will be incorporated into this bill if senators hear from their constituents that it is important to them. Budget reconciliation may be adopted by the senate if 51 of its members agree to certain adjustments in spending and revenue. A price on carbon involves a fee assessed on the producer for oil, natural gas, or coal. These fossil fuels are what account for a large share of the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the climate change the effects of which we are all experiencing. Our own Ohio U.S. Senator, Sherrod Brown, is a member of the Finance Committee.
A price on carbon will provide quality jobs in renewable energy (the U.S. Department of Labor, for example, lists solar panel installer as the fastest growing job in the U.S.). This action will strengthen the manufacturing base for products like solar panels and wind turbines, much of which are made from glass products that were once manufactured in this part of Appalachia. Carbon pricing will help the U.S. toward energy independence—by reducing the demand for fuel and for the consumption of fossil fuels. It will provide affordable energy by leading to an equal carbon dividend for consumers. The U.S. is being left behind in pricing carbon—European countries are imposing a price on carbon and will impose a tariff on our carbon exports if we don’t have a price on carbon; we need to stay internationally competitive.
One may think that making the transition to renewable energy will be expensive. But consider the alternative of doing nothing. Extreme weather has caused more than $450 billion in damage nationwide since 2005; the number of disasters causing more than $1 billion in damage reached 22 last year, a record. The Government Accountability Office has warned those costs may be unsustainable. Yet the demand keeps increasing: When the Federal Emergency Management Agency introduced a new program to help cities and states prepare for disasters, the requests far outstripped the amount of money available. The increasing frequency and severity of hurricanes poses another dilemma: Even if the money could be found for projects to protect places like southern Louisiana, are such efforts a good way to spend public money, especially as the need for climate resilience around the country is growing and coastlines disappear further every year?
A price on carbon will, furthermore, get us to net zero emissions by 2050 with a blend of renewable fuel sources that provide clean, affordable energy. The move to carbon pricing will send a signal to the economy and to industry to attend to energy efficiency, electric energy from renewables, and carbon capture. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will save 4.5 million lives over 50 years by decreasing premature deaths due to air pollution. Energy companies will, of course, raise their prices for products like gasoline, but economists have shown that up to 85% of individual Americans can cover the increased costs by the dividend that is provided to them through the carbon pricing program. In a re-imagined Appalachia that can advance from a dependency on coal and other extractive industries, carbon pricing and increases in investment in renewable energy can bring sustainable good jobs to our region as well as cleaner air and water.
Please contact Senator Brown this week and urge him to include carbon pricing in the budget reconciliation bill. https://www.brown.senate.gov/contact/email
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Warning signs
Rebecca Phillips
Marietta Times
Sep 6, 2021
Weather-related tragedies are everywhere we look. On Sunday, Hurricane Ida left a path of destruction in Louisiana and is now tracking northeast, with flood warnings issued as far north as Cape Cod. A few days earlier, parts of Tennessee received what is normally three months’ worth of rain in twelve hours, resulting in massive flooding and the loss of more than twenty human lives. A week or so before that, Hurricane Grace devastated parts of the Yucatan peninsula, again with loss of life. China, Japan, and Turkey have all experienced flooding in recent weeks, with landslides in Japan resulting in dozens of fatalities.
In contrast, much of the world is on fire. In the US, this year’s wildfires have consumed two and a half million acres, larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined. Entire towns have been destroyed. Air quality alerts have been issued over a wide area, even here in the Mid-Ohio Valley, where smoke from Canadian wildfires made our air dangerous for sensitive groups. In France, Greece, Italy, and Turkey, forests have been destroyed, herds of livestock died horribly, and ancient monuments are threatened. The fire currently raging in Siberia is larger than all the others combined.
The world’s scientists are warning us that these extremes may become the new normal as atmospheric CO2 reaches levels not seen for 800,000 years and global temperatures rise. A warming world results in stronger hurricanes, which draw their strength from warm ocean water.
Areas blessed with an abundance of water sources are likely to see more severe storms and increased flooding. More arid regions are already seeing droughts and fires of historic proportions.
These same scientists also tell us that we have the tools to reduce our emissions and mitigate at least some of this devastation. Will we heed the warning in time?
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Recycle/repurpose
Aug 28, 2021
Nenna Davis
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
Recycling is not a new concept. I remember waiting for the milkman to deliver cold milk and cottage cheese. These products were delivered in glass containers, which, once emptied, we would set out to be recycled. When plastic containers arrived on the scene things changed to where my mom would pick up milk and cottage cheese, packaged in plastic containers, at the grocery store. My mom (like many other moms) became a repurposing trailblazer, for those containers found their way into our refrigerators filled with leftovers. And soon became the vessels to carry mismatched buttons, broken crayons, etc.
Plastics were introduced to the world in 1862 with the first plastics made from plant cellulose. Most of today’s plastics are made from hydrocarbon molecules as a byproduct from the refining of oil and gas. Plastics have become a mainstay in packaging and product manufacturing. According to an article published by Columbia University Climate School “More Plastic is on the Way: What it Means for Climate Change,” written by Renee Cho on Feb. 20, 2020, the proliferation of plastic manufacturing is polluting our water, air and land. In addition, Cho states that “Microplastic and tiny plastic fibers have been found in honey, sugar, beer, processed foods, shellfish, salt, detergent bottled water and tap water; however, the health effects of microplastics are still unclear.”
So, how does plastic effect climate change? The production of plastics exacerbates greenhouse emissions. As you likely know, greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. The earth’s greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the planet. Each stage in the lifecycle of plastic contributes to these gasses. It begins in the oil and gas fracking process, where ethane is emitted. Then the refining and manufacturing increases air emissions believed to be equal to 800,000 new cars on the road annually. Next, is in the process of discarding used plastics. Plastic is usually incinerated, recycled or ends up in a landfill. It is through the incineration process that more gasses are introduced to our atmosphere. According to a National Geographic report in 2018 only 9 percent of all plastics were recycled.
According to the Center for International Environmental Law the best solution would be to ban plastics or at least work toward a global campaign against single-use plastics. But, both of these solutions carry many issues. One of these would be a significant financial impact while a second would lead to the question: What would we replace plastics with? And that could be as destructive as plastics.
That leaves us with the question, what can we do? The best solution for each of us is to recycle or repurpose. We can recycle our plastics. Recycled plastics are used to make many useable items such as bottles, bags, playground equipment, and foam packaging. Think of all those bottles of water you drink, that your local ball team drink during a game, or that you serve at your summer get-togethers. They can all be recycled. Most plastics can be recycled, just check with your local recycling center.
Or we can learn a lesson from my mother: repurpose. We can repurpose our dairy cartons to organize things such as screws, nails, and buttons. We can repurpose coffee containers for flour, sugar, rice, bean canisters, etc. We can even repurpose plastic bottles for freezing water to use in your coolers. As a child we used egg cartons to make decorations. The possibilities are endless. We are limited only by our imagination.
***
Nenna Davis has a bachelor’s degree in zoology/botanyand 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