Cities: The key to living sustainably in the 21st century

When it comes to living more sustainably, people are bound to be reluctant, and understandably so.

After all, it’s decidedly essential in light of our climate crisis. But what kind of hippie-weirdos actually 

want to adjust their lifestyles of preference, especially when the environmental benefit of doing so isn’t readily observable? And besides, the whole concept seems futile — if we’re in so deep already, how could our individual actions possibly have an impact on climate change at this point?

Sadly, this unhealthy ethos is all too common among Americans today, and it must be transcended. When we consider the kind of large-scale social adaptation that is necessary for our species to overcome climate change, any resistance is otherwise exposed as inherently shallow, serving only to the lowest of our human facilities.

Still, some people go as far as to paint sustainable living techniques as incompatible with society in general, claiming that driving less or reducing consumption or recycling are just impractically small solutions to an immense problem.

But contrary to (somewhat) popular belief, you don’t need to be some Thoreauvian and live off the land and grid to be sustainable. In fact, the key to living sustainably, practically and productively in the 21st century could be the exact opposite: live in a city.

I know what you’re thinking: “Cities … What? Aren’t those, like, by definition, the least environmentally healthy places on the planet?” Allow me to lay down a few base statistics.

Right now, our world’s human population is about 7 billion; by 2025, that number is predictedto be closer to 8 billion; and by 2050, it is estimated we could be living in a world with 9 billion other human beings.

With these statistics at hand, the next logical question is, “Where will this rapidly increasing population possibly live?”

In answering that, let’s consider the expansion of the U.S. urban population since the 1950s, when 64 percent of our population lived in cities. By 1980, that number had jumped to 74 percent, and currently 82 percent of people in the U.S. live in cities. By 2050, that number is estimated to reach 90 percent.

This trend toward a booming society of dense city dwellers will likely be a great thing for two main reasons. For one, greenhouse gas emissions will generally decrease since city dwellers have been proven to emit fewer greenhouse gases on average than those living in rural or suburban towns.

And secondly, with an increase in dense cities, there will be a subsequent increase in social and economic productivity, resulting in a better, more innovative world for us all. As renowned city scientist and former Santa Fe Institute President Geoffrey West puts it, “Cities concentrate, accelerate and diversify social and economic activity. … The bigger cities get, the more productive and efficient they tend to become.”

And as far as density and health concerns go — since I know there are plenty of city skeptics out there — the notion of rural or suburban communities being healthier than urban communities on average is entirely baseless. Sanitation, clean water and waste disposal were indeed egregious health issues in colonial America, but times have changed and so have the quality of our cities, which are now perhaps the healthiest places for 21st century Americans to live.

This is not only due to the fact that fewer greenhouse gas emissions mean a healthier environment for us all, but also because city dwellers on average have better access to health care, are more physically active and are less likely to be obese than those living in rural or suburban towns.

But admittedly, even with the imminent growth of urban populations, individual sustainability practices are still not enough to adequately address climate change. That is not to say we don’t need to consume less or migrate to more urban environments — we certainly do and certainly will have to, but we must not let these passive actions substitute for more direct ones.

Sweeping initiatives toward more renewable energy development need to be made if we are to combat climate change at all. And because politicians have been markedly silent on the issue, mainly due to their puppeteering of the fossil fuel industry, the responsibility ultimately lands in the hands of the citizen to make their voices heard by voting or otherwise.

Originally published in The Maneater

Is fracking whack?

With the changing of the times, the dwindling of our planet’s natural resources and the abhorrent display of human improvidence during the last half-century in our quest for cheap energy comes a funky new term in our cultural lexicon: fracking.

Shorthand for hydraulic fracturing, fracking is the newly popularized, albeit controversial, method of extracting natural gas from beneath Earth’s crust.

The process, for all simplicity’s sake, can be understood twofold: First, a hole is drilled miles into the ground. Then millions of gallons of highly pressurized, chemically treated water is shot down through the hole to fracture underlying rock and free immense pockets of natural gas. From there, the gas travels through the borehole, where it is collected and used as a cheap fuel, accounting for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. energy.

But wait, why the sudden hoopla over natural gas anyway? First off, it’s considered the “cleanest” fossil fuel, releasing half as much carbon dioxide upon combustion as coal or oil, and as it turns out, the U.S. is sitting on a lot of it.

The numbers vary depending on whom you ask (especially if you ask the natural gas industry, infamous among energy-analyst circles for grossly overestimating our reserves), but rational estimates tend to hover around the figure that we have enough frackable natural gas to lastbetween 11 and 21 years, based on current consumption rates.

Additionally, an abundance of cheap natural gas would lower energy prices for Americans,stimulate local economies and provide a more environmentally friendly fossil fuel (oxymoronic as that sounds) to ease our nation’s transition to more renewable energy sources.

But don’t jump on the frackwagon just yet — there are still some major safety issues with our current fracking practices. Remember those millions of gallons of highly pressurized, chemically treated water I mentioned earlier, which play such a vital role in the entire fracking process? Well, the harsh chemicals are added to help dissolve sediment and make the whole process a lot easier, but they have a knack of contaminating local residents’ water supplies, rendering the water poisonous, potentially lethal and — in some cases — even flammable.

Anyone familiar with the 2010 Oscar-nominated documentary "Gasland" knows what I’m talking about. Although the natural gas industry tends to brush off accusations of water contamination, citing a lack of sufficient evidence, a striking number of anecdotal cases and some recently published scientific studies tell otherwise.

The main reason why the natural gas industry can slither away from such evident breaches of public safety is because of a particularly heinous legislative loophole in which fracking is exempt from regulation under the Safe Water Drinking Act. Congress passed the measure in 2005 under the reprobate urging of then-Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of major gas driller Halliburton. And the revolving door spins on.

Another key environmental concern in the face of fracking comes with regard to a major by-product that is improperly stored, namely toxic fluid. The fact it’s a by-product is not so much a concern because that can be expected from the use of so many different chemicals. However ,the way it’s stored — in open pits that can overflow or leach into the soil — certainly is.

Lastly, while natural gas emits half as much carbon dioxide as other fossil fuels upon combustion, it isn’t so benign when it's leaked straight into the atmosphere, releasing a striking amount of methane, the most dangerous greenhouse gas.

If fracking development is to be expanded — and it almost certainly will be, considering the statistics at hand and the general puissance of the fossil fuel industry — then safety flaws such as these must be addressed.

Currently, there are bills in both houses of Congress that would close the SWDA loophole, and the Environmental Protection Agency is conducting comprehensive field research in order to more thoroughly establish safety regulations.

This is exactly the direction in which we should be heading with franking. As development increases, so should oversight.

Of course, at the end of the day, natural gas is still a fossil fuel and is certainly no cure-all. However, its capacity to provide a cleaner bridge fuel while our nation invests in more renewable sources is something that must not be overlooked.

Originally published in The Maneater

Palm oil, tigers and boycotts, oh my!

What ingredient can be found in more than 50 percent of consumer goods and is all at once innocuous-sounding, environmentally deleterious and increasing in production?

For some, the answer will be vehemently decried. “Oil!” they’ll shout, remembering the mammonism of that shameful enterprise.

But though oil does indeed fit most of the above criteria, I elaborated on the wide reach and hard grasp of that nefarious industry earlier this semester. Instead, a similar, almost equally destructive force comes to mind this week as a ripe and worthy environmental issue: palm oil.

In its most prevalent form, palm oil is used as cooking oil, but it is also found in a multitude of other products. Its recently discovered commercial versatility is what has made palm oil production skyrocket since the 1980s, now accounting for more than 65 percent of all global vegetable oil trades.

Now, rapid development of a high-value crop is not always a bad thing, but when that crop is principally produced via unscrupulous means, as is the case with palm oil, it most certainly is.

Palm oil is mainly harvested in Malaysia and Indonesia, where its foremost production measure involves torching rain forests, which are then replaced with vast monocultural plantations.

Deforestation is an abomination (to no one’s surprise), but what’s more is that it is now considered the only viable way to increase palm oil production. And even worse, the deforestation is being conducted on such a colossal scale that it decimates the natural habitats of some critically endangered species.

To get a sense of just how big of a role deforestation plays in palm oil production, consider the recent report that found that by 2020, Indonesian palm oil plantations will be releasing more carbon dioxide emissions per year than the entire nation of Canada.

And in terms of natural habitat destruction, the increasing development of palm oil plantations is beckoning in the extinction of the Sumatran tiger, rhinoceros and orangutan, three critically endangered species native to the Indonesian rain forest.

Striking as all of this may be, there is still hope for the future of palm oil. Initiatives emphasizing the need for more sustainable palm oil production measures are springing up as consumers and environmental groups pressure companies to modify their practices.

One initiative is the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which was formed in 2004 to promote more sustainable palm oil measures by implementing global standards and engaging stakeholders from all parts of the industry.

More compelling, though, activists across the globe targeted the multinational corporation Unilever for manufacturing palm oil-intensive goods in 2008. Conservation organization Greenpeace spearheaded the campaign, for which members dressed as orangutans flooded Unilever’s London, Rome and Rotterdam headquarters in protest.

Their efforts were successful, too. Not long after the orangutan inundation, Unilever released a statement citing its new plans to draw all its palm oil from “sustainable” sources by 2015.

Whether palm oil production can be truly sustainable is a bigger question for a longer column, but Unilever’s willingness to adjust business practices based on consumer pressure is nonetheless an important change that should not go unnoticed.

What Greenpeace’s protests and Unilever’s resulting action showed us is that multinational corporations are not always the rapacious, exploitative and manipulative entities we sometimes portray them as.

Of course, there will always be some bad apples, but with the right amount of public disapproval, companies cannot afford to keep their ears shut when it comes to consumer preferences.

That being said, I propose it’s time MU took its own stand against palm oil in the form of an institutional boycott, at least to rid us of conventionally harvested palm oil products. The evidence is indisputable: Palm oil is disastrous for our environment. Why, then, shouldn’t we exercise our influence by demanding more sustainable alternatives?

Missouri Students Association senators, student organizations and anyone else who thinks MU has the capacity to further their sustainability initiatives should work to bring the notion of a palm oil-free campus up for serious discussion.

Originally published in The Maneater

Keystone XL and the ugly traverse of energy independence

For the most part, continental energy independence is something we can all agree on. Go ahead, ask around: Chances are you won’t find many North Americans opposed to the prospect of being a self-sufficient continent, capable of meeting its own energy needs without relying on massive imports from the international community.

Its broad appeal is also why energy independence makes such a great political talking point and why both candidates have incorporated some form of it into their campaigns this election season.

Predictably enough, there are disagreements from both sides of the aisle about the best way to achieve said energy independence. Gov. Mitt Romney contends that drastically expanding coal and natural gas production would be the most optimal method, while President Barack Obama holds an “all of the above” approach, proposing to continue fossil fuel production while also investing more in renewable energy sources.

Disregarding the environmentally reckless and repugnant consequences of Romney’s energy policies for the moment (I touched on their rapacious nature a few columns ago), both candidates share one glaring similarity in their respective energy independence platforms: They both support the construction of TransCanada’s Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Though somewhat of a muddled endorsement, President Obama made his willingness to develop Keystone XL clear in March when he expedited construction of its southern leg, transporting oil from Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico. More recently, Obama stated at the first presidential debate, “I’m all for pipelines. I’m all for oil production,” without question, alluding to Keystone XL.

More blunt in his approach, Gov. Romney proudly proclaimed in that same debate, “We’re going to bring in that pipeline from Canada!”

So what exactly is this Keystone XL oil pipeline? Well, in understanding the pipeline, it’s important to note Keystone XL is simply a proposed extension to our current Keystone pipeline, a 2,100 mile stretch of steel and profound human improvidence that transports fossil fuels from the oil sands of northeastern Canada to refineries in Illinois and an oil distribution hub in Oklahoma.

In 2008, TransCanada, the owner and operator of the pipeline, formulated the Keystone XL project, which proposes to add more than 1,100 supplementary miles to the pipeline across the United States.

But since its proposal in 2008, Keystone XL has faced staunch opposition. Enraged protesters flock to any event where the pipeline is mentioned, and there have been lawsuits brought byenvironmental groups and oil refineries, along with criticism from some especially zealous members of Congress. Renowned NASA climatologist James Hansen went as far as to declare the pipeline “game over for the climate.”

Admittedly, environmentalists can sometimes be irrational in their criticisms of energy production methods (e.g. nuclear power); however, in the case of Keystone XL, there is certainly cause for alarm.

Among the multitude of different, equally important environmental concerns regarding Keystone XL, the biggest is probably its proposed route, traversing the Ogallala Aquifer and Nebraska’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills.

Ogallala, one of the world’s largest aquifers, provides drinking water to 82 percent of people within its boundaries and irrigates 27 of the contiguous U.S. The Sand Hills, accordingly, is the largest and most intricate wetland ecosystem in the United States. Now, I don’t know about you, but that sounds like some pretty great oil transportation terrain to me!

But of course, potential spillage is still potential, and there is another crucial variable at stake with Keystone XL that is much more definite: the climate.

By all accounts, the oil we’d be transporting via Keystone XL is extremely low-grade, requiring intensive production measures and resulting in greenhouse gas emissions three times higher than those of conventional oil. Additionally, the completed Keystone XL would carry 900,000 barrels per day into the U.S., digging our nation deeper into its oil-addicted quagmire and sending our planet into a climate-imperiled future more quickly.

Energy independence is something we can all agree on, but it’s important we emphasize our desire for the right kinds of energy (e.g. not fossil fuels). If there’s one thing we can count on this November, though, it’s that no matter who gets elected, our oil addiction and its inevitable repercussions won’t be going away any time soon. For the time being, we can thank TransCanada and its Keystone XL for that.

Originally published in The Maneater

Drinking problem: The case against water fluoridation

Here at MU, our water is fluoridated. Alarming as it should be, this fact is unsurprising when we consider that in the U.S., nearly 75 percent of Americans have access to fluoridated water supplies. Indeed, the acceptance of water fluoridation is rampant and apparently salubrious, supported by more than 100 national and international health groups and cited by the American Public Health Association as having “health and economic” benefits.

All this is despite a profound lack of reliable studies confirming the safety of current water fluoridation methods, growing opposition to the practice in general and the fact that even the Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Professionals’ Union opposes fluoridation entirely, citing it as an “unreasonable risk.”

So, who’s right? Well, if we look closer, it becomes clear that the APHA is being truthful when it claims the “health and economic” benefits of water fluoridation. The real question is: What’s benefitting more, consumer health or industrial economy?

Unfortunately, it’s the latter. The result of the largest survey conducted in the U.S. about the effects of fluoride concluded there was only a tiny difference in tooth decay among children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. In fact, the difference was too small to be considered clinically or even statistically significant. So, there are evidently very little consumer health benefits.

On the other hand, the weight of consumer risk is astounding. There is a mountain of scientific evidence concluding that prolonged exposure to fluoridated drinking water has considerable safety precautions. Among them is an accumulation of fluoride in our bones, resulting in anincreased risk of bone fracture, an accumulation in our pineal gland (possibly lowering the production of very important regulatory hormones), lower fertility rates and even lower IQs.

Not to mention most major dental researchers concede fluoride’s benefits are topical, not systemic, which means fluoridated toothpaste works just fine in preventing cavities. Therefore, fluoridated drinking water is simply unnecessary.

Considering all of this, it’s no wonder most of the developed world rejects public water fluoridation. Dr. Arvid Carlsson, recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, stated he is “quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be cosigned to medical history.”

So as far as scientific evidence goes, consumer health benefits are very minimal while risks remain very large. What about industrial economic benefits?

Well, the main chemical added to water, hexafluorosilicic acid, is actually a byproduct of the fertilizer and aluminum industries, sold to municipalities for water fluoridation and — it’s important to note — is not the pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride used in toothpaste. It is an unpurified, industrial-grade corrosive acid, which has recently been linked to increased levels of lead in the blood of children. Due to its toxicity, this chemical is also pretty expensive to dispose of otherwise and would end up costing the industry something to the tune of $600 million per year. And no, I am not making this up.

So industrialists face a simple budget measure: Pay $600 million every year to properly dispose of a hazardous byproduct or sell it to municipalities willing to inject it into their water supply? Suddenly the picture becomes clearer, and the relationship between the aluminum and fertilizer industries and regulators becomes more questionable.

But I digress: I am no conspiracy theorist. Regardless of an individual’s stance on the safety of fluoridated water, perhaps the strongest case against fluoridation is the same one cited by thevast majority of Western Europe that doesn’t fluoridate their water: It violates the individual’s right to informed consent of medication, a key tenet of medical ethics.

One could argue that if it was even necessary to swallow fluoride, a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide a fluoridated water service company, allowing the quality and dose of the fluoride to be controlled while maintaining the individual’s right to informed consent of medication. Plus, since everyone seems to like fluoride, there’s probably a pretty penny in there.

Nevertheless, for better or for worse (but let’s be honest — it’s for worse), the fluoride flows. I’m of the contention, however, that it won’t be for long.

Originally published in The Maneater

Nuclear energy: It's better than climate change

Every day, the United States alone releases more than 19 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. This fact and the unprecedented danger it poses to society inarguably need to be addressed.

For those who recognize our harrowing environmental circumstance and are compelled to heed to the call of sustainability (as we all should), there are means of action. Low-carbon alternatives to conventional consumer goods are becoming ubiquitous, and there is an incipient cultural shift toward more sustainable lifestyles that will surely play a prominent role in the future.

But we can only go so far in our individual efforts. We must not neglect the need for large-scale, government-run operations to assuage our addiction to fossil fuels. It is for precisely this reason we all must abandon our naive fears of nuclear energy and embrace nuclear power for what it really is: a safe, convenient and efficient source of energy that must be utilized if we are to seriously combat our climate crisis.

In any pragmatic examination of energy policy, there are three key terms that must first be established: baseload, footprint and portfolio.

Gwyneth Cravens, an environmental activist and former New Yorker editor, explains baseload most concisely in her 2007 book, Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy. Cravens describes baseload as “the minimum amount of proven, consistent, around-the-clock power that utilities must supply to meet the demands of their millions of consumers.”

Grid power, the energy required to fuel our growing cities and booming urbanized populations, requires baseload as its foundation. So far in the U.S., baseload comes from fossil fuels (68 percent), renewable energy (13 percent) and nuclear power (19 percent). Wind and solar, however desirable, cannot currently provide baseload power, but future innovations in energy storage could update their potential. Until then, considering hydroelectricity’s myriad inconveniences, nuclear energy proves to be the most viable energy source to meet our baseload needs.

Footprint is the physical efficiency of a given utility. For example, to produce 1,000 megawatts of energy, a wind farm would have to cover 200 square miles, and a solar array would require 50 square miles. In comparison, a nuclear power plant would take up only one-third of a square mile to obtain the same amount of power.

Beyond its spacial capabilities, nuclear waste is miniscule in size. A person’s entire lifetime’s worth of electricity, strictly from nuclear energy, amounts to waste roughly the size of a Coke can. From there, nuclear waste goes into dry cask storage, where it is kept in a small area and is monitored and controlled.

In comparison, a person using strictly coal produces 77 tons of carbon dioxide in a lifetime. It is then released into our planet’s atmosphere, contributing to a climate crisis that threatens our very existence.

Nuclear meltdown incidents are always a possibility but are rare; the safety of nuclear power plants has advanced dramatically since the cases of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In fact, the cause of last year’s Fukushima Daiichi disaster had more to do with negligent geographical placement than anything else.

The last essential term in understanding nuclear energy’s importance is portfolio, which refers to the fact climate change is such a serious matter that we have to do everything, simultaneously, to combat it.

Nuclear energy is no panacea, and it certainly has its risks, but they are miniscule compared to the climate chaos that will ensue if we do not reform our current energy policies. At the very least, we should embrace nuclear energy as a temporary alternative to fossil fuels while the transition to a more renewable-based energy economy is being developed.

In any case, nuclear energy’s undeserved stigma is something that will simply have to evaporate as climate change becomes more readily apparent and accepted. Let’s just hope that by then, it’s not too late.

Originally published in The Maneater

Neoliberalism: Plundering the people, wrecking the world

Neoliberalism. Seldom throughout history has a single word held such drastic ramifications for the people of the world, while remaining relatively unknown and unused by the general population.

Certainly not to be confused with social liberalism — in fact, most people who consider themselves “liberals” in the general sense will find themselves staunchly opposed to the neoliberal doctrine — neoliberalism refers to the prevailing economic policies of the last 30 years, policies that, while providing unprecedented wealth concentrated in the hands of policymakers, have worked to promote social and economic inequality, increase deprivation for the poorest nations, and put the earth on a fast track toward environmental catastrophe.

Originally associated with Reagan and Thatcher, during the past three decades neoliberalism has dominated as the global political economic trend supported by parties on either side of the aisle, forming a “Washington consensus” of sorts. The concept is relatively simple: Laissez-faire liberalism is not enough. Modern economic policy is required to produce truly efficient markets; private interests should be able to control as much of society as possible in order to maximize profits, increase competition and consequently benefit society as a whole. Thus, neoliberalism.

But in reality, neoliberalism benefits a small portion of society. While it is true neoliberal policies generally promote economic growth, it is often to the exclusive benefit of financial institutions and private interests and at the tyrannical expense of the poor, the working class and the environment.

The abjections of the poor and working class in the developing world are documented and understood well enough in our society that they do not warrant extensive reflection. It’s pretty much common knowledge multinational corporations exploit labor in the developing world. Most people I know think this is abhorrent but accept it as “just the way things are.”

There’s some truth in that. These uncivilized practices are simply the byproduct of our neoliberal political economic system, a system that places profit on a pedestal and regulations on the curb.

It’s important to note how this systemically impedes any environmental progress. 

According to neoliberal theory, since profit-making is the essence of democracy, any governmental procedure that limits markets is undemocratic and must be done away with. Armed with this backward logic, private interests are thus rationalized when they fight to end environmental regulation. That trashes our world all in the name of profit, lest the government intervenes and behaves “undemocratically.”

Deeply embedded in neoliberalism, this perverse understanding of democracy is especially troubling when one sees Americans are beginning to wake up from their environmental apathy. The numbers are rising: Poll after poll shows Americans are realizing our environment is in bad shape, man-made global warming is largely the cause and carbon emissions should be regulated by the federal government.

The people have spoken.

And what’s more still, earlier this week, climate scientists at Manchester’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research released commentary about the issue of climate change aversion within our orthodox political economic paradigm. The researchers concluded avoiding climate chaos in our lifetimes is “wildly unlikely” as long as economic growth is valued above all else as the essence of neoliberal political economic policy.

Taking all this into account, anyone concerned about the current state of our environment and the direction in which it’s headed should first understand the fundamental paradigm that our economy operates within, and how substantial environmental legislation isn’t going to be enacted while such systemic inefficiencies stand in the way.

In the fight for a sustainable future, we must not forget private interests are not accountable to the public like the government is. We as citizens, through direct action or otherwise, have to fight to bring the faults of neoliberalism into public debate and address these central problems facing our environment and our nation.

Originally printed in The Maneater

Evaluating Obama, Romney environmental policy

On the night of Nov. 6, when we are all glued to our televisions and computers, waiting for the election results, we will not only be deciding our next president, but also the environmental policies that could make or break the future of our species. 

 And while it’s true that we must make sure to cast an informed vote this November, especially during such a feverishly partisan election season, we must also take into account that political rhetoric isn’t the only thing heating up. 16 of the last 17 years have been the hottest on record, July was the hottest month in recorded history, and there is consensus among the scientific community that man-made global warming is well underway. What’s more alarming, the early signs of a changing climate are becoming more observable as well. Remember this summer’s devastating drought, hellish wildfires and general upsurge in severe weather? The vast majority of climate scientists agree: This is what climate change looks like. This year’s anomalous weather provides us with a preview of what the rest of our lives will be like unless significant policy to combat global warming is enacted very, very soon. 

As youth, this understanding should raise some glaring red flags in our politically active minds. And rightfully so: It’s imperative that we factor each candidate’s environmental policy into our vote this November, and it’s only just that we vote accordingly for the candidate whose policies would best protect our environment and in truth, our future. 

 And so, let us first consider our current administration. With regards to fossil fuels, under President Obama, domestic oil and gas production has reached their highest level in eight years, imports have fallen to lowest levels since 1996 and safety standards for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico have been raised substantially.

 President Obama has also called on Congress to end oil subsidies and increase clean energy investments; started the Better Buildings Initiative (which will make commercial facilities 20 percent more efficient by 2020); and established new standards for automobiles to achieve an average fuel economy rating of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. 

 No less, in this year’s State of the Union, President Obama announced that he “will not walk away from the promise of clean energy,” and so far, his statement holds true: Obama’s policies have ushered in an unprecedented amount of green jobs, evolving a previously underdeveloped sector into one of which over 3 million Americans are employed. 

But enough about Obama, let’s try to get a grasp on Romney. Mitt Romney’s environmental platform consists of a plan to accelerate oil-drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and public lands in general, toward which he holds a clumsy and eerily ambiguous stance. A Romney presidency would also increase federal subsidization of the fossil fuel industry, cut funding for renewable energy sources and end federal loan programs that help companies develop more efficient automobiles. 

It doesn’t take an environmental scientist to recognize how abhorrent these environmental views are, but what are we to expect from ol’ Willard? His presidential campaign has received $2.3 million dollars so far from the oil and gas industry, along with oil magnates Charles and David Koch having pledged $60 million in untraceable Super PAC donations. You’d probably support policies in your plutocratic donors’ interests as well, assuming you’re as susceptible to the scent of cash as most politicians today.

This is not to paint Obama as some squeaky-clean politician though, as his campaign has also accepted donations from the fossil fuel industry, however at a much smaller amount, to the tune of $722,000. 

But above all else, President Obama’s environmental policy bears one huge advantage to all rational minded voters: It is rooted in logic. Obama understands the fact that climate change is underway due to our overproduction of greenhouse gases, and he plans to invest in more clean and efficient means of energy. Romney, on the other hand, rejects this notion entirely and the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports it. 

To some of the environmentally conscious among us though, the Obama administration’s efforts to combat global warming have not done nearly enough, and that is true to some extent. Obama’s policies are certainly not acting swiftly or aggressively enough as some climate scientists say is necessary to avoid the dangerous effects of global warming. 

 However, due to our political system and the duopoly it enables, we are provided with only two viable parties, and thus two viable candidates. Having said that, by now the choice is clear: A vote for Mitt Romney this November is a vote for unprecedented, rapacious environmental destruction. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for a future plagued by the worst-case scenarios of climate change. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote against our generation and the planet we will inherit. A Romney presidency is something no environmentally-conscious student should support. Of course, though, the choice is yours.

--

Special thanks to Rebecca Leber over at Grist as well for her awesome post "How Obama and Romney compare on green issues", which I borrowed a lot of my links from. The main substance of this post was published in my column in today's Maneater as well, but in a more edited/condensed form which you can read here if you'd like.
Don't hesitate to share your thoughts, especially if you're a youngin as well -- we need to get more climate change networking/mobilizing going for our future's sake!

Cap and trade foolishly, systemically undervalues nature

Well, my column on cap and trade was published today. It's a bit condensed and in some places oversimplified, but the basic argument is there. Anyway, check it out and please don't hesitate to share your thoughts! By the way, in case anyone is wondering, I support stricter carbon emissions regulations similar to the 'cap', as opposed to cap and trade.

--

We are running out of time — greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere due to our unprecedented burning of fossil fuels, securing global warming in the short term and theprospect of irreversible climate change in the long term. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that our planet is in trouble, we are living unsustainably and we must change our ways soon, unless humans want to go the way of the Dodo.

And yet, despite living in such environmentally crucial times with every day more critical than the last, there is little our leaders can agree on. In Congress, for example, legislation promoting more stringent carbon emissions regulations is consistently beaten down due to our political system, largely funded by – and thus beholden to – the fossil fuel industry.

And even more alarming is the defining sentiment to emerge from this summer’s 20th annual United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20. Conservation organizations were unanimous in their outrage that no sufficient progress toward sustainable development has been made since the conference started 20 years earlier. This trend of inaction will continue at least until the devastating and, by then, irreversible effects of global warming are realized, or as long as certain powers remain in control.

That said, let us take some time to consider these powers, along with their proposed plan to solve our ongoing climate crisis: a policy called cap and trade.

Cap and trade is best understood in two main parts. First is the “cap,” wherein government regulators set a yearly limit on the amount of carbon emissions companies are allowed to release into the atmosphere. Companies that exceed this limit face hefty fines, while companies that release carbon emissions under the limit (investing in renewable energy or otherwise reducing their emissions) are rewarded with government subsidies. The cap will decrease every year until we eventually reach a safe and ideal level of carbon emissions.

This first step probably sounds pretty good, and that’s because it is – I am strongly in favor of the “cap” portion of cap and trade. The real problem lies in the second part.

The trading aspect involves those aforementioned government subsidies. Subsidies are rewarded to companies that release less than the yearly carbon limit, in the form of tradable credits called carbon credits. Companies that receive carbon credits will be able to sell them via a multi-trillion dollar market in which companies that wish to continue polluting will be required to purchase credits, unless they’d rather pay heavy fines.

The whole idea is to solve the climate crises and build our economy at the same time by implementing a market system that gives companies incentives to innovate and reduce carbon emissions. In theory, the policy sounds like a reasonable way to address our environment. However, when we take a closer look and put our current crisis in an evolutionary context, cap and trade appears to be not only an unnecessarily complex, potentially inefficient solution, but also a policy that undermines our species’ fundamental coexistence with nature and our finite biosphere.

At the heart of cap and trade is a concept called natural capital, which is essentially the practice of putting a price tag on nature by means of protecting it. A questionable notion, it’s what led scientists to determine the worldwide value of insect pollination, mainly bees, at $217 billion in 2008 in an effort to measure the economic vulnerability of pollinator decline.

But by establishing the overall value of a natural process, an invaluable process, we are effectively placing ourselves above nature. Let’s get one thing straight: We, as humans, are not above nature. We are a part of nature. We seem to have forgotten this, trashing our planet and taking it for granted since the dawn of industrialization.

Global warming is an extremely important issue that must be addressed, but we cannot undermine the truly priceless role of nature in the process. Cap and trade policies are seemingly well-intentioned and might, troublingly enough, prove to be the most practical approach to addressing our endangered climate. However, if we were to put a value on any kind of natural process, the price tag should always be infinite.

Because if we fall victim to a inefficient cap and trade system (or if we continue on our track of simple inaction), and our species suffers, eventually succumbing to the grip of a preventable environmental catastrophe, our only certain future will be as another layer in Earth’s fossil record. As always, though, nature will endure.

Originally printed in The Maneater

Organic food: good intentions, bad pragmatism

Earlier this week, a meta-analysis released by Stanford University concluded that organic foods are not any more nutritious than conventionally grown ones. The study, which combined data from 237 different research projects, got a lot of press coverage, and most people probably interpreted the findings as a hard case against spending a couple extra bucks at the store for organic foods.

Indeed, the report does seem to raise a glaring question: Why should a consumer buy more expensive organic foods when they are not any more nutritious than conventionally grown ones? Well, the first step in answering this question is to deconstruct the widely held notion that organic is somehow centered on the concept of making food more nutritious.

Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University, sums up organics accurately and with considerable concision, saying on Food Politics, "Organics is about production methods free of certain chemical pesticides, herbicides, irradiation, GMOs, and sewage sludge in crops, and antibiotics and hormones in animals."

And, shockingly enough, as the authors of the Stanford study conclude, “Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” So, it seems that there is really no viable reason not to lean toward an organic diet, unless consumers want to expose themselves to potentially harmful production practices just to save a few extra bucks at the store.

To really identify with the organic food movement and the quasi-altruistic/environmental label it’s associated with, people should not stop at organics in their quest for a more environmentally healthy lifestyle. We should realize the complex and harrowing issue of organic foods: the fact that our planet’s population will reach 9 billion by mid-century and that our environment is becoming increasingly unsustainable to traditional – no less organic – forms of agriculture. In some way or another, we will have to adapt to these changes.

And, after analyzing the conditions of this scenario, there seem to be only two distinct ways to adapt to our future food crisis: 1) address the food, or 2) address the environment.

Addressing our planet’s food supply is probably the lesser of the two options in terms of general popularity, as the thought of pesticides and bioengineered crops is typically held with contempt. However, even some passionate environmentalists think that bioengineered crops may well be our best bet for avoiding a global food crisis within the next century.

Stewart Brand, a well-known writer and long-time environmental activist, came out with his endorsement of bioengineered crops in 2009, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. And while there are some parts of Brand’s overall argument I take issue with, his assertion that bioengineered crops will become necessary to support a surging population on a warming planet is something I stand in confident solidarity with.

However, there is no question we would all rather keep our food supply natural, untouched by bioengineering at any level. The undesirable future practice of bioengineered food is something that can be prevented if we demonstrate support for substantial policy to combat global warming as soon as possible.

So, is shopping organic helpful in voicing our support for more sustainable practices? Yes, but we shouldn’t stop there. If we really care about our food supply and the production methods associated with it, we should also be inclined to get involved with student groups aimed at developing sustainable practices and follow certain lifestyle guidelines to reduce waste and fossil fuel dependency.

The organic food movement is one with good intentions, but it is not a pragmatic long-term solution to our evolving food crisis. Pesticides, herbicides and GMOs will only become more necessary as our planet heats up and our food supply becomes even more vulnerable. If we are worried about the current state of conventional agriculture, it’s only right we look forward and inform ourselves of the dangers of global warming as well, no doubt ushering in a future era of near-ubiquitous conventional production methods.

Originally printed in The Maneater