It’s that time of the semester again: midterms week. If you’re feeling overwhelmed by exams, essays, and/or p-sets, we hope that a bit of happy environmental news will help lift your spirits.
Jane Goodall has hope for the future: Primatologist Jane Goodall, best known as the world expert on chimpanzees, recently released a book with Douglas Abrams titled “The Book of Hope: A Survival Guide for Trying Times.” In it, she argues why hope is a “crucial survival trait,” and offers inspiring stories of human intellect and environmental resilience. Since it’s so easy to become jaded or apathetic around environmental issues, Goodall shares an important message to reignite hope and foster an ethos of sustainability.
2. Protected Peruvian crops potentially facilitate climate adaptation: The Marcapata Ccollana preserve in the Andes is the home of a Quechua-speaking Indigenous community that has preserved ancient ways of farming over 100 varieties of root vegetables. The government of Peru has recently declared this region a protected agrobiodiversity zone. This status protects food security because agricultural biodiversity is necessary for climate change adaptation.
3. Startup makes edible protein flour using bacteria: A Finnish Startup named Solar Foods has developed a process for growing protein in a bioreactor using only water, carbon dioxide, nutrients, and bacteria for fermentation. The resulting product is a white, tasteless flour that can be flavored or added to many different foods to increase the nutritional value. If production scales up to economically practical quantities, we could experience a reinvention of protein for mass consumption.
Thanks for reading and best of luck during midterms, everyone! Please tune in next week for more positive environmental news and in the meantime, feel free to take a look at previous posts or share some good news with us!
Happy October everyone, and welcome to another edition of Good News Friday! Today, we’re covering the decline of the Scottish oil industry, international climate change litigation, and greener building codes in California.
Scotland reassesses its oil industry: After pressure was successfully placed on the British government this year to revisit offshore oil field licenses, Scotland has faced a reckoning over the future of its oil industry. Previously a booming business, North Sea oil outputs have been on the decline for the last several years and stand in opposition to British climate goals. As a result, attention has increasingly been paid to offshore wind, which is well-suited to the region and could replace the economic loss caused by the decline of oil.
Image Credit: Jan-Rune Smenes Reite via pexels.com
2. Wave of climate litigation expected: After a Dutch court ruled in May that Royal Dutch Shell must cut its emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, activists are hopeful that further litigation against pollution corporations can help pick up the slack left by weak environmental regulations. With that in mind, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) recently launched its #SeeYouInCourt campaign. To date, the campaign has seen multiple NGOs and human rights organizations file lawsuits against major polluting companies, which often bear the biggest responsibility for climate change.
3. California announces greener building codes: After California made headlines in 2018 by establishing a mandate for rooftop solar on all new residential construction, the state is back at it again with new laws to reduce energy consumption. The California Energy Commission recently approved new codes that encourage electrification, the use of more efficient appliances, and less energy-intensive heating and cooling systems in new homes and some businesses. Given that “fossil-fuel combustion attributed to residential and commercial buildings accounts for roughly 29 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions” (C2ES) and approximately 12% of the U.S. population lives in California, these new regulations could have a serious impact on carbon emissions.
That’s all for this week! Until next time, and feel free to contact us if you have any positive environmental news you would like to contribute!
Welcome to another edition of our Good News Fridays series! Today we are looking at environmental aspects of the upcoming federal budget reconciliation bill, a new way to store electricity generated by solar power, and a study on mitigating the impact of oil palm forests.
House committee approves environmental provisions: The federal House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Monday voted to advance several aspects of the upcoming reconciliation bill, including provisions related to air pollution, hazardous materials, and water. These provisions contain a fee on methane emissions and funding for lead pipe replacement, a green bank, Superfund cleanup and environmental justice grants.
2.Companies to test electric vehicle batteries for solar storage: OCI Solar Power, CPS Energy, and Hyundai Motor Group signed an agreement to test recycled electric vehicle (EV) batteries for solar energy storage. The goal is to have a trial energy storage system installed by September 2022. EV sales and solar power installations have steadily grown over the last decade, priming this initiative to help combat the future problem of what to do with increasing numbers of EV batteries as they reach the end of their lifecycle.
3. Making oil palm plantations more sustainable: A new study targeting the environmental impact of palm oil plantations found that intercropping—growing two or more crops in close proximity—can reduce the environmental degradation caused by oil palm farming without impacting palm oil yield. This study is impactful because it confronts the common belief among some palm oil farmers that monocultures are essential to maximize crop output, paving the way for a new, more sustainable way of doing business.
That’s all for this week! We hope to see you again next Friday, and feel free to contact us if you have any positive environmental news to share in the meantime!
To be frank, I began my work with the Plant Conservation Team at NYC Parks this summer with floor-low expectations about the City’s vegetation. This was my first experience in conservation work, and New York City seemed quite the unlikely focus for biodiversity preservation. America’s largest city, and the epitome of urban life, I’d always carried the impression that such a place would be ‘biologically sterile.’ Situated on poisoned soils and polluted waterways, NYC had to be a lost cause for nature. But I was wrong. I just didn’t have the eyes to see it yet.
Do you remember anything of the wilderness you pass on the side of the road? The scenes of a stroll through Brooklyn’s Prospect Park? Hiking at Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx? For me, I only saw green, and I only remembered green. That’s just how it always went. I was plant blind.
“Plant blindness” is pervasive in our culture. Save for botanists and other plant experts, we don’t really notice vegetation. We don’t distinguish between plants as individuals, and we fail to remember them afterwards.
But, imagine you learn the language of the trees, the shrubs and bushes, the grasses and sedges. You hop on the Northeast Regional Train and head up to NYC for the weekend to explore vegetation in the City’s natural areas. What do you expect to find? A lack of biodiversity or a lot? Widespread foreign monocultures, or persevering populations of native growers?
This summer, I learned to see the worst of plant invasions and the best of native resilience. One conservation site is now infested with a species originally imported for horticulture. The same few agricultural weeds dominate habitats across the five boroughs, and one sensitive species was squeezed out to extinction. But, beneath it all, there are plants that have grown here since time immemorial. And while there are indeed some native populations that thrive, many species tell the story of rebellion. Ten slick, fragrant herbs that poke between the grasses. Three short, spiky golden flowers growing defiantly in the shadows of a million foreign giants. One majestic lily that finally gets the chance to flower.
Plant blindness is a bidirectional buffer. We can’t understand the extent of ecological degradation in an ocean of green. Nor can we appreciate the extent of natural perseverance when it’s hidden in plain sight. In overcoming plant blindness, I have developed a new understanding of urban biodiversity. A new set of expectations; a new brand of optimism. It is not a battle of a million versus one––a million invasives closing in on a final plant rebel. Rather, conservation is the hope that one can grow into a million. Don’t give up yet on New York City.
A photo of me helping manage a native population of mint at a conservation site in Staten Island.
Sea-level rise is a local phenomenon just as much as it is a global one. While melting ice sheets, mountain glaciers, and the expansion of the oceans all have far-reaching impacts, every coastline will experience sea-level rise differently. I focused my senior independent work for the Department of Geosciences on the effects of sea-level rise in one location in particular: the Chesapeake Bay.
In my senior thesis, titled Sea-Level Rise on the Eastern Shore of Maryland: Vulnerability, Adaptation, Environmental Justice, I analyzed sea level rise data in Cambridge, Maryland, and conducted a survey to understand residents’ experience with rising sea-levels and their adaptation preferences. I chose to study the Eastern Shore because it is an area close to my own home in Washington, DC. Having visited the Bay many times, I’ve seen the beauty of the environments and the wonderful residents. The Eastern Shore is home to a large African American population, a group that is particularly vulnerable to the effects of sea-level rise because of a lack of access to resources, lack of representation in decision-making circles, and historical discrimination.
Map of the Chesapeake Bay with Percentage of African American Population by County; The highlighted counties (Talbot, Dorchester, Wicomico, Somerset) are the counties that I will be focusing on in this study. Adapted from the United States Census Bureau 2010
Sea Level Rise Analysis
From an analysis of local sea-level projections until 2100, I found that the sea level may increase by an average value of 88 cm, relative to mean sea level in 2000, if global temperatures rise 2˚C by the end of the century. If global temperatures rise by 5˚C, then the average sea levels may rise by an average of over 140 cm. Additionally, there is around a 36% probability that sea levels will rise by 1 meter or more in a 2˚C scenario and about 75% probability of this in a 5˚C scenario.
For some historical context, Hurricane Isabel made landfall in Maryland on September 19th, 2003 and caused water levels to rise to 1.26 m. This event flooded almost half of Dorchester County, cut off power to 1.4 million Maryland residents, injured 200 people, and even killed 1 person. The current frequency of a 1.26 m water level rise occurring is 1 in 286 years. By 2100, we will see these events amplified by 2000 in a 2˚C warming scenario with 7 events per year, and amplified by over 8500 in a 5˚C warming scenario, with 30 events per year.
Survey of Residents
In my survey, I asked if residents would support a seawall, a barrier parallel to the shoreline which defends the coast against sea-level hazards, or would rather a relocation program such as managed retreat. The majority of residents supported a seawall, but had mixed feelings towards relocation, with a most opposed to leaving their homes. Community preservation was a big explanation for supporting seawalls, which many saw as a plausible solution when used with other techniques. Some saw managed retreat as the best option while others saw it as a last resort. Others believed that by relocating their homes, their land would be given to more wealthy individuals, which made them unwilling to move. Residents gave many reasons for taking different positions on adaptation efforts, yet many of them are rarely heard by the groups that make decisions. When the voices of the community are not heard, the people that need the most help could actually end up being more hurt than helped by adaptation efforts.
The bar chart demonstrates the survey respondents’ answers (Yes, Maybe, No) to 1) Whether or not they would participate in a government-sponsored voluntary buyout of flood-prone property, and 2) Whether or not they would support the construction of a seawall along the coast.
It is important to remember: How we take action is equally important to or even more important than taking action. The people who make adaptation decisions should change how they operate to accommodate these communities. This could mean increasing the transparency in decision-making process, increasing the consideration of social injustices in long-term adaptation planning, and engaging in participatory planning. Improving these practices can help to decrease the environmental injustices present in the Chesapeake Bay, but we shouldn’t stop there. These practices should be implemented beyond the Chesapeake Bay in order to pursue environmental justice on a global scale.
As an ending to this environmental justice series for the semester, it is important that we shine light on the positive things being done and how you all can continue with this forward momentum. Although the history of environmental injustices is grim and its toll on low-income/minority communities has proved detrimental, we can continue showing up for these communities and making a difference. All around the country and world, there will continue to be people in need of our help so that they can be provided with the contaminant-free water, non-toxic air, and clean natural environment that they deserve. One’s socioeconomic status or race should not factor into whether or not they are afforded a clean environment. It should neither impact the decisions of whether large corporations find it admissible to put certain communities in danger. As a collective, we have the privilege of being in a position to mitigate the effects of past environmental injustices and prevent future instances from occurring.
One particular way that students and community members can use their voices to speak out against environmental injustices is to contact their state representatives. States like Arizona, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and plenty more have environmental justice committees that focus on not only the preservation of natural resources but also its outstanding impact on particular communities in the state. By reaching out to representatives and asking questions, we can all become more knowledgeable about the efforts being made and the laws being enacted to help disproportionately disadvantaged communities. Through actions such as cold-calling, sending emails, holding protests, etc. we can make a substantial difference if enough pressure is applied to get some of these proposals approved by the committees. Through these actions and partnering with grassroots organizations with common goals, the Princeton community can do its part and embody the values that make this campus so special. Through service and advocacy, we have already been able to push forward many really important sustainability initiatives, and I am confident we will continue to make positive contributions to surrounding and distanced communities.
To give tangible examples, in the state of New Jersey, there are numerous grassroots organizations and departments such as the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, Clean Water Action, and the Clean Air Council. They all focus on unique aspects of the environmental justice movement to help impact the water quality, air quality, and the quality of life in areas around the state. Many students can get in touch with these organizations to see what ways that can help, whether that be attending cleanup events, cold-calling for increased funding for projects, or simply spreading awareness to other students through social media. There are so many ways we can help out so I hope that everyone leaves this environmental justice series with more knowledge and an eagerness to help in any way that is best for you!
Welcome to our final edition of Good News Friday for the 2020-2021 school year! This series has been fun and insightful to make, and we hope to continue it in the fall. Today we are covering renewed American efforts to reduce methane emissions, an innovative way to limit excess nitrogen pollution in water, and Belgium’s recent commitment to confronting global deforestation.
U.S. Senate reinstates methane leak rules: On Wednesday, the Senate voted to effectively reinstate (by rolling back a Trump administration rule) an Obama-era regulation designed to regulate methane emissions from oil and gas well leaks. Passage of the rule in the House and approval by President Biden are expected next month. The move comes as new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) atmospheric data recently revealed that 2020 saw the largest annual increase in atmospheric methane since measurements began. The United Nations is also expected to release a report next week declaring that targeting methane emissions reductions is essential to mitigating climate change. (As a greenhouse gas, methane has a global warming potential 28 times greater than that of carbon dioxide).
A new way to reduce algal blooms: Harmful algal blooms–overgrowths of toxic algae in water frequently in response to an excess of nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus–can cause illness in humans and aquatic animals alike. Nutrients commonly end up in bodies of water via agricultural runoff, because farmers use nutrient-based fertilizers to grow crops. There are a variety of ways to try and filter out these nutrients from runoff, but a growing field relates to denitrifying bioreactors: namely, bacteria capable of processing nitrogen to remove it from water. A new study has found that filtering runoff through wood chips, which contain nitrogen-processing bacteria, can lead to a 20-40% reduction in the amount of nitrogen in the runoff. The study is promising because accessing wood chips is relatively easy and sustainable, making this a convenient way for farmers to process their runoff and prevent potentially harmful algal blooms.
Belgium bans palm- and soy oil-based biofuels: Belgium’s Minister of Environment and Climate, Zakia Khattabi, recently announced that the country would ban biofuels within its borders made from palm and/or soybean oil by 2022. Denmark, France, and the Netherlands have all made similar announcements. The move signifies Belgium’s first step as part of its membership in the Amsterdam Declaration Partnership, a group of nine European countries which aims for “deforestation-free, sustainable commodities.”
We hope you’ve enjoyed this series! If you have any questions or things you would like to see as part of Good News Friday in the future, please feel free to contact us.
Recycling is often hailed as “the consumer’s solution to climate change,” and companies tout their sustainability focuses, emphasizing “recyclability” and “going green.” In truth, however, recycling is a deeply flawed system, and we are quickly seeing the consequences of its limitations.
Plastics are particularly difficult to recycle and can cause confusion when we ask ourselves “Which bin does this go in?” One especially confusing aspect is the (in)famous recycling sign. Found on nearly every plastic item, one of the most common sustainability myths is that anything with the recycling sign can be recycled. In this article, we’ll dive into the history of the symbol, what it really means, and why we have to watch out for greenwashing.
The History
In 1970, in response to a design contest for the first Earth Day, college student Gary Anderson designed the Universal Recycling Symbol (URS).
The issue, however, is that in 1988, the US Society of the Plastics Industry developed something called the Resin Identification Code (RIC) system. The purpose of this system was to simplify recycling of plastics for programs across the US by differentiating the different types; each type has to be recycled separately from the others to ensure success. The way they chose to portray this information is by placing a number, 1-7, within a simplified version of the URS, and each number corresponds to a different type of plastic.
Immediately, we see a problem emerging; a system used to identify plastics (which aren’t all recyclable) uses a sign that signifies that something is recyclable.
Meanwhile different variants of the symbol were also developed, with some indicating that something is recyclable, others that the item is made of recycled materials, and still others emerging.
The invention of the RIC system, combined with the development of different variations of the symbol, has today created a complex, confusing knowledge system. What started off as a seemingly simple idea has now been co-opted and actually makes recycling more difficult for American consumers.
So why is this a problem?
The biggest problem is contamination. This occurs when recycling is done incorrectly and can arise from trying to recycle things that are dirty, made from an non recyclable material, or otherwise not sorting things correctly. Contamination is a huge problem in the recycling industry, and it is time consuming and inefficient to sort contaminated bins, so they are often just sent to the landfill as trash.
In addition, even when done correctly, plastic is always downcycled. What this means is that it loses value every time that it is recycled. So, after only 1 or 2 goes, even the most recyclable plastics have to be turned into a final, nonrecyclable product. Thus, the need for virgin plastic isn’t stopped by recycling and is slowed at best.
There is also very little demand for post-consumer materials. Transporting and recycling materials (even when they are not contaminated) is inefficient and costly, so it is often cheaper to just use virgin materials. This is why many types of plastic (think 3-7) are rarely accepted – there is just no monetary incentive to do so. This problem is further emphasized by the fact that the US can no longer ignore our problem and sell waste to other countries.
On an individual level, recycling is also difficult. Companies have caught on that more and more people are looking for sustainable options. However, instead of opting for sustainable practices, many have just turned to greenwashing. This is the concept of using symbols like the color green, plants, or the words “environmentally friendly” on marketing. Now, to determine if something is actually sustainable, consumers have to research and invest time into their purchasing choices. Not everyone is willing to do this, and corporations get away with branding their products as something they aren’t.
Recycling standards also change by location and time, so people must stay up to date and informed to recycle properly. Changes often aren’t communicated broadly or clearly, and this leads to further contamination in our recycling streams.
So what now?
The state of affairs seems gloomy, certainly. But, recycling isn’t a completely moot point. By improving the system we currently have while also developing and working towards something better, we can collectively work towards brighter futures.
The first step is moving away from plastics in general. Decreasing our use will not only reduce how much is sent to be recycled (and later landfilled), but also lower demand. Plastic is made from oil, after all, so it is in our favor to produce as little as possible. Finding alternatives is a big part of this.
On a personal level, find reusable versions of the most common single-use items. Things like utensils, dishware, and cups are some of the most common products made from plastic (and usually aren’t recyclable due to food contamination). On a larger scale, encourage research into alternatives and support legislation that focuses on plastics/recycling to help shift our society away from our plastic reliance.
Once we’ve started to eliminate unnecessary use, paying attention to what we do have to use can help reduce contamination. This requires learning about whether products are actually recyclable and/or sustainable and not falling prey to companies looking to make money. One resource that makes this especially easy as a Princeton student is the Recycling App. Supported by the Office of Sustainability, students can look up most items to determine if and where they can dispose of specific items. Many cities have similar guidelines online, available to residents looking to be informed about the practices in their hometowns.
As consumers, we have a responsibility to learn about what happens to the products we use and to play an active role in improving the system we live in.
Welcome again to another Good News Friday! The semester is coming to a close, and we hope that we’ve been able to brighten your weeks in a small way. For this edition, we will read about an Indigenous victory relating to protecting salmon populations, the new EPA stance against environmental racism, and Elon Musk’s latest and greatest battery farm.
Gitanyow people protect sockeye salmon: While sockeye salmon populations have experienced a dramatic decline in British Columbia (B.C.), populations are still thriving in Gitanyow territory around Meziadin Lake. Unfortunately, B.C.’s free-entry mining system allows any individual or company to stake a claim and mine on any unprotected territory in the province, including private land and Indigenous territory. Thus, The Gitanyow Nation is now taking matters into their own hands and developing protection schemes, following examples set by other First Nations across Canada.
EPA takes stance against environmental racism: While governmental enforcement of pollution violations has dropped drastically in the wake of the pandemic, new EPA head Michael Regan is taking steps to reverse this trend. Regan issued a directive to “infuse equity and environmental justice principles and priorities into all EPA practices, policies, and programs,” calling the EPA to “strengthen enforcement of violations of cornerstone environmental statutes and civil rights laws in communities overburdened by pollution”. This directive is a promising guideline for the EPA to shift away from a legacy of environmental racism to one of environmental justice.
New battery for renewable energy: In 2016, a crazy lightning storm caused power outages in South Australia. In response, Elon Musk and Tesla built an enormous 100 MW battery that powered the entire area. Taking this one step further, Musk and the government of Victoria, Australia are planning to build an even larger 300 MW battery farm. The Victorian Big Battery Megapack will be the largest facility of its kind in the world and will help make renewable energy more accessible and competitive.
We hope you’ve enjoyed the stories this week. Check back next time for more encouraging environmental news. If you’d like to share some Good News with us, please feel free to get in touch!
School district goes solar: Arkansas’ Batesville School District recently installed 1,500 solar panels, enabling the district to produce roughly half of its energy needs from solar power. Batesville schools now join the approximately 7,300 school buildings across the country relying on solar energy. The district’s decision reflects the gradually decreasing cost of solar installation and increases in solar energy capacity, providing hope that more school buildings will soon do the same.
Businesses call for emissions reductions: This week, over 300 businesses executives representing companies with a collective 6 million employees and $3 trillion in annual revenue signed an open letter to President Biden asking for tougher American carbon emissions cuts as part of the Paris Agreement. The letter requests a target of a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases compared to 2005 levels by 2030. When the United States initially joined the Paris Agreement in 2016, the emissions reduction goal set by President Obama was 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. If adopted, this new proposal would constitute a near-doubling of current emissions targets.
Virginia restricts plastic use: Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam recently signed an executive order to reduce plastic waste in his state by phasing out the use of non-reusable plastics at all state institutions, including state agencies and colleges, over the next 120 days. The order also mandates that state institutions craft plans to eliminate all non-medical single-use plastics by 2025. Given that Virginia either burns or sends to the landfill 23 million tons of solid waste each year, this new rule could provide some relief to the state’s infrastructure while being significantly more sustainable.
That’s all for this week! We hope to see you again next Friday, and contact us if you have any positive environmental news to share!
