after a u.s. consumer product safety commissioner proposed a ban on future gas stoves earlier this year, he sparked a national debate. but what’s behind this uproar? new studies have found that gas emissions from stoves may harm our health. however, years of advertising have led many to believe that cooking with gas is the best way to create delicious meals.

kaila nichols spoke to a chicago chef about his take on the issue, as well as daniel cohan, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at rice university, on how the gas stove became such a cultural staple and the reasons why controversy has erupted around the appliance’s environmental impacts .

this film was created with the goal of inspiring nuance in whatever stance you take on animals in the captivity of zoos & aquariums.

to watch the full short film, please click here.

on oct. 11, the pork industry trade group argued that california’s incoming regulations would unfairly burden pork producers across the country by requiring them to meet california’s animal welfare standards, which would impose an undue limitation on interstate commerce. california, on the other hand, defended its regulation as a legitimate, in-state issue. because farm animals in the u.s. do not have a universal right to welfare, these arguments turn on whether a state’s individual morals can justify a restriction on interstate commerce, rather than the wellbeing of the pigs. 

proposition 12 was enacted in 2018 after 62% of californians voted in favor of banning the sale of pork from breeding pigs, or a breeding pig’s offspring, where the sow is confined to less than 24 square feet of usable floor space.

“california voters chose to pay higher prices to serve their local interest in refusing to provide a market to products they viewed as morally objectionable and potentially unsafe,” said michael mongan, california’s solicitor-general.

according to the trade group, this regulation constitutes a breach of the dormant commerce clause – a legal doctrine inferred from article i of the constitution. under the doctrine, states may only enact restrictions that discriminate against, or unduly burden, interstate commerce if that effect is incidental and proportional to a legitimate local interest. 

in other words, the purported benefit of the law must outweigh the burden placed on interstate commerce. as consumers of 13% of the nation’s pork market, california’s regulation will significantly impact pork producers across the country. according to the pork industry trade group, animal welfare concerns do not constitute a legitimate local interest to outweigh this.

“proposition 12 violates the commerce clause almost per se because it’s an extraterritorial regulation that conditions pork sales on out-of-state farmers adopting california’s preferred farming methods, for no valid safety reason,” argued timothy bishop, counsel for the trade group. “it burdens interstate commerce for no local benefit.”

his argument that the pigs’ welfare is not a legitimate public interest reflects the fact that animal welfare is not widely protected in the u.s. this sets the u.s. apart from a number of countries – the united kingdom and new zealand are just two examples of countries with national legislation that requires any person responsible for animals to ensure their protection.  

animal sentience is also becoming increasingly accepted around the world. at least 39 countries expressly recognize it in legislation. although often ill-defined, the sentience institute describes it as “the capacity to have positive and negative experiences, usually thought of as happiness and suffering.” france, which recognized animal sentience as early as 1975, paired this with a requirement that animals be kept in conditions that are appropriate to the “biological … requirements of their species.”

in accordance with increasing awareness, numerous countries are moving toward the prohibition of restrictive gestation crates for sows. new zealand, which expressly recognized animal sentience in 2015, is working to phase them out following a 2020 high court decision, which found that they are unlawful under the country’s animal welfare act. 

in the u.s., animal welfare laws are sparse and often state dependent. justice ketanji brown jackson pointed out that the distinction between humanely-raised and inhumanely raised pork is not universally held. “if it were, i would think the market would have already accounted for it everywhere,” she said.

oregon, maine, and illinois are among a number of states that have recognized animals as sentient beings – either explicitly or implicitly. but protections at a federal level are limited. the animal welfare act of 1966, a primary piece of animal protection legislation governing the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, and transport, expressly excludes farm animals from its definition of “animals.” 

nine states have banned the use of gestation crates for breeding pigs, but massachusetts is the only other state to ban the sale of pork raised using them. this law, which was set to take effect in august, has been temporarily blocked by the state’s district court pending the supreme court’s decision.

this lack of animal welfare protection was apparent last month. because there is no clear basis to assume that animal welfare is a legitimate interest across the nation, california’s disagreement with the treatment of pigs in other states is not sufficient to support proposition 12, argued edwin kneedler, counsel for the department of justice.

instead, the arguments focused on whether a state’s values may constitute a “legitimate local interest.” a number of justices seemed concerned about the consequences of finding that they could. they questioned the possibility of a floodgates effect, offering analogies where a state may prohibit the sale of goods produced in other states by workers who do not earn a fair minimum wage, or have access to union membership.

“a lot of policy disputes can be incorporated into laws like yours,” said justice elena kagan. “you could have states doing a wide variety of things through the mechanism of saying ‘unless you comply, you can’t sell goods in our market.’”

these concerns leave substantial uncertainty in this case. unusually, its appearance in the supreme court comes at a preliminary stage. the court must decide whether the pork industry has an arguable case under the dormant commerce clause. if so, they will send it back to lower courts for a fuller exploration, an outcome which seems likely, based on the number of questions from the bench.

this article was originally published on medill news service, a project of northwestern university.

even though every major democratic candidate has told their base that climate change is a serious threat to not only the united states but the entire planet, they each have their unique take on how to deal with the issue. 

cnn planned a series of back-to-back town halls on climate issues for 10 of the democratic hopefuls, which aired starting at 5 p.m. et, sept. 4, on cnn.

before you watch them live, you can review each town hall participant’s plans to tackle climate change.

joe biden 

despite joe biden being viewed as a figurehead of the obama administration, the former vice president has pushed for more aggressive legislation to deal with climate than barack obama ever did, and it has gotten him praise from environmental activists. another change from biden’s past is that he now refuses to take any funding from oil, gas, and coal companies — similar to all other democratic candidates. according to inside climate news, biden does have some disagreements to more progressive pieces of legislation. unlike his younger — and perhaps more progressive — democratic colleagues, biden has some hangups when it comes to the green new deal. biden has come out and praised a lot of the legislation, with the exception of universal health care and jobs. biden’s plan is expected to cost around $3.3 trillion for the private sector. the former vice president does believe there should be some enforcement from the federal government to make companies cleaner but hasn’t stated any specifics on how to do that. 

cory booker 

sen. cory booker from new jersey plans to ban actions that he believes are harmful to the planet while strengthening communities and making them more sustainable with more efficient energy. booker plans to put an end to fracking as well as the use of crude oil. the new jersey senator also wants to put heavier taxes on companies that use coal, which will be used to clean up abandoned mines. he plans to help lower-income communities by adding more staff to epa enforcement offices, which also will help create cleaner water sources. companies also will have to do more when it comes to being cleaner, with booker proposing higher standards to clean water and air acts and there will also be an end to subsidies for fossil fuels.

pete buttigieg

even though mayor pete buttigieg is the youngest and most inexperienced candidate in the field, he is quickly becoming a force to be reckoned with, hitting every major qualifier for every debate so far. buttigieg has been pro green new deal and he also has proposed a “climate corps service program.” as mayor of south bend, indiana, he made strides making it more energy-efficient despite indiana being very reliant on coal as an energy source, according to a report from inside climate news. buttigieg’s proposed climate corps plan would “promote equity” and also “confront the climate crisis,” with a goal of helping communities become more sustainable for the future. buttigieg also plans to put a quick end to fracking, and ban fossil fuel development on federal lands, while exploring the use of soil capturing to reduce carbon emissions. 

julian castro 

climate change plays a huge role in one of julian castro’s biggest proposals, which is his “people first housing plan.” as a former secretary of housing in the obama administration, castro has used his strengths to combat the climate crisis. according to inside climate news castro’s plan has a $200 billion fund that would go toward strengthening infrastructure, while also making it more eco-friendly with getting away from sources like coal and oil and using more renewable energy. castro’s plan also will include zoning changes to help with housing, and push citizens to use public transportation in big city areas instead of personal vehicles. when it comes to more rural areas castro plans to create more sustainable farms while strengthening the epa and legislation like the clean water act. 

kamala harris

even though sen. kamala harris is from california, which is a state that takes the climate issue very seriously amongst its voters (according to the public policy institute of california 54% of californians believe the state should be a leader in combating climate change), her plan is not as detailed compared to other candidates.this has left many to wonder where she stands on things like carbon taxes and banning fracking. however, harris does have a strong background fighting for the climate when she was district attorney of california, winning cases against chevron, and more recently she has embraced the green new deal which has stated many times when asked about the issue. 

amy klobuchar

for most of sen. amy klobuchar’s goals, she says that as president she will reinstate multiple eco-friendly pieces of legislation that donald trump has let expire, like the clean power plan-  and aims to strengthen the epa, now controversially run by known climate change denier, scott pruitt. klobuchar also plans to make climate change information more prominent, since president trump has gone so far as to remove the phrase “climate change” from all epa reports and on official government websites. similar to the other democratic candidates klobuchar also plans to re-enter the paris agreement and make the united states a leader in the fight against climate change, citing the big carbon footprint that is being left behind by the federal government. 

beto o’rourke

when it comes to the candidate who almost took ted cruz’s senate seat in the state of texas, beto o’ rourke has a very extensive plan on how to deal with the changing climate, which includes a guarantee that the united states reaches net-zero emissions by 2050 and we would be halfway to that goal by 2030. o’rourke plans to accomplish this by using his executive strength to guard federal lands and not permitting any more leases that have to do with fossil fuels. the official o’rourke campaign site boasts that as president, o’ rourke would have the largest investment ever recorded on dealing with the climate crisis. o’rourke also has stated that he would not be afraid to use his executive power to have america re-enter the paris climate agreement on his first day as president after trump backed out in his first year in office. also, o’rourke plans to use $5 trillion to, in his words, “mobilize” congress to update and strengthen infrastructure to be more prepared for natural disasters. 

bernie sanders 

sen. bernie sanders has been a climate change activist long before the 2016 campaign that made him a household name. one of the unique items in sanders’ plan to combat climate change is the vehicle trade-in program which is similar to something the obama administration put through, but the difference here is the vehicles will be kinder to the environment than the cars given out almost a decade ago. sanders also plans to rebuild public transportation, citing that transportation leads to 29% of all greenhouse gas emissions, it is estimated to cost around $300 million. when it comes to fossil fuels, sanders will require the federal railroad administration to implement new rules in transporting and storing oil to prevent dangerous spills that are harmful to the environment. sanders also believes the united states should rejoin the paris agreement, saying the united states played a huge role in the climate crisis to begin with. but sanders also states that the agreement does not go far enough when it comes to avoiding that negative effects of global warming. 

elizabeth warren 

sen. elizabeth warren’s plan is estimated to be around a $2 trillion investment to fund researching and manufacturing clean energy in america, which would have a planet-wide effect of cutting greenhouse gases by 2030. like every other democratic candidate, warren plans to enter obama-era legislation like the paris agreement on the first day of her administration to have the country become a leader in fighting climate change once again. warren also will have publicly traded companies share how the changing climate affects their operations since, as of right now, most companies share little to no information to the public. warren calls this her “climate risk disclosure” plan. this plan will have companies use fossil fuel emissions to have to put more detailed records on the effects of climate change. warren also is willing to use her control of the u.s. armed forces to fight climate change by becoming more sustainable while being ready to combat the global crisis. warren’s campaign website cites how she was an original green new deal supporter and her proposals on how to combat the climate crisis have been supported by climate crisis activists such as al gore.

andrew yang 

andrew yang, an entrepreneur from california, is not like most of the other 2020 presidential candidates, and that can be seen especially for his plan to combat climate change. he is the only candidate so far to say we physically need to move people residing in coastal areas inland, citing that sea levels in states such as florida will see oceans rising as high as five feet. he also plans a tax on carbon that at some point could climb to $100 a ton. yang also has a timeline for abandoning fossil fuels that includes having all cars have net zero emissions by the year 2030. also, when it comes to transportation, there must be net-zero emissions from all vehicles by 2049. yang also plans to spend almost $500 billion over the next 20 years for “climate-related” projects, with $400 billion of that coming from donations and vouchers in an effort to get rid of oil, gas, and fuel lobbyists — and their influence on the environment.