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 was the situation when i visited the park on the morning of january 4, 2022. during a brief conversation, a park attendant explained the absence of the animals. the weather was warm and the manatees only gathered in the park’s waters when they needed the artificial warmth generated by a nearby power plant. 

the warm conditions of that morning meant the only manatees i saw on that trip were plastic statues. it was disappointing for me as a wildlife photographer on a family vacation to florida –– but i do not begrudge the animals for not making an appearance. they were better off foraging for food while the weather was warm than huddling together in the aquatic equivalent of a climate refugee camp. these animals have suffered through a lot in the last few years and need every day of warm water they can get. 

florida’s starving manatees

the manatee population living along florida’s east coast has been suffering from an “unusual mortality event” or ume since december 2020. the florida fish and wildlife conservation commission (fwc) reported that 1101 manatees died across florida in 2021. for comparison, the fwc reported just 637 manatee fatalities in 2020. the number of manatee fatalities in 2021 jumped 476 deaths over the 5-year average of 625 fatalities a year. according to florida director of the center for biological diversity jaclyn lopez, the manatee deaths witnessed in florida between the beginning of the ume and february 2022 are equivalent to 12-13% of the state’s total manatee population. 

according to lopez and the fwc, the cause of the recent manatee death crisis is the collapse of the seagrass population in warm water areas that manatees in eastern florida use to survive the winter. high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus caused by human water pollution (such as agricultural and suburban waste water runoff) allow naturally occurring algae to grow into harmful algae blooms. these algae blooms block sunlight from passing through the water to the seagrass beds below, devastating the manatee’s main food source. the manatees are then forced to choose between congregating in warm water areas that no longer have enough seagrass to support them or venturing out into areas where the winter water is too cold for them to survive. 

both lopez and the fwc point to indian river lagoon as the epicenter of this crisis. according to lopez, the lagoon is kept at a toasty 68 degrees because of artificial warming created by discharge from a nearby nuclear power plant. it has traditionally been an indispensable wintering area for manatees, but now it no longer has enough seagrass to support the animals who gather there, causing mass starvation and numerous fatalities. 

emergency lettuce for manatees

the united states fish and wildlife service (usfws) and the fwc have responded to the ume with the formation of a joint incident management team with a joint unified command (uc) to coordinate the government’s response. under the framework of this taskforce, federal and state conservation officials have worked together to monitor the situation, keep the public informed, and minimize manatee casualties. the most drastic effort undertaken by the taskforce was a pilot feeding program in which officials would provide manatees with lettuce. according to the fwc, before the feeding program manatees would “completely fast or consume elements with no or little nutritional value, including sand or other debris.” the supplemental feeding trial was implemented in order to “reduce the negative health impacts of prolonged starvation and possibly reduce the numbers of deaths and manatees needing rescue.”

the manatees began to eat the lettuce wildlife officials placed into the water on january 20, 2022. the fwc does not currently have an estimate on the total number of manatees fed by the program. the number of animals visiting the temporary field response station (tfrs) in indian river lagoon, where the feeding was being carried out, varied, with a single-day high of 800 individuals. the feeding program was discontinued on march 31, since most of the manatees dispersed to better feeding grounds as the waters warmed. a scaled down uc is continuing to monitor the area for distressed manatees over the summer.

when asked about the feeding program, lopez called it a “necessary stopgap” and “an essential emergency measure” but argued it was not a viable long term solution. patrick rose, executive director of the save the manatee club, agreed with lopez, saying the program “cannot possibly be relied on for the long term future.” he also called the program “tragically necessary” and said that the need for it was “predictable” given the government’s failure to adequately deal with water quality issues. 

the lawsuits

three conservation groups, the center for biological diversity, defenders of wildlife, and the save the manatee club, have responded to the ume with lawsuits against the usfws and the environmental protection agency (epa).

according to lopez and rose, the conservation groups hope the lawsuit against the usfws will force the agency to update the “critical habitat designation” of florida manatees. critical habitat is defined as the air, land, food, and water essential for the survival of a species. rose explained that the current critical habitat designation for florida manatees was included in the original 1973 endangered species act and that it has not been expanded to keep pace with new science and regulations in the years since that law’s passage. the endangered species act requires federal agencies take into account how their policies impact the critical habitat of endangered and threatened species when crafting policy.

according to lopez and rose, the usfws actually agreed with environmental groups that the critical habitat designation for florida manatees needed to be updated back in 2008. however, the agency has so far not dedicated the needed resources to update the designation. the agency currently has until june 24 to answer the complaint of the conservation groups in court. lopez put the purpose of the lawsuit succinctly, saying, “if we protect manatee habitat, they won’t starve to death.”

according to the save the manatee club, the lawsuit against the epa over its failure to consult with the usfws on water quality standards and its inadequate enforcement of those standards was filed on may 10. 

when asked about the lawsuits, a representative of the usfws said: “the u.s. fish and wildlife service is aware of the litigation, but we do not comment on litigation as a matter of policy.” the agency also said that: “the existing florida manatee critical habitat designation includes the indian river lagoon at the epicenter of the ongoing ume.”

the uncertain future of a florida icon

in the long term, efforts will need to be made to restore water quality and manatee habitats so that these herbivorous marine mammals can thrive without human feeding programs. hopefully these changes are made so that tourists and florida residents alike will be able to enjoy the spectacle of seeing these wonderful creatures in the wild for generations to come.

because of this broad influence, google is considered a global megacorporation, as well as an internet monopoly. amazon and johnson & johnson are other examples of contemporary megacorporations. the concept, while mostly used in science fiction stories, originated in the 1600s with global trading companies such as the dutch east india company and the british east india company. in many ways these conglomerates have become untouchable, they have the power and resources to rise above liability. however in recent years the concepts of corporate responsibility and stakeholder theory have prevailed, forcing companies to be accountable to the public, in addition to shareholders. the influence of the public has implored these corporations to confront and resolve issues such as human rights violations and environmental damage.

the environmental community has learned to be wary of initiatives from large corporations. we’ve been burned before by companies like volkswagen and exxon. like many large corporations, google has made numerous claims about their environmental sustainability and mitigation efforts. in order to determine the validity of these claims, i interviewed a current google employee about this topic, as well as conducting my own research.

podcast transcript:

lily john  0:05  

i’m planet 世界杯欧洲预选赛免费直播 lily john, and recently i’ve taken interest in the issue of corporate social responsibility, specifically at google. the company is ostensibly environmentally conscious, but i wanted to take a more critical look at these claims.

as you listen, please keep in mind that i’m no expert in this field, and this is by no means an exhaustive evaluation. i should also mention that my stepmom, who i’ll be interviewing later in this podcast, has been a google employee for almost four years. she has enjoyed her time there, but found elements of the company’s practices to be in conflict with our family’s strong environmental values. 

today, we’ll be taking a deeper dive into the world of corporate sustainability by way of my research and an interview with a current google employee. to begin, let’s review google’s environmental accomplishments and sustainability goals. their website states, “by organizing information about our planet and making it actionable through technology, we help people make even more positive impact, together.” environmentalism has long been a core value at google. they were the first company to become carbon neutral in 2007, and the first to match all energy use with renewable energy in 2017. this is accomplished through carbon offsets, or investments in carbon sequestration, which help eliminate the company’s carbon legacy. their next moonshot is using 100% carbon free energy in data centers and campuses by 2030. the company has also committed to adopting a circular economy model for its physical products. this means reusing and repurposing products to eliminate waste from their supply chain. google has also committed to being water positive. that is putting more water into the environment than they import for facilities. this is done by restoring and protecting water sources. another more recent aspect of google sustainability initiative is providing tools that encourage individual action. for example, when doing a google search for flights, there will be information about the rate of carbon emissions to inform the consumer of the less impactful option. 

as part of my research, i conducted an interview with my stepmom, erin hoffman-john, who is a current google employee.

hi erin, i’m going to have you begin by introducing yourself and telling us what you’ve done in your time at google.

erin hoffman-john  2:44  

hi, my name is erin hoffman-john, and i’m a senior staff interaction designer for google working in google research now. i previously joined google in 2017. worked on google stadia.

lily john  2:54  

okay, great. thank you. i have been doing research about sustainability at google. there is a fair amount of information of course from the company. they’re pretty transparent with sustainability reports, as well as criticism and commentary from outside parties. what is your general take on sustainability at google?

erin hoffman-john  3:19  

you know, because i come from video games, i don’t have a whole lot to compare it to. so for me, google’s commitment to sustainability seems really remarkable.

lily john  3:26  

are you aware of any criticisms about sustainability from within the company?

erin hoffman-john  3:32  

it’s a huge company. and there’s lots of people with many different perspectives. people pay attention to the external critiques that we hear. and there’s a lot of conversation about the impact of big tech on the environment. and i think it’s, it’s a really tough ethical conversation about “wow much is tech improving our ability to solve problems?” versus “how much is it creating new environmental problems?” there are definitely regular updates on, “here’s how our sustainability policies are evolving” that get, i think, quite a lot of attention. i certainly pay close attention to them.

lily john  4:06  

and do you expect that other companies will follow google’s example? because i know in silicon valley, google is pretty on top of their game in comparison with other companies tn terms of sustainability. do you see that spreading?

erin hoffman-john  4:22  

i would hope so i think to some extent it has because google is so large, it has a lot of advantages that it can push in that domain. and a lot of companies in silicon valley are very small, very scrappy, they’re not really able to do those things. so i think, especially for many rising tech companies, it’s a question of what services can google provide to take on some of that burden?

lily john  4:46 

what would you say is the most promising aspect of the sustainability initiative at google?

erin hoffman-john  4:54  

i think that there were milestones like the 100%, clean energy goals, and the most ambitious of which is definitely the carbon free by 2030, which is, i think, a pretty remarkable statement that speaks to the urgency that people feel for how quickly we need to solve these problems, if we can. i think that the design of some of the new buildings and the way that google was using its sort of real estate footprint to innovate on sustainable technologies, like the dragonscale solar, is really exciting. and i’m hoping that that also spreads.

lily john  5:34  

from your perspective, not working in the sustainability department, what are google employees’ attitudes about sustainability? and how much involvement is there?

erin hoffman-john  5:46  

yeah, i think there’s a wide range. clearly, there are people that are especially passionate about sustainability, even beyond the ones that are just working in that part of the organization, and are constantly asking questions. can we do this? can we reduce waste in the offices? and all of that kind of thing. i do think in general, although it’s a wide range, i hear a lot of concern. i have certainly never heard anybody say it’s not a big deal. and so i think, as it is, in the general population, there are people who feel like they don’t know what to do, and they don’t know what can be done, but they certainly believe that it’s important and want to do what they can. people who work at google are very passionate. it’s a value of the company to challenge the status quo. and sometimes that status quo is the people who run the company so challenging leadership, to work harder and go further.

lily john  6:35 

now that we’ve gotten the inside scoop, let’s move on to criticisms mounted from outside the company. as we all should know, by now, information presented to the public is not always accurate and trustworthy. when companies reach a certain size and value, they become somewhat immune to scrutiny and punishment, thanks to the resources available to protect their image. 

one of the criticisms of google’s sustainability claims is their relationship with total oil, one of the world’s largest oil companies. in this partnership, google provides ai software that interprets subsurface graphs and allows for the most effective extraction process, which has brought profits for the company. fortunately, google has recently committed to sever this partnership and revoke the use of their tools for the sake of the environment. 

another criticism concerns the google pixel four, one of their smartphones released in 2019. this phone includes recycled materials but cannot actually be fully reused, thus removing it from the circular economy model as it creates waste. and like most smartphones, these days, the pixel is replaced by a better model each year, thus encouraging planned obsolescence. 

google data centers also use incredible amounts of energy. surprisingly, the cloud doesn’t actually exist in the sky, but in google’s 23 massive data centers across the globe, a great deal of the energy required for these data centers has transitioned to renewable sources. however, there is still some reliance on fossil fuels. the company maintains its net zero carbon emission status by purchasing carbon offset credits. these credits count as compensation for pollution released by the company’s activities. so essentially, they are making up for their greenhouse gas emissions but not actually eliminating them. but the question remains, what environmental impacts is google or any other company for that matter responsible for fixing or remediating and to what extent? 

one of the biggest roadblocks to the much needed action on climate change is a lack of accountability and responsibility. all in all, i have to say i was pleasantly surprised by my findings. i expected to come across cover ups of environmental scandal or misrepresentation of company efforts as has become the status quo for large corporations. by my amateur evaluation, it seems that google has put a significant amount of resources towards environmental action, which will likely inspire competitors to do the same. 

that being said google is not without its faults and shortcomings in environmental issues. it is essential that corporations are held accountable for the damage they’re doing to the environment. it is becoming increasingly evident that governments cannot be relied upon to make the changes necessary to prevent catastrophic warming and other environmental disasters. i believe that our best and perhaps only option is to target the polluters themselves. they may have the government in their pocket, but not all of us.

––

transcribed by https://otter.ai

image by geralt via pixabay.

music track is “better days” by lakey inspired.

lakey inspired:
https://www.instagram.com/lakeyinspired/
https://open.spotify.com/user/lakeyinspired
https://www.youtube.com/lakeyinspired

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
music provided by rfm: https://youtu.be/xekzwqf3bl8

in june of 2020, the george washington university announced an initiative to eliminate single-use plastics on campus. as the first campus in the district of columbia to implement a policy of this kind, i wanted to dig deeper into the specifics of it. what are the specific logistics of the policy? what challenges has gw encountered implementing it? what do students think of gw’s efforts? after interviewing a director of sustainability at gw and surveying students, i got to the bottom of the story. 

washington — changes to the environmental protection agency’s renewable fuel standard program could lead to wide-ranging economic impacts like increased gas prices and shutdowns of small refineries, experts told lawmakers during a senate environment and public works committee hearing on wednesday.

“if we proceed with a(n) (epa) mandate, we prohibit innovation and alternatives to come forward,” said lucian pugliaresi, president of the energy policy research foundation. “everyone who wants to proceed with these exotic fuels of the future should keep in mind that i don’t believe that the american people will react very positively if we go into a period of sustained, high gasoline prices.”

lawmakers heard from several stakeholders, including members of the biofuel industry and a lawyer who represents small oil refineries, about their experiences with the epa’s rfs program. the rfs, first established in 2005, sets guidelines for the amount of biofuels required to be blended with fossil fuels each year. the epa recently announced new volume requirements for 2020, 2021 and 2022 in december. 

wednesday’s hearing marked the first time since 2016 that the committee re-examined the program — a gap that “speaks to the intricacies of the program,” according to ranking member shelley moore capito, r-w.va.

“the potential fault lines between opponents, supporters and would-be reformers don’t always align between one party or another,” capito said. 

both experts and lawmakers expressed concern about how epa policies might impact fuel costs, particularly in light of american prices hitting their highest level in eight years. emily skor, ceo of growth energy, said challenges toward epa policies have been one cause of higher fuel prices. the d.c. circuit court of appeals’ july 2021 decision to vacate the epa’s policy of year-round sale of e15, a gasoline mixed with ethanol, has been impactful as well, skor said.

“undermining the rfs and delaying the rollout of e15 means increasing gas prices for american consumers,” skor said. “gas prices are driven by the price of crude — not the cost of the rfs.”

pugliaresi disagreed with skor’s interpretation. while crude oil costs are contributing to overall higher fuel prices, he pointed to an analysis indicating that the epa’s rfs policies contribute an additional 30 cents per gallon to gas prices. 

on feb. 7, democratic members of the house biofuels caucus wrote to epa administrator michael regan in support of the updated rfs guidelines proposed in december, including the new volume targets and denial of economic hardship relief for 65 small refineries. 

during wednesday’s hearing, however, senate republicans said they were concerned about these changes, particularly regarding the refineries. 

“this unprecedented and drastic step to propose a blanket denial of outstanding small refinery hardship petitions is especially puzzling as we see increasing gas prices and several small refinery closures around the nation, eliminating good-paying jobs in some of our rural communities as well,” capito said.

some panelists said one solution could be allowing several types of biofuel to compete on the open market, giving consumers a greater number of choices. pugliaresi called for both greater market competition and greater research into biofuels with “substantial long-term public benefits.”

skor echoed pugliaresi’s calls for consumer choice, saying she was disappointed with the d.c. circuit court of appeals’ july 2021 decision, which will pull e15 fuel off the market in june and leave buyers with less options.

“consumers do need choices,” skor said. “they need options at the pump… when it comes to competition, as we all pursue lower-carbon intense energy, that’s very important. and critical to that is making sure that the modeling, the incentives, the performance standards are technology-neutral. in this country, let the best win, right?”

washington – clean hydrogen fuel’s versatility and flexibility makes it foundational to a clean energy transition, experts told lawmakers, including clean hydrogen enthusiast joe manchin, at a senate committee on energy & natural resources hearing thursday. 

“it can provide reliable power and long-duration energy storage to enable resiliency and a renewable grid,” said sunita satyapal, the director of the u.s. department of energy’s hydrogen and fuel cell technologies office. “analysis shows the potential for two to four times more hydrogen demand in the 2040 timeframe.”

hydrogen, the universe’s most abundant element, can be separated from compounds such as water using power sources like renewable energy. this process’ net energy cycle can be low carbon or high carbon depending on how hydrogen is extracted. according to satyapal, resulting fuel can be stored in gas or liquid form and be adept at meeting larger industries’ high energy demands. 

“it can reduce emissions, especially for hard-to-decarbonize sectors like heavy duty transportation,” she told senators. 

despite hydrogen’s opportunities, obstacles remain. while fuel can be derived by extracting hydrogen atoms from water using an electric current in a process called electrolysis, the electricity’s high costs make the alternative — using natural gas — an often preferable low-cost option. 

this, coupled with hydrogen’s high flammability, contributed to senators’ concerns about the fuel. 

“there are many logistical questions that need to be answered as to the use of this technology and how it grows,” said sen. james lankford (r-okla.). 

manchin, who chairs the committee, has opposed reforms curbing the activities of the coal and natural gas industries, which remain foundational to west virginia’s economy. his own family business profits off selling waste coal to high-emission power plants. 

nevertheless, west virginia’s coal production has continued to decline due to decreasing demand and the covid-19 pandemic’s economic consequences, according to data from the u.s. energy information administration. 

unlike renewable energies such as solar and wind, hydrogen fuel still relies on natural gas. this is good news for manchin — and his west virginia constituents in the natural gas sector. 

thursday’s hearing comes after manchin backed away from the biden administration’s build back better plan, leading to several new rounds of hand-wringing and political overtures to placate the democrat. 

but manchin’s support for hydrogen is not singular, as other democrats, as well as republicans alike on the panel expressed support for the clean fuel. 

“it appears that we have bipartisan agreement that hydrogen hubs are something that can point us toward a lower-carbon future,” said sen. bill cassidy (r-la.). 

manchin asked mike graff, who is both the chairman and chief executive officer of industrial gas production company american air liquide holdings, inc., how the u.s. can accelerate hydrogen production.

“there’s got to be a clear role in a public-private partnership with the government to have smart climate policy that incentivizes the need to build the infrastructure to make this occur,” graff said. 

to accelerate progress, brian hlavinka, the director of new energy ventures for williams companies, emphasized pursuing all production methods through a “colorblind approach.”

hydrogen fuel is categorized into “color” categories that describe its carbon emissions. “green hydrogen” — the most climate-friendly option according to experts — is produced by renewable energy, whereas “blue” and “gray” hydrogen use fossil fuels and emit carbon dioxide. 

nevertheless, sen. martin heinrich (d-new mexico) later pointed out that, by around 2030, green hydrogen made from electrolysis will be cheaper overall for companies than the hydrogen made from natural gas that requires subsequent carbon capture. 

clean air task force’s jonathan lewis pushed back. “we need a lot of clean hydrogen quickly,” he said. “our expectation is that hydrogen made from natural gas with carbon capture sequestration is significantly cheaper than green electrolytic processes right now.”

from the paris agreement, in which most developed nations are failing to meet their 2030 emission reduction targets, to the many pledges made at cop26, world leaders have proven themselves excellent at making grand promises only to break them. luckily, we don’t have to accept this approach. the change to a better, more inclusive, more humble dialogue on climate change is not only necessary, but possible. 

as a 17-year-old student accompanying the american conservation coalition at cop26 in glasgow, i had the unique experience of being the least knowledgeable person in the room at almost all times. i got to meet brilliant individuals while seeing firsthand the relationship between policymakers, experts, and constituents. my involvement in acc has given me insight into the often polarizing nature of climate politics and i’ve been encouraged to promote action that doesn’t exclude realistic ideas. while i went to glasgow to represent young conservatives interested in combating climate change, i also learned that this issue requires a new, collective shift in approach from people on all sides and in all sectors.

though historically environmentalism has not always been a partisan issue, the left has typically been most present in the conversation on climate change over the past several decades in the united states. unfortunately, from what i have observed, the approach has generally utilized apocalyptic language, emotions like fear, and grandiose promises, as seen in proposals like the green new deal. while these radical proposals haven’t gone far legislatively, they have brought attention to the issue, especially when it comes to young people. the fridays for future march, attended by greta thunberg, during cop26 perfectly exemplified this, as many young people showed up to express their frustrations, yet marchers offered very little in terms of realistic, achievable solutions. the organization produced a petition, which achieves the necessary task of asking politicians to acknowledge the urgent nature of climate change and the fact that there are solutions, but gives only vague references to what those solutions could look like and no consideration of how they could actually be implemented. 

in recent years, many right leaning politicians and individuals, including myself at one point, have shown hesitancy when it comes to engaging on the issue of climate change for various reasons. fortunately, acc and the creation of the conservative climate caucus show the right starting to again play a role in climate solutions. in typical conservative fashion, the solutions aren’t always as emotionally appealing to young people, but they present market-based solutions which benefit both the environment and the economy. for example, the growing climate solutions act aims to aid farmers and ranchers who may want to participate in voluntary environmental credit markets in order to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. a history of climate change denial also causes justifiable mistrust among some young voters. while realistic solutions and technological innovations are crucial to a thriving global market and planet, from what i’ve observed at cop26 and other events, conservatives lack a public passion for resolving environmental issues, which would likely increase their credibility. 

if both sides are unwilling to change counterproductive tactics, there is no reason to expect change. fortunately, the first-ever global conservative climate summit (gccs) and cop26 marked small but significant changes to our collective approach. while the gccs provided conservatives a space in a conversation which has typically occurred without them, much of the discussion centered efforts toward bipartisanship and highlighted the necessity for inclusivity, regardless of which political party holds more influence over an issue. 

after listening to a variety of speakers, ranging from theresa may, former uk prime minister and leader of the conservative party, to van jones, left-leaning news and political commentator, author, and lawyer, i realized that i was wrong. before cop26, i expected, as i think many young people do, to see the areas in which different parties and ideologies contradict each other on the issue of climate. however, i realized that in some ways the left’s shortcomings are the right’s strengths, and the right’s shortcomings are the strengths of the left. i found that i was the most inspired and informed after listening to panels which included members from both sides. 

similarly, the typical relationship between experts and politicians was challenged during a panel discussion in which representative werani chilenga of malawi spoke on the challenges his country faced in this fight. after expressing an earnest level of concern about impediments to climate policy in malawi, he posed a question to the listeners and asked them for guidance, knowing the audience consisted of many economists and environmental experts. having been an observer of american politics, it was wildly refreshing to see a politician humble enough actually to ask the experts.

these experiences illustrate the need for changes in the dynamic between legislators and environmental scientists and politicians of differing political parties. young people want to be passionately engaged on the subject of climate change. still, we want to know that proposed solutions are realistic and that the commitments agreed upon by our representatives aren’t just performative stunts. if this issue is to be taken seriously, it requires a sincere focus on real, data-driven action. rather than seeking approval or popularity by making false promises, politicians and leaders must seek guidance from climate experts and innovators and let the youth see their genuine efforts. we don’t want to be told everything is ok to salvage our feelings; we want to know real action is being taken and how to participate in that action.

brooklyn brown is the president of the salt lake city branch of the american conservation coalition and a student at clearfield high school. 

dr. luzadis is a professor in the environmental studies department at suny college of environmental science and forestry (esf), and is the founder of heart forward science, a program created to advance sustainable scientific outcomes with the whole-person approach. she also serves on the planet forward advisory council, and is chair of the board of directors of the global council for science and the environment (gcse). 

a huge thanks to dr. luzadis for taking the time to chat with me. it was great to get an inside look at what went on at the conference and from such an interesting perspective. as an educator at a school like esf, dr. luzadis has a unique point of view on these issues (i would guess that most representatives at cop don’t work with youth activists in their day jobs). i hope the solutions and behavior changes recommended by dr. luzadis will be widely heard and implemented. 

podcast transcription:

lily john  0:00  
my name is lily john and i’m a planet 世界杯欧洲预选赛免费直播 at suny-esf. i recently sat down with esf professor dr. valerie luzadis to discuss her experience at this year’s un climate summit. was this your first time attending a cop conference?

dr. valerie luzadis  0:18  
it was this was my first one. yes.

lily john  0:21  
okay, and how did it compare to your expectations?

dr. valerie luzadis  0:25  
well, i didn’t have many going in, i wasn’t really sure exactly what to expect. of course, i know about this work, since it’s critical to sustainability. but this was also the first time that the global council for science and the environment had a delegation. so it was very interesting to work with a group of people from other institutions around the world to come together, and, you know, have a common platform for observing and connecting with one another. so it was a really, overall great experience, and so many ways. i was full time observing the second week, when all the negotiations were happening. and i found that i got very invested along the way, well, following certain threads of language and discussions. and as is typical with negotiations, and with consensus approaches, which is what’s used for the cop meetings, things are a little stronger, earlier, and usually get softened language wise by the end, and that happened, and there’s kind of an emotional ride with that, then it’s like, oh, i really wanted to see this. happen that way. and, and so almost disappointment at moments of that. it really took me a couple of days after the meeting ended to say, okay, remember what this is. it’s consensus. it’s global-level discussions. we have no formal enforcement mechanisms, and then really look at what happened at the meeting. and when i did that, i can say, i think progress was certainly made. and it’s not enough.

lily john  2:04  
yeah, that seems like the consensus. but, the language was softening just in order to reach a compromise, like that was the only way to get people to agree to what was being proposed?

dr. valerie luzadis  2:17  
yes, and it’s an interesting process that they use, because it’s not formal agreement. it’s just agreeing to not block it, right. so at the very end, that’s how the consensus is reached. and so there’s this process where they have these informal stocktaking sessions, and i found those very interesting was where the countries would be able to say, here’s what we want. and here’s what we think should be happening. and by the end, it became “we are not happy with this, this, this, and this, and we are not going to block this.”

lily john  2:52  
i imagine it’s quite complicated to be managing all of these different pieces of input and beginning with what each party won’t agree with. from that perspective, it’s kind of impressive that anything got done. what did the representation outside of government look like? and what was the role of these groups?

dr. valerie luzadis  3:11  
well, the the formal parties and government deal parties are all through the un. and so it’s not a formal representation in terms of the consensus building, that’s only the governments themselves. and so the observers and our ngos, businesses, civil… civil society groups that meet outside of this are there to share their thoughts about how to move things ahead. there’s a whole set of technical advisors who are also there. how do we do what we need to get done?

lily john  3:43  
it’s great that there was so much representation of different groups there. so this year, what were the primary themes of cop?

dr. valerie luzadis  3:51  
the primary themes continued, of course, to be on mitigation, and then adaptation. there was also a big discussion on what they called loss and damage. and that’s because there are already losses and damages related to climate change. and it’s happening in large part to countries and to peoples who are 1. not causing this problem, and 2. don’t have the resources to be able to respond to it. there was also a very big focus on climate finance. and then the final thing was creating what was called “the paris rulebook.” and this was really rules that are needed to implement what was agreed to in paris. so the goals of this particular cop 26, included, trying to secure global net zero by mid century, and keeping to 1.5 degrees within reach of possibility, because right now, we were set toward a greater than two degrees increase global warming before this meeting, and so a lot of the conversation was about what do we need to change what has to be added? how can we get to keeping us to that 1.5 degree limit. there were adaptation conversations around protecting communities and habitats. and then this finance issue was big because the agreements that were made, and paris didn’t come through, i heard at one point that only 20% of what was promised came through. and so there was a lot of attention to that lack of follow through, and the need for what they’re talking about, it’s $100 billion a year mobilized toward helping to deal with climate change. and there were certain countries, developing countries, who really wanted to say developed countries should be paying this. there are 20 countries that produce 80% of the the greenhouse gases. and the two biggest contributors, of course, are the us and china. and so i think this is one of the issues is who’s paying this money in? so when you talk about this climate finance, it’s not just countries, but it’s also private financing.

lily john  6:00  
is that private companies? are they part o f the question?

dr. valerie luzadis  6:04  
this would come from companies who have created some sort of… you might think about it the… so the language that we ended up with at this point was that we would agree to phase out “unabated coal” and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, but “unabated coal” suggests that we need to abate coal. so there are companies that have the technology and ability to be able to do that. and so they become part of the financing activity.

lily john  6:32  
is there a discussion around the big polluter companies making financial contributions?

dr. valerie luzadis  6:38  
this is one of the things that i do know is that within the nationally developed contributions, each country is looking at how they manage the polluters. and so the polluter pays, of course, is one of those techniques that are used.

lily john  6:53  
why do you think that these regulations haven’t been effective?

dr. valerie luzadis  6:57  
coal and fossil fuels have never been called out in one of the climate agreements, and so it wasn’t in the paris agreement. so the fact that this was going to come into play and get put into language in the document was a really big deal. and the beginning, it was to phase out coal, and to phase out subsidies to fossil fuels. and it changed to to phase out unabated coal and inefficient subsidies to fossil fuels. and those situations, it’s at the country level, or even sometimes sub-national level where these things are regulated. and so that’s the question, it’s kind of moving, it gets moved into different scales, where we have a global problem, but now we have to figure out how and at which scales do we need to do which things in order to have a global impact and changing it?

lily john  7:52  
yeah, those systems seem like they’re very well established. and the systems needed to reverse that action and to work together to end burning coal, or whatever else needs to be done. it seems like those systems haven’t really been established because of the lack of agreement.

dr. valerie luzadis  8:11  
yeah, so this is probably one of the most interesting things about this cop for me was was exactly this bigger picture around systems. the youth voice was strong at this cop. and there was not one voice. we also heard indigenous youth speak so clearly, and passionately. and one of the most astounding things i heard was this group, essentially saying, “why are we looking to you who created this problem to fix it? because there’s no incentive for that.” and so what i started to see was a very clear voice set of voices in this process, and a very clear set of voices saying this process is not going to do it. and we need to be doing something else. and the youth voice collectively, and the indigenous voices collectively, i believe, are likely to lead us otherwise,

lily john  9:04  
was there much youth or indigenous involvement in previous cop conferences?

dr. valerie luzadis  9:10  
there was more this time, from my understanding, than most. youth voice in particular was written into this cop in terms of following on with a regular set of activities with the youth groups and indigenous groups as well. the thing that really strikes me i saw on the major panels throughout this, both youth and indigenous people, the indigenous voice one of one of the the messages loud and clear is that indigenous people have knowledge that can help us to resolve these issues, to mitigate and to adapt with climate change. and i did not see any indigenous people invited to share substantive ideas about that. all i heard were indigenous people invited to say, our voices need to be heard. they were also saying we have knowledge that can help. we had science everywhere, on every panel all the time, but not indigenous knowledge with it. and i don’t understand that there’s a relegation of these voices. and that’s hugely problematic.

lily john  10:13  
i recently heard a piece on npr about a group of young indigenous women who had travelled from new zealand and alaska to speak at cop. but their time was cut short and almost eliminated. so it seems like only the first step is being taken with inviting them to be there.

dr. valerie luzadis  10:31  
i would say that’s right. and not only inviting, but inviting into a process that clearly they weren’t part of designing, and in which their approaches and their relationship with time and relationship were not respected. again, that’s hugely problematic. there was a very, very big sense of frustration. and that was really palpable. and not just in the protests, it was palpable in the rooms, it was palpable from different governments, and especially the smaller countries and the small island developing nations. and so it’s a really interesting question of what kind of activity through civil society can take place or will take place that will help us to address this problem. at the same time, we’ve got this formal process, and there was progress made.

lily john  11:19  
overall, would you say you’re leaning toward more towards optimism, or more towards being disappointed by the lack of results?

dr. valerie luzadis  11:28  
i am, by nature, an optimistic person. and i put my energy and my attention on the positive and on the vision of the future that i want to see. i can say, some progress was made. and it was not enough. i like to see the activity of working by consensus, because so much of our world is a violent world. and to see where countries can come together and work by consensus, that’s very important. it’s a non-violent approach to getting us to a non-violent, equitable, sustainable world. and at the same time, it’s not enough for modi to come out and say 2070 for india to be net zero. that’s too late. the ideas on the radar, that’s good. so is that better than not being on the radar? maybe?

lily john  12:17  
yeah, i was curious about india’s announcement, because that was one of the first things i heard out of cop. and i thought it was super exciting. and the landmark dramatic change that we were looking for, but now reading about the reactions and act thinking about where 2070 is… and also it seems like the social justice and the human issues have not really been acknowledged there. so it’s more of something for shock value is kind of how it seems from the outside.

dr. valerie luzadis  12:49  
well, the truth is that politics are at play in this setting. there was a us-china agreement that came out. and that’s actually got a lot to do with why we have the language of unabated coal and inefficient subsidies of fossil fuels, is because of the us-china agreement. is this a good thing? it is because as one of the biggest emitters, china, did not send their leader to this meeting. and so to have an agreement come out during this time was really important.

lily john  13:20  
given everything we’ve discussed, what do you see as being the most effective step in implementing the necessary systemic change?

dr. valerie luzadis  13:29  
i think that one of the things we do is that when we teach only about the intellectual mind, and the analytical aspects of things, and we don’t necessarily teach about heart, and love, and imagination, and intuition, these other parts of us super important. and that’s actually what’s going to weave into that with our intellect, that i think will help us to hold that vision and figure out how to get there. it’s the whole person approach, we need to bring all of ourselves to all that we do for a long time now, we’ve been asked just to bring this part of us just our heads. and that’s not enough, we can see it. and we certainly don’t teach the skills of how to understand intuitive knowledge, where there are skills affiliated with that, that we could learn. it’s different than analytical knowledge. it’s just as important. and so understanding and using these things in tandem, is actually the the education of the future, i believe, but we need to build that skill set and we need to build the community system that’ll allow us to do that.

transcribed by https://otter.ai

washington — environmental experts recommended, in an announcement on nov. 16, that the environmental protection agency allocate more resources on studying the health and environmental impacts of pfas chemicals and prioritize getting information from affected communities in its research on the substances.

in october 2021, the epa released a plan to address pfas contamination, which includes steps to fund research on the chemicals, restrict their presence in the environment and accelerate clean-up efforts. the agency’s office of research and development is developing research strategies to detect and measure pfas in the environment, according to the epa’s plan, but members of the board of scientific counselors federal advisory committee said tuesday it needs to expand its studies.

these “forever chemicals” do not break down in the environment and have been used in many products since the 1940s, including nonstick pans, water resistant coats, food packaging and firefighting foam. according to the centers for disease control and prevention, the chemicals have found their way into the bloodstream of 97% of americans due to their widespread use and durability.

human exposure to the chemicals has been linked to cancer, increased cholesterol levels and other adverse health effects. despite this, they are not considered hazardous substances by the federal government and continue to be used in consumer and industrial products.

there is no federal standard for pfas toxicity levels in the air and water because of lack of research on the chemicals, according to the epa.

radhika fox, assistant administrator of the epa’s office of water, said at a house committee hearing last month that the agency intends to propose a national water drinking standard by next fall and designate certain pfas as hazardous substances by summer 2023.

james stevens, member of the board of scientific counselors executive committee, said at a bosc committee meeting tuesday that the agency needs to ensure its approach prioritizes how exposure to the chemicals impacts the everyday lives of people across the country. stevens said looking at “real-world” exposure data can inform the agency on what compounds are most affecting people, especially residents of communities that have been disproportionately hurt by pfas chemicals and other environmental harms.

human impact data will help states, tribes and local communities to create regulatory policies on the chemicals and methods to protect public health, stevens said.

collecting that data comes in part from talking to the communities exposed to pfas, said monica schoch-spana, member of the bosc homeland security subcommittee. she said the agency needs to do a better job of supporting its scientists and regional offices in their community engagement efforts and create a framework in which communities can share their experiences and findings.

“the importance of both gaining from the benefits of local knowledge and also gaining benefits of having community trust and faith in the research that is transpiring was a critically important thing for the pfas research enterprise,” schoch-spana said.

the committee came to a consensus that the epa also needs to put more focus in its research on the environmental impacts of pfas, which have contaminated water sources, soil and air across the country.

there were few mentions of ecotoxicology, which is the study of the adverse effects of chemicals on the environment, in the documents the epa presented to the committee, according to lucinda johnson, vice chair of the board of scientific counselors executive committee. the research has failed to focus on ecosystem-level impacts, johnson said.

the committee will present its recommendations to the epa next month.

finding ways to regulate the sources of pfas can be difficult because of pushback from the industries that use the chemicals, said michael kleinman, member of the bosc air climate and energy subcommittee. banning the use of the chemicals altogether may not be helpful, he said.

“while these chemicals are extremely useful, there should be a set of best practices to mitigate any contamination after use,” kleinman said. “so not saying you have to not use them, but have practices in place to prevent environmental contamination after use.”

washington — tribal leaders and experts called on lawmakers thursday to invest much more money in tribal climate resilience efforts and elevate indigenous knowledge in climate change decision-making.

indigenous people across the country have lost nearly 99% of their historical lands through forced displacement, which has left them in areas that are more vulnerable to climate change, according to a 2021 study published in the journal science. 

while tribal nations have long been stewards of their land, the climate crisis has forced them to develop new strategies for land and environmental protection based on their traditional knowledge and practices, fawn sharp, vice president of the quinault indian nation and president of the national congress of american indians, told the house select committee on the climate crisis.

tribes need significantly more funding to protect their communities from droughts, floods, fires and more, sharp said. 

“we are chronically underfunded. without the added support of addressing climate change,” sharp said. “we would see our lands, our resources, our territories, even our traditional foods and plants disappear and they’re already disappearing. it would prove to be devastating for indian country.”

without sufficient federal funding for climate resilience and mitigation projects like solar rooftops and methane capture initiatives, sharp said tribes don’t have the resources to understand the scope of the climate crisis on their lands. she also urged lawmakers to establish with indigenous people a federal relocation framework to provide support to communities forced to move because of the effects of climate change, such as rising water levels and drought.

allocating more resources to support small-scale projects would create jobs for indigenous people and tap into the abundance of natural resources on their lands, sharp said. 

most important, though, is that the federal government provide native american communities with direct, long-term funding for climate change adaptation while giving tribes sovereignty over program development, said casey thornbrugh of the mashpee wampanoag tribe and climate change program manager at the united south and eastern tribes inc. 

thornbrugh said tribal leaders need the authority to help shape national climate policy and incorporate native american knowledge and practices into the decision-making process. 

“tribal nations must be afforded the dignity and the means to move to preserve the wellbeing of our nations, as well as our rights to our ancestral places which must be maintained, even if these places become submerged,” thornbrugh said.

in 2010, the national renewable energy laboratory reported that indian country, which makes up 5% of land area in the united states, contains 10% of all energy resources in the country. nrel data shows that many tribal lands are in areas with abundant renewable energy resources, including wind, solar power and biomass.

pilar thomas, former deputy director for the office of indian energy policy and programs at the department of energy, said indian country has an outsized amount of clean energy resources that can be used in climate resilience efforts. effectively using them will require federal investment in tribal climate projects and relevant technology, she said.

acquiring funds is a challenge for many native american communities, thomas said, because the process is too complex. she said there are around 75 federal renewable energy programs across nine agencies that tribes can apply for, which can cause confusion.

thomas said aligning federal programs and consolidating funding sources for climate resiliency projects would help more tribal nations to implement these initiatives within their communities.

“the big opportunity for the administration, as with any administration, is, how do we better coordinate amongst ourselves?” thomas said. “part of that really should start with asking the tribes who are trying to develop projects: what do you need from us, and what can we do from the federal government perspective to support that effort?”