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?”

• 7 ways oil and gas drilling is bad for the environment. why do we need renewable energy, anyway? what’s wrong with the current energy sources we use?

• explaining the exponential growth of renewable energy. why is renewable energy growing so fast? what will happen to renewable energy in the future?

• this startup says it has found a way to cut the cost of making solar cells in half. leap photovoltaic is working on a way to build solar panels without the use of silicon wafers, a hard-to-manufacture component that limits production. this could mean vastly expanding domestic solar production.

• 6 cool renewable energy projects that will shape the future. china’s solar highway, the hornsdale power reserve in south australia, and more.

check back tomorrow for more info on what is being explored at cop26 — and good reads to keep you informed!

however, restaurants are putting climate change on the menu. industry leaders are transitioning their restaurant operations to be more sustainable and climate friendly. here are 5 ways they’re doing it.

renewable energy 

restaurants are converting their spaces into sustainable buildings. azurmendi, a three-michelin-star restaurant in spain and two-time sustainable restaurant award winner, uses solar panels for electricity and uses geothermal energy for indoor climate control. root down, a sustainably focused restaurant in denver, is run entirely on wind power. nomad an ultra-local restaurant in australia operates off of solar energy and is a solar panel host site for the community. 

the shift to renewable energy is not exclusive to high-end restaurants. mcdonald’s opened a new net zero energy restaurant, the first in their fleet of 36,525 locations, in july 2020 in orlando, florida. the new location is a first step in mcdonald’s sustainability goals, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 36% by 2030. 

sustainable sourcing 

the farm-to-table phenomenon that became popular in restaurants over the past few years has been crucial to kick-starting a wave of restaurant sustainability. local, farm-to-table produce emits less carbon, as there is less transportation necessary to deliver it. amber in hong kong, the sustainable restaurant award 2020 winner, specializes in ultra-local, hyper-seasonal selections on their menu. their menu is up to 50% plant-based and they’ve removed all dairy from their dishes.

blue hill, a new york based restaurant, was one of the first to prioritize ultra-local sourcing and foster relationships with the farmers they work with. by seasonally changing menus and sourcing produce and meat products from local, sustainably operated farms, restaurants can greatly reduce their carbon footprints.

recycling

we can all do our part by recycling. we all know the saying: “reduce, reuse, recycle.” restaurants are using recycled paper products, recycled water, and recycled furniture. relae in denmark, winner of the sustainable restaurant award 2019, recycles wherever possible. from reusing empty wine bottles to serve their in-house filtered water, to using recycled furniture and wearing sustainable-fabric aprons, relae works tirelessly to employ sustainability in all aspects of their operations.

founding farmers in washington, d.c., uses recycled materials in a similar way. from recycled paper-composite counter tops, to recycled paper menus and recycled wood furnishings, the restaurant group prioritizes sustainability in all nine of their locations.

circular economy and community involvement 

many restaurants engage in circular economies and community involvement, which helps their communities and involves locals in sustainability efforts. septime in paris sources all of their produce from french farmers, and works with those farmers to save seed varieties and plant species. mil, a restaurant nestled in the andes mountains of peru, fosters close relationships with local communities and the farmers they source from, ensuring that farmers receive 50% of harvest profits. woodberry kitchen, a baltimore restaurant, repurposes oyster shells and returns them to chesapeake bay to regenerate oyster beds. 

zero food print

zero food print is an organization that enables farmers to practice carbon farming. carbon farming is a method that restores soil biology, which then pulls carbon out of the atmosphere, reviving the soil and replenishing nutrients. zero food print restaurants contribute a few cents per meal to helping farmers implement carbon farming through grants from the organization’s restore programs. according to professor rattan lal at ohio state university, “a mere 2% increase in the carbon content of the planet’s soils could offset 100% of all greenhouse gas emissions going into the atmosphere.” 

as restaurants prioritize sustainability, they are supporting local farmers, reducing their impact on the environment, and making an impact on their guests. by continuing to put climate change on the menu, restaurants will be a key player in the fight against climate change. 

walking through stockholm in the early evening, it is nearly impossible to avoid the herds of bikes that come barreling down the roads, traveling in swift fleets each weeknight. rush hour in this city is in stark contrast to rush hour in other cities such as new york and los angeles, as cars drift easily down the street, obstructed by bikers and pedestrians instead of by thousands of other cars. this can be attributed to a multitude of factors, such as sweden’s effective public transportation, swedes’ preference for biking as a more active mode of transportation, or the cost-effective nature of avoiding car ownership. one common goal, however, unites swedes in their quest to avoid fossil fuel-powered vehicles: the desire to diminish carbon emissions. in fact, stockholm plans to be fossil fuel free by 2040.

this goal comes with strong motivation, as reuters reports that in 2018 humans added 33.1 billion tons of carbon into the air, 14% of which came from transportation according to the epa. carbon emissions are responsible for 64% of global climate change, the european commission reports, as they contribute to the greenhouse effect which warms the planet. this means that decreasing the amount of fossil fuels that we burn each year could have an immensely positive impact on the global climate crisis.

stockholm is on track to achieve a maximum of 2.3 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents emitted per resident in 2020, according to a strategy report prepared by the city. reports from the world bank show that in 2016 — the most recent year available — the u.s. produced 15.5 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita, while all of sweden was at just 4.4 tons.

my classmates and i were first introduced to stockholm’s plan to become fossil fuel free by our guide, zennid, on a walking tour around the city. he outlined how the metro system in stockholm is electric and how the public buses run on biofuels. additionally, most car owners power their vehicles with electricity or biofuels. one challenge that he identified was making this work for tourism, as large tour buses and cruise ships that bring people to stockholm are still powered by fossil fuels.

the determination of the swedes to reduce their fossil fuel emissions was tangible in the amount of people biking, walking, and taking the train around the city. i was shocked when another tour guide who showed us around a sustainable living development at the royal seaport told me that she refuses to travel in vehicles powered by fossil fuels. i was shocked by this statement, as completely avoiding fossil fuels has never been something that i could even dream of achieving. to get to the grocery store, school, or the train station from my home in rhode island, it is necessary to drive. this could still be fossil fuel-free with the use of an electric or biofuel-powered vehicle, but the lack of affordable and versatile versions of these cars on the market in the u.s. has left my family with classic gas-guzzling american cars.

so this leaves me with the question: is there a future in which americans can avoid fossil fuels as our tour guide could in stockholm?

electric cars

of course, electric and hybrid vehicles have already reached the u.s., the toyota prius and the tesla model 3 being two prominent varieties. while people can charge these cars at home, charging stations in parking spaces have become noticeably popular in sweden, and their implementation in the u.s. could convince more consumers to go electric. a challenge in implementing electric car culture in the u.s. seems to be the looks of electric cars, as most models, such as the toyota prius and the bmw i3, are smaller, less american looking cars. getting over our obsession with large pickup trucks and suvs may be a major hurdle in this transition. even i have trouble with the idea of my family having only small cars, as american road trip culture gives us the ideal of driving down country roads from state to state in a big comfortable car.

biofuel cars

i had always heard that biofuel technology was not efficient, so i was shocked when i heard about its popularity in stockholm. it turns out that biofuel is less expensive than typical fuel in sweden, as diesel costs 16.08 swedish krona per liter — or $1.83 a liter, as of publication time, which is the equivalent of about $7 per gallon. and biodiesel for a truck costs 14.24 krona ($1.62) per liter.

biodiesel, a popular form of biofuel, is made of hydrogenated vegetable oil (hvo), which according to one hvo company is compatible with all diesel engines and “does not release any new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.” a study published by the proceedings of the national academy of sciences in the u.s. found that “biodiesel yields 93% more” energy than the energy used to manufacture the fuel. moreover, the study found that biofuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 41% when replacing fossil fuels. consumer reports found that using biodiesel works just as well as fossil fuels, but the lack of access to this type of fuel in the u.s. makes it unsuitable for everyday use.

ethanol is another type of biofuel, usually made from corn, that “yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production” and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 12%, according to the national academy of sciences report. in the u.s., a mixture of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol is usually used to fuel cars. the u.s. is the world’s top ethanol producer, but as national geographic reports, this fuel is controversial because of the amount of energy necessary for its manufacture.

next steps for the u.s.

overall, stockholm’s fossil fuel free ambitions were noticeable and inspirational. the government and the residents of stockholm are both taking prominent roles in reducing carbon emissions, and i left stockholm with a new understanding of sustainable transportation. i think that the first step to freeing ourselves from fossil-fuel powered transportation is to make the alternatives more accessible. if we can make these alternatives normal, hopefully their economic and environmental advantages will encourage americans to follow in the footsteps of the swedes.

they thank us and we slip back into the crowd of protestors chanting in the shadow of the madison gas and electric plant. that photo op won’t be the last time i overthink a seemingly easy decision on this hot afternoon, because today is the global climate strike and i’m not attending it — i’m covering it.

as i march with the crowd from mg&e to the steps of the state capitol, it’s hard not to get swept up in the rousing speeches and impassioned chants, but i try to remember the journalistic guidelines i have been taught. 

when i first started at the badger herald, one of the university of wisconsin’s student newspapers, i was quickly taught the basics of unbiased journalism — speak to a representative from both sides, report only verifiable facts and do not post anything political to your social media. many of these “journalism ethics” were then expanded upon and further instilled into me through my classes at uw. 

at the strike, i stood next to my friends who waved large crayola-lettered signs and chanted passionately. as i weaved through the sweaty crowd, i tried to establish my own journalistic guidelines on the fly — i could accept pamphlets but i couldn’t hold a sign, my friends could post pictures i was in but i couldn’t post one myself, i could clap but i couldn’t cheer. 

looking back, i was definitely overthinking things, but my self-imposed limitations do a raise a question many environmental journalists are constantly facing — what is our role in the fight against climate change?

it may seem obvious that as with other global debates, our job is to inform the public and report the facts. but with climate change, these “facts” are often more complicated than they appear. 

climate change first really came into the public sphere in 1988 when dr. james hansen of the national aeronautics and space administration testified in front of a congressional committee and said he was “99 percent certain” that the warming trend of the previous few years was not because of natural variation, but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. 

this story made the front page of the new york times under the headline, “global warming has begun, expert tells senate.” this article cited several scientists and mathematical models, all indicating that immediate action was needed. the piece included only one sentence acknowledging that some scientists believe the recent warmer temperatures are due to natural fluctuations. 

over 30 years later, the public’s perception of climate change has become increasingly divergent from the scientific discourse. 

ninety-seven percent of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is a reality, according to the american association for the advancement of science. but as of 2019, 35% of americans think that global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 31% in 1997, according to a gallup poll.this same poll found that as of 2018, only 42% of americans would consider themselves an environmentalist, down from 76% in 1989.

i have seen how important this public perception of climate change can be in directing policy. one of my aforementioned crayola sign-toting roommates is marina minic, a uw junior studying chemistry and environmental studies and an executive board member for campus leaders for energy action now. 

clean is a student organization working through strikes and petitions to get uw to power the campus exclusively with renewable energy by 2050 and to derive all electrical power from renewable resources by 2030. i have covered several protests organized by clean and have joined them during their weekly petitioning around campus, their version of greta thunberg’s fridays for future. 

minic said that most students she interacts with support clean energy; they are just unaware that it is such a major issue at uw.  she said that whenever she tells students that only 1.61% of uw’s energy consumption comes from clean and renewable sources, they are disappointed and happy to sign clean’s petition. 

a major way clean informs students and gains visibility is through media coverage, minic told me. 

“if the chancellor wakes up the next morning and she sees every local paper has written about something, obviously you can’t ignore it at that point,” minic said. “it’s also a good way to raise awareness to other students to get involved in the movement because i think most people do care about this issue and maybe just didn’t know about it.”

this media attention has always been key for the environmental movement. however, in the years since hansen first testified before the senate, how the media covers climate change has shifted. 

a study published in 2003 by the global environmental change journal featured a content analysis of articles published by the wall street journal, the new york times, the washington post and the los angeles times from 1988 to 2002. the study found that the majority, 52.6%, of articles presented both the view that climate change is being caused by humans and the view that it is due to natural fluctuations, in a balanced way. the study also found that from 1988 to 2002, the articles’ focus on the need for immediate climate action decreased. 

this study is dated, but more recent studies show similar trends. the day after the intergovernmental panel on climate change released its report announcing that global warming is likely to reach 1.5°c between 2030 and 2052 if current trends continue, media matters for america analyzed the home pages of the top 50 newspapers in the country. they found that only 22 covered the report. 

this lack of coverage and the tendency to prioritize balance over accuracy may be connected to the politicization of climate change. a recent report published by the science communication journal conducted a content analysis of all climate change-related articles published by major newspapers in the u.s between 1985 and 2017. the report found that representations of climate change have become more politicized. 

the content analysis showed that political actors have been increasingly used as sources in recent years, while the use of scientists as sources has been decreasing. it also found that the mention of “democrats” and “republicans” in climate change-related articles have increased. 

the perceived politicization of climate change has influenced actions being taken to address it. when 350 madison, a climate action organization, petitioned the uw foundation to divest from fossil fuel industries, the foundation wrote a letter saying it did not want to do anything that would make the university be seen as a political actor, rather than an academic and research institution. 

this argument is not unique to uw. ari bortman, a university of pennsylvania junior and a campus organizer with fossil free penn, told me that when fossil free pushed for divestment at upenn, the administration said it did not want to make a political statement. that refusal, bortman said, is a political statement in itself. 

“at this point, their vehement resistance to make any kind of statement on the industry really belies their leanings,” bortman said. “we know that the fossil fuel industry destroys people’s lives, destroys people’s homes for profit… exxon admits to spending billions of dollars to spread false science to misinform people, that’s not debatable. to not say that these things are bad is a political statement.”

bortman’s reference to exxon mobile’s misinformation campaigns actually touches on part of why climate change has become so politicized. a recent report, “america misled,” analyzed internal corporate documents from the fossil fuel industry showing it knew about the reality of human-caused climate change for decades and actively funded denial and disinformation campaigns.  

one document from 1998 outlines the american petroleum institute’s global climate science communications plan. this plan includes a bullet point list titled, “victory will be achieved when.”

“media “understands” (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science,” one bullet point read.  “media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge conventional wisdom.”

corporations’ efforts to influence media messages about climate change have persisted throughout the years. one day in february, after covering clean’s divestment die-in where protestors chanted and laid down at the top of bascom hill as a part of the national fossil fuel divestment day, i came home to find marina fuming in the kitchen. 

i had been covering the protest for the badger herald, but the other school newspaper, the daily cardinal, had been given a pamphlet from the uw alumni foundation emphasizing that technically it is the foundation that is invested in fossil fuels, not the university. 

the resulting daily cardinal article said that students were protesting uw’s “alleged” investment in fossil fuels. 

the word “alleged” was eventually removed after the daily cardinal met with clean. in the meeting, clean’s executive board explained that because all $124,785,961 the foundation has invested in oil and gas is donated to uw, the university is still profiting off fossil fuel investments. 

seeing the importance media coverage plays in this issue, and the concerted effort those who profit from the fossil fuel industry have continued to put into influencing the media, makes me wonder — as a journalist, is it truly biased to take a stance on climate change? furthermore, as a student with a platform, do i have a responsibility to share that stance?

i think back to the global climate strike; standing on my tip toes with my arms outstretched trying to record the speakers, i remember how moved i was by what they said. 

one speaker, uw freshman crystal zhao, reflected on her experience moving from china to massachusetts at 14 and witnessing how climate change has affected different parts of the world. her speech moved me because she discussed the importance of everyone having a role in the climate movement. 

“i’m here today because i care about the future generation and selfishly, i am here today because i care about the reputation of our generation,” zhao said. “i don’t want us to be remembered as the generation that failed to act when we still had a chance to save our home.”

her speech brings me back to my original question: as a journalist, what is my role in the climate movement? this may be a question i continue to grapple with throughout my career. but i do know one thing — after zhao spoke, i cheered as loud as i could. 

after the closing of arizona’s last coal mine, the navajo nation is investing in renewable energy. the nation is looking to solar for the future.  

solar panels are a common way to get renewal energy, especially in sunbelt states like arizona. but one company is using solar panels to pull water straight from the air. this technology is helping arizonans as well as people around the world.

the solar industry has a chance to shape the larger narrative on energy justice, and advance social equity by ensuring energy security for all socioeconomic levels. industry leaders are currently building the market and have the ability to choose the norm of how and for whom it functions. in today’s market, non-profits, renters, and low-income households are being left out of the solar revolution due to financial barriers, misinformation, and lack of opportunity. the market only serves wealthier, more privileged populations, leaving the ones who need solar the most behind.

with less wealth generation, these ostracized groups are often forced to live in older buildings that operate on less efficient heating and cooling systems, resulting in extremely high energy bills. with no respective income to offset this, these struggling residents have to decide whether to put food on the table or pay the bills. further, the areas of town in which these groups live lack community infrastructure investment and proper resources, making it harder to complete everyday tasks such as commuting to work and getting fresh groceries. often positioned next to brownfields, these communities also face health and safety risks with restricted access to medical support, poorer air quality, and higher crime rates. community solar investment has the potential to create cost savings that reduce these financial stresses and channel wealth into the hands of residents, providing them with new jobs and self-sustaining economic revitalization. 

community solar provides the benefits of renewable energy without imposing the high upfront costs and infrastructure investment necessary for construction. these facilities are built on larger, shared spaces such as an apartment complex, church, community center, or vacant field, with open subscription for renters, non-profits, and low-income residents. through virtual net-metering, subscribers receive credits on their monthly electric bills based on their share of the overall electricity the solar system generates, allowing them to take advantage of cheaper electricity costs and cleaner energy.

at the forefront of this initiative to advance community solar is the dc sustainable energy utility (dcseu), working with local solar contractors to design and install solar photovoltaic systems at no cost to income-qualified district homeowners. ted trabue, managing director of the dc sustainable energy utility, says that the dcseu is “making sure that our low-income community is adequately served,” by providing access to solar technology, from which these communities were originally isolated. 

this incredible work is possible through the sustainable energy trust fund (setf), which is a surcharge on all electric and natural gas utility ratepayers in the district of columbia. this fund directly finances solar installations in dc by incentivizing solar contractors to participate in such programs through monetary compensation to assist with project costs, while also allowing them to keep all solar renewable energy credits (srecs). 

at the program’s inception, there were less than a dozen solar installations in wards 7 and ward 8, the city’s poorest neighborhoods, while the wealthier, western side of the city had over 1000 installations. that is why the dcseu is “installing these systems specifically on income-qualified residents, those who are earning 60% or less of area median income, absolutely free of charge to the resident,” says mr. trabue, to directly target this inequity. 

the district’s support of community solar has promoted energy efficiency, economic development, and local job creation. but most importantly, this program is helping low-income residents first. shelley cohen, the director of solar programs for the dcseu, comments that “some homeowners are making decisions between critical items such as food or prescriptions and keeping the lights on. i am so glad that we can provide some relief for some homeowners from the cost of their utility bills and put more money back in their pockets.”

access to community solar is still limited, as only a number of states have passed encouraging legislation to make this a reality for their residents. however, this is changing fast, and community solar can end energy insecurity for all. 

if the wasteful byproducts our nuclear energy could be given a voice, perhaps this would be their collective cry. while the narrative was fictitious, the underlying facts are real: the united states really did once strafe barrels of nuclear waste with machine gun fire into the atlantic ocean. spent fuel rods really are left underwater for years, if not decades. while some nations practice fuel reprocessing, america is not alone in letting nuclear waste accumulate at reactor sites. and because of irresponsible waste management, real lives have been unjustly lost to slow, cancerous deaths.

but it doesn’t have to be this way. the technology to reduce or even outright eliminate, the existence of nuclear waste already exists. waste can be re-processed through a complex separation method known as purex (plutonium and uranium by extraction), which is already practiced by countries such as japan. through purex, radioactive residuals are separated through pyrometallurgical processing, which is essentially a redox reaction based on electroplating. the uranium can be reused in the fission process, while the transuranic elements (known as residual actinides) are encased in glass. this process, called vitrification, minimizes the containment risks of nuclear waste to safe levels, while also enhancing fuel abundance.

in addition, there are reactors capable of producing a nonhazardous variety of waste.  these are known as tri-structural-isometric, or triso, reactors. triso reactors contain a “pebble bed” of fuel spheres with a 0.5 mm uranium dioxide core. this core is covered in dozens of carbonous layers for absorption. once spent, the pebbles can be securely contained, do not require cooling storage, and are impervious to water leaching and seismic damage. the pebbles are much smaller and safer than a pile of uranium-filled barrels. what could possibly be a more ideal solution, except for perhaps switching to other renewable energy sources altogether?

in order to phase out fossil fuels and mitigate the colossal impacts of climate change already being observed, a transition to renewable energy is a must. this is truer today than ever before due to our rapidly closing time window to mitigate the worst of the climate crisis. but the transition must be done in a way that is responsible and fully minimizes the potential risks. this will be difficult with only ten years remaining to limit the catastrophic potential of the climate crisis. but the technological framework is already in place: all we need to do is pressure lawmakers and industries to use it! funding its implementation should be a priority, since the department of energy accrues >$1 million a year for nuclear waste research and policy. in fact, research has found that funding for nuclear waste disposal has practically zeroed out between 2012 and 2016.

have you listened to our friend’s story? (if not, click here or scroll back to the beginning and hear them out). by producing nuclear energy in an irresponsible and polluting manner, humans are violating our inherent duty to protect and respect all forms of life. we are not to be conquerors and subjugators of this unique creation. no, we are to be supportive members of the natural world that birthed us, raised us, and helped us thrive into the species we are today. that is not to say that we cannot use the gifts nature blesses us with, but it must be done in a way that will value life and our ecosystem services as highly as we value ourselves. for nature is but a delicate machine made from many moving and interdependent parts: remove or foul up one gear, and the rest will spectacularly collapse. 

even though it is easy to think this won’t impact me, realize this: if the earth and the resources we all rely on become poisoned (i.e. the atmosphere from an explosive rocket launch failure), then we are all doomed to the same fate. and it could happen much, much more quickly than the geographically and temporally vast consequences of climate change. as odd as this sounds, it is not about saving the planet in the end. earth has been around for 4.6 billion years and will continue to be, however battered and broken, until it is swallowed by the red giant our star will become in 5 billion years. no, in the end, it is about saving ourselves and our children. so we should strive to be compassionate and merciful to the rest of nature: if not for the sake of benevolence, then for our very existence.

now that you know there are better ways to harness nuclear energy, i encourage you to be loud, speak up, and demand change. you may not believe your voice matters, but without each and every one of you calling your representatives or visiting them in office, the wave of the peoples’ will ceases to exist. collectively, when our persistent voices rise loud above the din, we are the change we seek. but perhaps the most important thing to remember, above all, is to be kind.