washington––democrats and republicans had opposing views on the value of coal to the u.s. economy thursday, with democrats calling for more environmental controls and republicans stressing how essential coal is to the energy infrastructure.

democrats at the house subcommittee on energy and mineral resources hearing worried that companies that mine on federal land are not paying their fair share, and that the environmental and social consequences of coal are not being properly considered.

republicans spoke about the success of the program in job creation and how indispensable coal is to the energy infrastructure of america.

the federal coal program is a bureau of land management program that allows private companies to mine coal on federal land. the companies bid for the rights to use the land and pay the government a fee for the land and the coal extracted and a royalty on the coal that is sold. the program is predominantly found in western states like wyoming and was integral in the powering of america throughout the 20th century.

now, critics say the program needs to be modernized and reformed to reflect the true cost of relying on this part of the fossil fuel industry.

subcommittee chair rep. alan lowenthal, d-calif., said the program “ignores the effects of coal on our climate and the future of americans who are losing their livelihoods as coal disappears. these are two things that i’m most focused on.”

but arizona rep. paul gosar, the top republican on the committee, stressed the importance of coal to the u.s. economy. “coal mining is essential to american energy security, providing an affordable, reliable source of baseload power to families across the country,” gosar said. “coal mining also employs over 53,000 people, including regions of the country experiencing economic hardships, like appalachia.”

the differences in focus laid out in gosar and lowenthal’s opening statements were present throughout the hearing. for the few democrats who were present during the hearing, like rep. jared huffman, d-calif., questions environmental and social problems related to mining and the industry. most of those questions were directed at jim stock, an economics professor at harvard and a member of former president barack obama’s council of economic advisors.

“in recent research, i and co-authors estimate that 92% of the decline in coal from 2008 to 2016 is due to the decline in natural gas prices,” stock said. he added that mine closings and consolidation “demonstrate that market forces are driving the decline of coal, despite the many pro-coal actions taken by (president donald trump’s) administration.”

for republicans, the focus was on questioning hal quinn, president and ceo of the national mining association. quinn echoed gosar and other republican’s views that coal is a job creator and a significant part of the country’s energy future. he called the federal coal program a “national and economic success story” and disagreed with the 2016 obama-era decision to place a moratorium on the program.

while the differences across the aisle were clear, lowenthal articulated the shared goal of wanting to learn more and properly address the coal program moving forward. “we could do this in the same haphazard way that we’ve managed the federal coal program over the past few decades,” he said. “or we can consider phasing out the federal coal program in a reasonable, thoughtful way that protects workers, guarantees mine cleanup, and addresses climate change.”

it’s no secret meat isn’t the most eco-friendly food to pile on your plate. globally, the meat industry emits an estimated 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions, and is considered a leading contributor to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution. additionally, animal agriculture accounts for more land use than any other food source, and ushers overuse of hormones, and antibiotics, which leach into our water and food systems.

and although many of us are already aware of the unsustainability of meat, humans still have quite the appetite for meat, which has climbed in recent years, and is projected to peak in 2018.

…which governments have subsidized

the global explosion of enthusiastic meat consumption has to do with a variety of factors, including increases in disposable income, and the heavy subsidization of the industry in many parts of the world, including the united states.

and while it’s often easy to point at meat as a source of environmental and health issues, it is worth noting that meat can be a valuable source of energy, protein, amino acids, and essential micronutrients, including iron and b12, all of which are important in preventing many global malnutrition-related conditions, including protein-energy deficits and anemia.

still, it’s hard to justify pouring billions into a food source that is contributing so greatly to climate change when there are an estimated 815 million hungry people on earth.

we can’t address global food insecurity without creating a more sustainable food system. and one of the biggest areas of opportunity for improvement lies in our ability to cut down on meat production.

how we shift our funding towards a sustainable, food secure future:

many high and low-tech alternatives exist as promising solutions, but many remain underappreciated or underfunded. by redirecting global animal agriculture subsidies, there is great opportunity for impact.

which next begs the question, where do these funds go? we can begin to subsidize more eco-friendly alternatives, but considering the global diversity in palates, cultures, landscapes, and infrastructures, we need more than a one-size-fits all approach.

it’s overly optimistic to expect steak-lovers to willingly swap beans for beef, and plain unrealistic to suggest high-tech meat startups are the solution in countries that lack the proper infrastructure.

so, here are 5 animal agriculture-free, protein alternatives to shift our animal agriculture funding into:

1. subsidize research and production of meat made from plants:

meat, technically speaking, is a composition of water, proteins, amino acids, minerals, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and small amounts of carbohydrates. all of these building blocks can be found or fostered in plants.

several protein-alternative startups are building brands on this principle. by piecing together building blocks of meat from plant-foods, and processing them together with new technology, they are able to create meat alternatives that smell, taste, feel, and cook just like meat.

by offering “meat made from plants” to appease the carnivore palate, companies like beyond meat and impossible foods are a wiser way to channel animal subsidy dollars, and offer an appealing, yet sustainable meat choice for meat-lovers in many parts of the world. subsidizing such technologies (as leonardo dicaprio already has) could ensure products continue to improve and decrease in price, giving meat-lovers a meat with lesser harm to the environment.

2. subsidize research and production of lab-grown meat

for those looking for another alternative that comes from animals rather than plants, several start up companies are working to bring lab-grown meat to market. companies like mosa meat and just foods, are pioneering lab-grown meat.

mosa meat products, for example, are made from small samples of muscle stem cells taken from real animals. known as “myosatellite” cells, these cells serve the specific function of creating new muscle tissue upon injury. cells are next placed in a medium of nutrients and growth factors, cultivating their growth. strands of cells are then layered together to create real meat – the only difference being that theirs is grown outside – rather than inside – the animal.

rather than devote land, water, and feed grains to grow and butcher livestock, lab-grown meat requires far fewer resources, and emits far fewer greenhouse gases.  

by shifting government funds from land and feed-requiring meats to lab-grown meat, die-hard carnivores can rest assured their steaks aren’t soon to be replaced with tofu. subsidizing these technologies can ensure their affordability and continual improvement.

3. subsidize edible insect agriculture

insects hold great promise as a sustainable source of animal protein. requiring far less land, water, and producing far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than most mammalian protein sources, insects are a highly nutritious food source that is often overlooked. while edible insect nutrient profiles vary by species, many are micronutrient rich in vitamins and minerals including zinc, calcium, and iron, which are often lacking from diets of malnourished people.

some are even energy dense, which could combat protein and energy deficiencies. additionally, insects have low technological and monetary start-up costs, and are a viable option in developing countries where resources are limited. insects are a wise and low-cost subsidy option which could address hunger far and wide.

4. subsidize algae production

algae is another fast-growing, high quality, and underappreciated source of protein. importantly, algae is one of the few plant-based sources of b12, which is essential for proper neurological function and prevention of anemia. furthermore, there are a lot of algae strains around the world, and cultivating algae does not require arable land, and can be done in many water environments including marshes, swamps, hot springs, and even under ice, and can also be grown in a lab, offering a promising, scalable option in many parts of the world.

5. subsidize organic – or any – produce alternatives

fruits, vegetables, and legumes (besides soy) are drastically under-supported by government entities compared to staple grains and animal feed. although developed nations often tout fruits and vegetables as essential to a healthful diet, many channel far more funding into meat, animal, and grains like corn and wheat.

by subsidizing fruits and vegetables, people will be better-able to afford these nutrient-dense food choices, and have a better chance at avoiding micronutrient deficiencies. and although not a large source of protein per se, most plant-foods have at least some traces of protein, all of which add up and can contribute to protein and energy intake.

how to move forward:

there are many more sustainable ways to direct worldwide subsidies currently supporting animal agriculture. to solve global hunger, we need a global, cooperative approach to create sustainable food choices with minimal environmental impacts. if developed and developing countries refocus their protein investments, this vision is possible.

and while politically-willed hypotheticals sometimes seem like far-off solutions, there are still things we as citizens can do to nurture these changes. from selecting to spending our dollars on sustainable protein alternatives, educating ourselves and others on the reality of our global food system, and showing up with our political voice in support of institutional change, together we can empower a more food secure future.

cliff’s notes:

not ready to make the investment?  according to the american society of landscape architects, homeowners can take a smaller step in reducing energy consumption through smart tree placement.  when planted strategically, trees can reduce wintertime heating needs by two to eight percent. check out this animation that shows you how.

_{originally submitted july 7, 2011.}

watch an animation that explains how to use the landscape to reduce the energy consumed by a typical suburban home. see how smart tree placement and green roofs and walls dramatically improve energy efficiency. trees are being cut down to make way for new single-family homes, which then often sit on bare lots. these treeless lots not only have negative impacts on the climate, environment, and community health, but they also exacerbate the energy inefficient practices found within homes. this is a major problem given the average american home consumes 70 million btus annually. in fact, taken together, american homes account for 22 percent of total energy use as well as nearly 22 percent of carbon dioxide emissions (1.19 billion metric tons). (sources: the washington post and architecture 2030) mckinsey & co, a management consulting firm, found that energy use in the u.s. could be cut by 23 percent by 2020 by implementing simple energy efficiency measures. while homeowners can take low-cost steps to make the inside of their homes better insulated and therefore more energy efficient, the landscape isn’t often seen as a part of the problem–or the solution. basic green technologies like smart tree placement and green roofs and walls can be used to dramatically reduce energy usage inside homes. if placed strategically, trees can reduce summertime cooling energy needs by 7-47 percent and wintertime heating needs by 2-8 percent. (sources: the washington post and reducing urban heat islands: compendium of strategies. trees and vegetation, u.s. e.p.a.) in addition, well-designed residential green roofs, which are growing popular in some parts of the world, can reduce energy usage in both summer and winter. according to one canadian study, a 32,000- square foot green roof on a one-story commercial building in toronto reduced energy usage by 6 percent in the summer and 10 percent in the winter. similarly, the green roof of the american society of landscape architects (asla) at just 3,000 square feet reduces energy usage by 3 percent in summer and 10 percent in winter. weather, roof, and building size and location also have an impact on the amount of energy savings. lastly, fast-growing green walls can also reduce energy use by providing insulation in the winter and limiting direct sunlight on walls in the summer. in hotter months they also cool air temperatures by up to 10 degrees. (sources: reducing urban heat islands: compendium of strategies. green roofs, u.s. e.p.a. and american society of landscape architects (asla) green roof)

in tennessee, nissan is working hard to produce the leaf along with necessary battery parts. senator alexander hopes for increased acceptance of electric vehicles in the us.

incentives to buy electric vehicles will run out soon, and federal money would be best spent on reducing the cost of batteries, and promoting basic research on batteries.

why can’t i be able to buy my own windmill? why can’t i afford solar panels (even with the tax break)? why can’t i heat water, and charge my electric car with solar power? i don’t need exxon or archer daniels or solar energy, inc. to put solar panels on my roof, i can call a local company, install all of this 50+ year-old technology, and begin saving energy in a week. my tax subsidy has to assure a return of capital within 5 years. that would still cost less the current subsidies to the industrial complex.

and oh, by the way, since most of this work has to be done on site, it will have to employ us labor. these jobs cannot be shipped overseas they way big corporations now do it.

(1) lowering the interstate speed limit to 55 mph (and enforcing it) would save thousands of lives and i don’t know how many billions of barrels of oil without sacrificing the sacrosanct american standard of living.

(2) between 2002 and 2008, the feds doled out $72 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel industries and $29 billion for renewables (half of which was for ethanol which is quite possibly even worse than oil)–see eli.org.

(3) when gas hit $4 gallon, people gave up their suvs and manufacturers dropped plans for new models. when gas prices dropped, suv sales went up. americans have short memories–keep a floor of at least $4/gallon under the price of gas and we’ll see sustained policy shifts.