Weekly Climate News

October 1, 2020

• Land grabbers in the Amazon’s Indigenous territories advanced after encouragement from Bolsonaro. 

• Eight new projects have been funded by NASA that explore the connections between the environment and COVID-19. 

• Over one-third of food in the U.S. is either lost or wasted, which equates to about $161 billion annually, and this problem has been exacerbated by the global pandemic. Read this article about how to reduce food waste. 

• The Trump administration released a plan to open the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, the largest U.S. national forest, to logging. 

• Gavin Newsom (CA-D), California’s governor, issued a ban on all gasoline powered cars after 2035. Legal challenges are expected. 

• As summers in the Arctic are warming due to climate change, northernmost landscapes are changing, becoming greener with increased plant growth.

• Recent research papers claim that a new compact nuclear fusion reactor is “very likely to work.” This suggests that producing energy in the same way the sun does might be achievable.

• A digital clock in Manhattan now shows the time left for critical action to be taken before the effects of global warming become irreversible.

• Under the COVID-19 lockdown, India experienced its longest recorded period of clean air. This came to an end in September resulting primarily from New Delhi, as the burning of crop waste by farmers caused a deterioration in air quality. 

Shining a Light on the Plastic Industry

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

Plastic is both a central part of our society and a suffocating pollutant to the earth. Almost anything we buy comes wrapped in plastic, we bag our food in plastic and we wear variations of plastic. Not only does plastic end up littering our oceans and neighborhoods, but over 99 percent of it is made from chemicals derived from harmful fossil fuels. By 2015, over 8.3 billion tons of plastic had been produced, roughly equivalent to the weight of one billion elephants or 80 million blue whales. While this commodity has widespread use, there is little public knowledge about where our plastic goes when we toss it. 

We have all been taught the environmentalist slogan “reduce, reuse, recycle.” This slogan is often accompanied by the calming implication that by throwing your plastic water bottle in a recycling bin, you are helping save Mother Earth. However, in 2014, at the peak of annual recycling in the U.S., only 9.5 percent of plastic was actually recycled. Recent investigations by NPR and the PBS series “Frontline” reported that America’s largest oil and gas companies have known all along that recycling plastic would never be a viable alternative to dumping it in landfills. NPR and “Frontline” detailed that, in a 1974 speech, an unnamed industry insider wrote, “There is serious doubt that [recycling plastic] can ever be made viable on an economic basis.” 

While big oil and gas executives learned of the improbability of recycling on a large scale, commercials still aired across the country that, according to NPR, carried the message of “Plastic is special, and the consumer should recycle it.” These commercials were paid for by the same oil and gas companies that knew the industry was doomed to fail, such as Exxon, Chevron, Dow and DuPont. 

For a while, the U.S. was able to hide its growing plastic problem and ineffective recycling programs by dumping plastic waste in other countries, primarily China. But in 2017, China announced a national policy called National Sword to halt the import of recyclable waste from other countries. The U.S. was then forced to reckon with its own plastic addiction. According to The Intercept, after the implementation of National Sword, the U.S. started burning “six times the amount of plastic it’s recycling,” which, in turn, emits toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, including black carbon, which contributes to climate change.  

Other countries, such as Kenya, have implemented groundbreaking plastic bans, looking to limit the polluter. However, the U.S. oil and gas companies have tried to sully these efforts as well. According to a New York Times report, U.S. fossil fuel companies are attempting to lobby Kenya to reverse its plastic ban and continue importing foreign plastic waste. The battle is now between environmentalists in Kenya, the U.S. and abroad and the fossil fuel lobbyists who are backed by the hundred billion dollar industry.

While it is important to limit personal plastic use and continue to recycle plastics when possible, the issue of plastics extends beyond that. The towering oil and gas industry has held environmentalism hostage for decades with the goal of producing plastic, profits and waste.

Quarantine Continues To Impact the Environment in Unprecedented Ways

by Dnyaneshwari Haware ’24

Staff Writer

In March, when most of the world effectively shut down their industries and economies in response to the global pandemic, there was a sense of panic along with a sense of hope as pollution levels across the globe decreased. Many publications and researchers predicted an improvement in air quality, and videos of aquatic life thriving in the canals of Venice, Italy, went viral, alluding to the presence of cleaner water. However, upon closer observation, these positive environmental effects are more complex than they initially appear. 

A modern person’s lifestyle has been designed for consumption. Consumerism has become an integral part of our lifestyles, festivals, celebrations, sorrows and all other displays of emotion. We have personified things to represent factors like class, comfort and luxury. As a species, humans have limited needs. However, under extreme circumstances like the current pandemic, our needs have increased, swallowing some of our previous wants. According to the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, 42 percent of the U.S. labor force was working full-time from home at the end of June, making internet access and other such amenities a necessity. Because of this, the average consumption of electricity has increased. Commercial and industrial sectors were both found to have experienced decreases of 11 percent and 9 percent, respectively. The consumer electronics industry in particular has major environmental implications as electronic waste is often shipped to developing and less developed countries where limited environmental safety regulations are in place for disposal. Although a growth of about 4 percent was predicted from 2019 through 2020, a report found that COVID-19 has hampered the market and slowed consumerism in this sector. 

Consumption isn’t just restricted to the final goods we consume, but also includes waste generated in the production process. As a result of the pandemic, most of the goods people use are now being delivered, and takeout-only options have increased waste products. Environmental consciousness has largely been sidelined in the decision-making process as many prioritize safety, convenience and affordability. 

Katherine Schmeiser, associate professor of economics at Mount Holyoke, shared her experience of having to choose between the environment and her personal safety. She highlighted that, before the pandemic, many stores had tried to establish a way of reducing waste by placing recycling bins in stores. Now, as in-store populations have drastically reduced, most of them have established delivery services in which they are left with no option but to use more packaging, especially for frozen items. There are still some efforts being made on a small scale in many communities to find effective solutions to this problem. Schmeiser mentioned an organization with local Facebook groups called “Buy Nothing” where people collect leftover packaging as one of the few environmentally friendly options left. Apart from this, a few e-commerce businesses are choosing biodegradable or plant-based packaging, but that makes up a very small percentage of the entire industry. 

This increase in the consumption of electricity, protective gear and essential items is further burdening an already sensitive ecosystem. Large corporations partaking in the encouragement and supply of this consumerism — as well as the lack of enforcement when it comes to policies regarding the conservation and preservation of the environment — are also to blame for the changes climate scientists are beginning to observe.

The Sierra Club Recognizes Its Racist Roots

by Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

This summer saw a widespread racial reckoning across the United States in the wake of protests sparked by the police murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade and countless other Black Americans. Systemic racism became a prominent topic of conversation in many industries, causing companies, organizations and movements to evaluate their own past and present contributions to upholding racism. This reckoning and reflection was not absent in the environmental movement. The Sierra Club, an America-based environmental organization, was the most noteworthy group to recognize the racism of their founder and “Father of National Parks” John Muir.

Muir was a Scottish-American conservationist who lived from 1838-1914. He spent years traveling the world and studying the environment, writing articles about his findings, which eventually garnered a following. He played an instrumental role in establishing many of the first national parks, such as Yosemite National Park, Sequoia and Mount Rainier. In 1892, Muir and some of his followers founded the Sierra Club with the goal of encouraging Americans to explore and protect nature. 

However, like many of his fellow conservationists of the time, Muir spewed racism and anti-Indigenous comments in his writings and upheld a white supremacist view of the United States. While he worshipped nature and all of the creatures around him, he still considered Native Americans “subhuman” and often referred to them derogatorily. Muir was closely associated with advocates for the eugenics movement, such as Henry Fairfield Osborn, Joseph LeConte and David Starr Jordan. 

On July 22, 2020, executive director of the Sierra Club Michael Brune posted an article to the organization’s website titled “Pulling Down Our Monuments.” In this article, he discussed the racist rhetoric of Muir and other initial members, acknowledged the historic exclusion of people who were not upper or middle class and white, and made a commitment to be more inclusive of BIPOC. He stated that the organization was “redesigning [its] leadership structure” to allow more organizational decisions to be made by BIPOC, as well as investing $5 million in staff of color and their efforts to tackle environmental and racial justice issues. The Sierra Club has also stated they will spend the next year analyzing their history as well as determining which monuments need to be renamed or taken down entirely.

This apology was the first step in recognizing the exclusivity that has characterized the Sierra Club since its origins.

Climate Education Is Changing, but Lacks Uniformity

by Helen Gloege ’23

Staff Writer

Between rampant fires up and down the West Coast and record-breaking heat across the Northern Hemisphere, the disastrous effects of climate change have been becoming more obvious. A poll by NPR confirmed that 80 percent of U.S. parents and 86 percent of U.S. teachers think climate change should be taught in schools, showing a quantifiably large portion of the population acknowledging the importance of climate change. However, many teachers don’t talk about climate change in classrooms and few parents or guardians discuss it with their children at home.  

Teachers face a multitude of obstacles when it comes to teaching about climate change in classrooms, including possible lack of resources, funding, connection to the subject they teach and support from their school districts. In the United States, it is up to individual schools, school districts and teachers to determine whether they will teach about human caused climate change. These issues, compounded with concerns about the reactions of parents and the political jargon that often surrounds climate change, dissuade other teachers from discussing it in their classrooms. In addition, many teachers themselves may not have learned about climate change when they were in school and may feel ill-equipped to talk about it in their own classrooms.  

Despite the struggles that teachers are facing, there have been several attempts to mandate and strengthen human-caused climate change programs. Since 2013, 19 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards that strengthen the science education students receive, including teaching human-caused climate change starting in middle school. The Next Generation Science Standards aim to build a comprehensive understanding of science over time and enable educators to create future generations of scientifically literate students. 

Some individual states have gone beyond science education with a focus on specifically climate change based programs. In Washington, a multimillion dollar budget for K-12 science education with an emphasis on climate science was passed in 2017. The result was ClimeTime, which funds training for teachers as well as projects and events that connect public school teachers with environmental organizations in their communities. Within the first year of implementation, about 10 percent of public school teachers in Washington took advantage of the program. The teachers who attended these seminars and trainings said they felt better equipped to teach their students about the topic. This year, the National Center for Science Education compiled 18 pieces of legislation across 10 states focused on climate change education. The bills would increase the amount of climate change, sustainability and environmental science concepts taught in public schools. So far, nine of the 18 bills have died while most others are pending.

Outside of the U.S. education system, other countries are also beginning to tackle climate change education in the classroom setting. Cambodia is leading climate change education in Asia. Cambodian schools are allowing students to become part of the effort to find solutions to climate change. In New Zealand, starting this year, every student will have access to materials about climate change written by the country’s leading science agencies. The program will be offered to all schools that teach 11- to 15-year-old students but won’t be compulsory. On June 17, 2020, a Mexican senator, Clemente Castañeda Hoeflich, presented an initiative that proposes strengthening education on environmental protection and climate change in schools. It encourages students to change their attitudes and behaviors towards protecting natural resources. The Italian government announced that, starting this year, they will become the world’s first country to institute a mandatory course on climate change and sustainable development in all public schools. 

In the international framework, the One U.N. Climate Change Learning Partnership (also known as U.N. CC:Learn) is a collaborative learning platform launched by the United Nations with the involvement of 36 multilateral organizations. Its aim is to help countries achieve climate action through climate literacy and applied skills development. The e-learning platform is the single largest dedicated platform on climate change, with a specific focus on developing countries’ needs. The programs are aligned with nationally determined contributions and the National Adaptation Plan, both of which are part of the Paris Agreement.

Students currently at Mount Holyoke are at the age where the climate crisis was taught as “global warming” throughout K-12 education, if taught at all. With or without a formal classroom education on the topic, students can still imagine what climate change education could look like. 

Acadia Ferrero-Lampron ’23 suggests a more science-based approach with projects and experiments that might highlight concepts or through visuals like documentaries. “[It could be] incorporated into a government class and discussion[s] about laws and polic[ies] that should be made,” said Samantha Pittman ’23. “Once you know what’s happening you can … contact your representatives.” 

Many students have learned about climate change through environmental studies classes or specific Advanced Placement courses. “Environmental science felt like one of the most relevant courses that I took in high school,” said Ellen Switchenko ’23. “Everything we learned was so pertinent as to what’s happening in the real world.” 

Teaching climate change in schools is essential to prepare students for their future of reversing climate change. While we may not know what climate change education looks like at the moment, there is a movement to make sure that students know that climate change exists.

California Wildfires Suggest a Future of Climate Migration

by Catelyn Fitgerald ’23

Staff Writer

As climate change increasingly disrupts the environment as we know it, people across the world have had to flee to safer land. This process, referred to as climate migration, occurs when people must leave their homes as a result of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, droughts and other climate change effects. In California, the hundreds of thousands of residents evacuated to escape wildfires are indicative of a more permanent migration that may need to occur in the near future. It is estimated that up to 13 million people in the United States could be driven from their homes by the end of the century due to climate change. 

Coastal communities are at the highest risk of displacement, and some state and local governments are preparing to evacuate residents of these areas before it is too late. One of these regions is New York City, which is investing $10 billion into adaptation measures such as building seawalls and constructing sand dunes to extend lower Manhattan into the East River. Not only do at-risk towns and cities need to prepare for the impact of climate change, but “safe zones,” regions that are less vulnerable to climate change, must be identified and prepared for incoming migrants.

This is not the first time the U.S. has seen a significant population movement due to climate-induced events. In the 1930s, prairies in the United States experienced a period of severe dust storms known as the Dust Bowl. This event caused a mass exodus of refugees from southern states to the West Coast, all of whom had to look for work after the storms left them economically devastated. The difference between the Dust Bowl and climate migration is that the events driving current and future movements of people are not isolated — they will only worsen as the effects of climate change accumulate.

However, not everyone in the U.S. has the option to migrate to avoid future climate disasters. As fires rage though the West Coast, farm workers continue to labor in evacuation zones amid unsafe air conditions. A large portion of these workers are non-English speaking migrants, and a lack of emergency information in other languages makes it difficult for them to know the status of fires and evacuation orders in their areas. Even in evacuation zones or areas with unsafe working conditions, many farm workers are given the option to continue working, leaving them with an impossible choice between paying their bills and staying safe. 

In a Washington town, farmworkers were forced to evacuate unexpectedly, and many had to sleep outside in a city park until they could be placed in emergency housing. While most of these workers were soon placed in alternative company-provided housing, the COVID-19 pandemic caused difficulties in housing the workers safely. Without home insurance, workers whose housing was burned or damaged by the wildfires were left financially devastated. This serves as an example of what the future of climate migration may look like for those who cannot afford to leave their work or travel to find new housing. Efforts must be made to plan for the safe evacuation of low-income and undocumented people from at-risk areas.

Weekly Climate News

September 17, 2020

• The world misses internationally agreed 2020 biodiversity goals, a United Nations report states. Significant barriers to halt plant and wildlife loss include lack of funding and failure to account for the role of women. 

• The Amazon rainforest continues to grapple with wildfires for the second consecutive year. An international report said by shifting to low-carbon policies that protect the Amazon, Brazil’s economic growth could be revived more quickly after COVID-19. 

• Wildfires raging in the U.S. could create a financial crisis, illustrating the significant impacts climate change has on the economy. 

• How are firefighters in the West managing the blazes? Read this article to learn more about current firefighting techniques used during a pandemic. 

• A South Carolina farmer is adapting heirloom rice to withstand climate change. Read about his story here. 

• Facebook announced they would be taking steps to crack down on climate misinformation by setting up a Climate Science Information Center and will better connect their users to science-based facts. 

• NPR and PBS Frontline released an investigative piece about how big oil companies have been misleading the public on how plastic is recycled. Read about it here. 

• In some parts of Oregon, smoke from fires maxed out the Environmental Protection Agency’s scale for measuring hazardous air quality. Read about how this connects to human health here. 

• At a roundtable with California Governor Gavin Newsom, President Donald Trump dismissed evidence of global warming connected to the wildfires in the West, stating, “I don’t think science knows, actually.” Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden called Trump a “climate arsonist” and here’s why.

NEPA and EPA Regulations Relaxed Under Trump Administration Have Environmental Implications

by Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

This summer saw the slashing of multiple environmental policies by the Trump administration in an effort to reduce time and costs associated with energy and infrastructure development in the United States. These changes met resistance from environmental groups and became the subject of political controversy. Two environmental regulations that have recently been rolled back are the National Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule on methane leaks in fossil fuel production.

NEPA is a piece of environmental legislation that requires all major federal actions to be assessed on their environmental, social and economic impact before implementation. “Major federal actions” cover a wide range of activities, from infrastructure projects such as building roads and bridges, to the implementation of federal policies and programs. Under NEPA, all such projects must draft environmental impact statements, explore ways to avoid negative environmental, economic and social impacts, consider long-term effects of the project and identify permanent resources needed to complete the project. These actions required by NEPA have often been criticized for causing unnecessary delays in the execution of projects, as they can be time- and resource-consuming. 

The Trump administration’s new rule changes key definitions within NEPA to reduce its scope in an effort to increase the efficiency of federal projects. The new rule narrows the definition of “major federal actions” to exclude projects that require “minimal Federal funding or minimal Federal involvement.” The definition was previously given a broad interpretation, so the new rule releases many projects from needing to follow NEPA. The new rule also dictates that agencies are only responsible for effects that are “reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives,” meaning that agencies are not responsible for negative effects that would occur in the far future or the indirect effects of their projects.

 Concerns regarding changes to NEPA are not only centered around the potential for negative environmental effects of projects to go unnoticed, but also around the speeding up of project planning that will reduce opportunities for communities to voice their opinions about the projects. As of Aug. 28, more than 20 states, including Massachusetts, have sued the Trump administration over changes to this policy.

Another environmental regulation that has been rolled back is a rule on methane leaks created by the Obama administration. The rule required fossil fuel companies to monitor and repair leaks of methane gas from oil and gas wells. The regulation would have required many oil and gas wells to be retrofitted with the proper technology for methane detection, which is both costly and time-consuming for fossil fuel companies. EPA estimates predict that the rollback will save these companies $100 million through 2030 and lead to 850,000 tons of methane being released into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas that stays in the air for less time than other GHGs like CO2, but has 80 times the heat-trapping capability of CO2 during its first 20 years in the atmosphere. The gas is released by energy production plants, landfills and livestock. 

The EPA has also reported that emissions from methane leaks have stabilized in recent years, meaning that the regulation may not necessarily have a significant impact on emissions, but these reports have been challenged by data collection within the scientific community. Recent findings are in agreement that atmospheric methane levels are higher than what was previously reported by the EPA. Discrepancies between EPA and independent data collection come from the EPA’s use of a mix of self-reported data from fossil fuel companies and on-site testing of methane leaks. The discovery of higher-than-expected methane levels means that policies aiming to curb emissions of the gas are more important than ever in slowing the onset of climate change. 

Major fossil fuel companies have decided to continue following the regulation in order to avoid damaging their public image and aid in their promotion of natural gas as a “green” alternative to oil. If natural gas were to be associated with high amounts of methane emissions, it would undermine companies’ efforts to promote it. 

The methane rule was part of a set of three regulations created by the Obama administration in an attempt to slow climate change. The others targeted CO2 emissions from cars and coal burning and have previously been rolled back by the Trump administration.