What's an "OP-ED" anyway?
Well, first off, it's "op-ed," which is short for "opposite-the-editorial-page" and the first "op-ed" is rumored to trace its origin to 1921 or 1970, depending on the 'modernity' of definition. These opinion pieces assembled below reflect the opinions of the student participants, and not Montana State University or any of the guest speakers (30 over 3 weeks!) or either of the instructors.
The 6-part format for each op-ed assembled here will parallel that of the blogposts
This assignment should focus on a key aspect of the course and present a strong argument and perspective on climate change in Montana. Research for the piece should come from a variety of sources, including the course readings as well as guest-speakers and “person-on-the-street” interviews conducted while on the field trips. The piece should also reference and translate peer-reviewed, scientific articles that focus on climate science, policy, or their intersection, and be grounded in the substance of the Montana Climate Assessment.
Feast yourselves! (Click a title below to jump to that specific op-ed.)
==========================================================================================================================
Well, first off, it's "op-ed," which is short for "opposite-the-editorial-page" and the first "op-ed" is rumored to trace its origin to 1921 or 1970, depending on the 'modernity' of definition. These opinion pieces assembled below reflect the opinions of the student participants, and not Montana State University or any of the guest speakers (30 over 3 weeks!) or either of the instructors.
The 6-part format for each op-ed assembled here will parallel that of the blogposts
- (title,
- <autodate>,
- photo,
- byline [By Firstname Lastname],
- dateline [location where story is composed] in ALL CAPS,
- text),
This assignment should focus on a key aspect of the course and present a strong argument and perspective on climate change in Montana. Research for the piece should come from a variety of sources, including the course readings as well as guest-speakers and “person-on-the-street” interviews conducted while on the field trips. The piece should also reference and translate peer-reviewed, scientific articles that focus on climate science, policy, or their intersection, and be grounded in the substance of the Montana Climate Assessment.
Feast yourselves! (Click a title below to jump to that specific op-ed.)
==========================================================================================================================
Erin's "The race to stop climate change"
Sam's "Wait, what about general climate literacy?"
Reilly's "Crazy ain't a bad thing"
Zach's "The symbiosis of profits and climate change mitigation"
Grace's "Risky business"
Heidi's "It's all yours"
===============================================
A Public Disservice
8/12/2018
By Bradley Harvey
DILLON, Montana -- Let me introduce you to a member of the Montana Public Service Commission: Mr. Roger Koopman. A representative for the state of Montana in 2004 and 2006, Koopman was elected the commissioner for Southwestern Montana in 2012 and re-elected in 2016. I would like to open with a simple piece of life advice, a quote from Koopman, “I encourage you all to be truth seekers. Go against the grain.” The #climateclass2018 met with Koopman on August 6, 2018, and this is a reflection of what he had to say and a testament to people like-minded and living in the face of denial, like Koopman.
“Does the Sun cause climate change? I don’t know.” This statement, yes a real statement from a person with a bachelor's degree and a former representative for the state of Montana (ballotpedia.org), may seem inconspicuous and innocent, though I find it unlikely to be either. Further, “Is the increase in CO2 and temperature good or bad?” was another actual question posed by the commissioner during our meeting. Following up the previous statement with, “What is the optimum CO2 and temperature?” as if questioning the fact that we are not certain of the dangers of an increase in both. All of what Koopman had to say regarding a changing climate and the prospects of renewable energy can show the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of this man in power. While discussing the effects of coal and other energy sources that are poisoning our atmosphere, Koopman inadvertently denied the legitimacy of climate change science by stating: “Predictions are incredibly unreliable.” Again, the truth behind this “statement” of sorts is disputable. One cannot deny that we are able to, within reason, make predictions based on our current actions for the future of our climate due to our irresponsible rate of pollution. A quote from Koopman during the 2012 election cycle,
“[The Public Service Commission] needs wise and capable private sector professionals, who will advance innovative, market-based policies to produce cheaper, more reliable energy for our future. It needs statesmen with unshakable conservative principles, equipped with the unique skill sets necessary to provide true leadership.”
True leadership would be leading with a more utilitarian mindset, a way of finding the most good for the most people and not simply leading with personal ideals, or a “unique skill set” as Koopman put it. The conservative principles also seem to be getting in the way of Koopman’s “true leadership” and are preventing innovation in renewable energy solutions and other solutions for climate change.
Another quote from Koopman, “Freedom was never allowed to take place.” can be confusing. The context of the quote: Koopman was questioned on his ramblings on the railroads receiving subsidies that granted so much freedom for so many in the movement Westward. Despite this, Koopman is against having subsidies for renewable energy projects. On its own, this quote may be intriguing, but with context, these words paint a picture of despair for what our future will never have the chance to be. Freedom will never be allowed to take place.
Today there are herds of people whose purposes are to go against the grain. The idea of climate change is similar to smoking cigarettes: people tend to view or have an opinion through a filter of bias. No matter how much science-based information is presented to them to prove that climate change is happening right now, or that smoking cigarette is unhealthy, people will find a way to justify themselves when in caught in tribulation. For years smoking tobacco wasn’t necessarily shown to be unhealthy and was even at times promoted by doctors for various health concerns. Since then, however, the scientific community has found in abundance that smoking is detrimental to your health, much like science has found climate change to be an immediate concern. Though most smokers will not deny that smoking is undoubtedly bad for their health, they continue to smoke habitually. Climate change is along the same line of logic: people are not only ignoring the issues surrounding climate change like many smokers do their own issues, some even have the audacity to completely deny or question the existence of climate change altogether.
There seems to be an exceptional amount of uncertainty in science right now and, after looking over some of the quotes from Koopman, I see a stigma that isn’t just an opinion, it is a cause for concern for our future.
DILLON, Montana -- Let me introduce you to a member of the Montana Public Service Commission: Mr. Roger Koopman. A representative for the state of Montana in 2004 and 2006, Koopman was elected the commissioner for Southwestern Montana in 2012 and re-elected in 2016. I would like to open with a simple piece of life advice, a quote from Koopman, “I encourage you all to be truth seekers. Go against the grain.” The #climateclass2018 met with Koopman on August 6, 2018, and this is a reflection of what he had to say and a testament to people like-minded and living in the face of denial, like Koopman.
“Does the Sun cause climate change? I don’t know.” This statement, yes a real statement from a person with a bachelor's degree and a former representative for the state of Montana (ballotpedia.org), may seem inconspicuous and innocent, though I find it unlikely to be either. Further, “Is the increase in CO2 and temperature good or bad?” was another actual question posed by the commissioner during our meeting. Following up the previous statement with, “What is the optimum CO2 and temperature?” as if questioning the fact that we are not certain of the dangers of an increase in both. All of what Koopman had to say regarding a changing climate and the prospects of renewable energy can show the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of this man in power. While discussing the effects of coal and other energy sources that are poisoning our atmosphere, Koopman inadvertently denied the legitimacy of climate change science by stating: “Predictions are incredibly unreliable.” Again, the truth behind this “statement” of sorts is disputable. One cannot deny that we are able to, within reason, make predictions based on our current actions for the future of our climate due to our irresponsible rate of pollution. A quote from Koopman during the 2012 election cycle,
“[The Public Service Commission] needs wise and capable private sector professionals, who will advance innovative, market-based policies to produce cheaper, more reliable energy for our future. It needs statesmen with unshakable conservative principles, equipped with the unique skill sets necessary to provide true leadership.”
True leadership would be leading with a more utilitarian mindset, a way of finding the most good for the most people and not simply leading with personal ideals, or a “unique skill set” as Koopman put it. The conservative principles also seem to be getting in the way of Koopman’s “true leadership” and are preventing innovation in renewable energy solutions and other solutions for climate change.
Another quote from Koopman, “Freedom was never allowed to take place.” can be confusing. The context of the quote: Koopman was questioned on his ramblings on the railroads receiving subsidies that granted so much freedom for so many in the movement Westward. Despite this, Koopman is against having subsidies for renewable energy projects. On its own, this quote may be intriguing, but with context, these words paint a picture of despair for what our future will never have the chance to be. Freedom will never be allowed to take place.
Today there are herds of people whose purposes are to go against the grain. The idea of climate change is similar to smoking cigarettes: people tend to view or have an opinion through a filter of bias. No matter how much science-based information is presented to them to prove that climate change is happening right now, or that smoking cigarette is unhealthy, people will find a way to justify themselves when in caught in tribulation. For years smoking tobacco wasn’t necessarily shown to be unhealthy and was even at times promoted by doctors for various health concerns. Since then, however, the scientific community has found in abundance that smoking is detrimental to your health, much like science has found climate change to be an immediate concern. Though most smokers will not deny that smoking is undoubtedly bad for their health, they continue to smoke habitually. Climate change is along the same line of logic: people are not only ignoring the issues surrounding climate change like many smokers do their own issues, some even have the audacity to completely deny or question the existence of climate change altogether.
There seems to be an exceptional amount of uncertainty in science right now and, after looking over some of the quotes from Koopman, I see a stigma that isn’t just an opinion, it is a cause for concern for our future.
The Race to Stop Climate Change
8/12/2018
By Erin Bjorklund
Growing up in Portland, Oregon I know what lack of diversity looks like. Portland is the whitest major city in America, 76% of Portland’s population is white. Naturally, I thought the transition to Montana would be fairly smooth. Montana’s population is roughly 86% white, which is only a 10% difference from Portland. In my mind, this change would be easy. It wasn’t until the third, and final week of the Climate Class that the lack of diversity in Montana became painfully obvious to me.
Walking into the capital building for our first of several meetings, I was shocked. Every representative we talked to (with the exception of Cindy Perdue-Dolan who organized our phone interview) was a middle-aged, white male. All the photos on the walls, all the photos in the articles passed out, and all the people we talked about were also white men. It became hard for me to focus on anything else. I knew coming into Montana that it would lack diversity, but this was worse than I expected. The most horrifying part in my opinion was the way these representatives talked about inclusivity. The first person we talked with was Patrick Holmes, the Natural Resource Policy Advisor for governor Steve Bullock. Patrick said to solve climate change issues we need to have collaboration and compromise, but with who? Not a single office that I peeked into at the capital building held a person of color. Are their voices being heard? Patrick seemed to think collaboration between different groups of people was the solution, but failed to acknowledge the lack of diversity in his own office. Similarly, during our second meeting of the day, Roger Koopman from the Public Service Commission said that we must “expose [ourselves] to all points of view.” My optimistic side wanted to trust in his advice and praise his inclusivity. My pessimistic side questioned if this was actually being practiced. Bob Lake, who also spoke to us at the Public Service Commission office mentioned that all 5 district representatives at Montana’s Public Service Commission are republican. How can all points of view be taken into consideration if there is only one political party being represented.
Despite my criticism, I do believe that both Patrick Holmes and Roger Koopman are on the right path. Collaboration and the consideration of all points of view is the solution to climate change. It’s critical to respect the opinions of all people, not just the beliefs of the powerful, wealthy, or popular. This is incredibly important because minorities are often the first to face the consequences of global warming. To give a local example, during our first week of the Honors Academy we discussed the oppression forced upon the community of Opportunity, Montana. In the 19th century, Montana was known for its copper production. Cooper production was essential for providing America with some of the newest technology, however toxic by-products from the mining flowed into the Clark Fork River. In an effort to restore the Clark Fork, environmentalists removed millions of tons of poisonous soils. But where was this toxic waste dumped? Opportunity. This small, relatively poor community couldn’t do anything to prevent the toxins from ruining their landscape. In this situation, Opportunity was the minority and their well-being was sacrificed to fix an environmental disaster. If people in power, like Roger Koopman and Patrick Holmes don’t respect the views of all Montanans, Opportunity will not be the only unjust sacrifice made to clean up an environmental disaster. As climate change continues to be a very real threat, long-term solutions are needed because short-term fixes will fail to solve our most pressing issues. As the Montana Climate Assessment states, “understanding current climate change and projecting future climate trends is of vital importance, both for our economy and our well-being,” (Montana Climate Assessment, XXIV).
The race to stop climate change will not be the white majority, but a collection of all kinds of people. Climate change is a universal problem and will take a worldwide solution. As Jessica Sena, a representative of the Montana Petroleum Association who we spoke with said, we are “constantly fighting each other” but we must come together because climate change “can’t be solved by just one city, state, or country. It will take a global solution” to solve climate change, “because our atmosphere is global.” We will need to consider the beliefs of all people, because when it comes to the race to stop climate change we either all win together or we all lose together.
Growing up in Portland, Oregon I know what lack of diversity looks like. Portland is the whitest major city in America, 76% of Portland’s population is white. Naturally, I thought the transition to Montana would be fairly smooth. Montana’s population is roughly 86% white, which is only a 10% difference from Portland. In my mind, this change would be easy. It wasn’t until the third, and final week of the Climate Class that the lack of diversity in Montana became painfully obvious to me.
Walking into the capital building for our first of several meetings, I was shocked. Every representative we talked to (with the exception of Cindy Perdue-Dolan who organized our phone interview) was a middle-aged, white male. All the photos on the walls, all the photos in the articles passed out, and all the people we talked about were also white men. It became hard for me to focus on anything else. I knew coming into Montana that it would lack diversity, but this was worse than I expected. The most horrifying part in my opinion was the way these representatives talked about inclusivity. The first person we talked with was Patrick Holmes, the Natural Resource Policy Advisor for governor Steve Bullock. Patrick said to solve climate change issues we need to have collaboration and compromise, but with who? Not a single office that I peeked into at the capital building held a person of color. Are their voices being heard? Patrick seemed to think collaboration between different groups of people was the solution, but failed to acknowledge the lack of diversity in his own office. Similarly, during our second meeting of the day, Roger Koopman from the Public Service Commission said that we must “expose [ourselves] to all points of view.” My optimistic side wanted to trust in his advice and praise his inclusivity. My pessimistic side questioned if this was actually being practiced. Bob Lake, who also spoke to us at the Public Service Commission office mentioned that all 5 district representatives at Montana’s Public Service Commission are republican. How can all points of view be taken into consideration if there is only one political party being represented.
Despite my criticism, I do believe that both Patrick Holmes and Roger Koopman are on the right path. Collaboration and the consideration of all points of view is the solution to climate change. It’s critical to respect the opinions of all people, not just the beliefs of the powerful, wealthy, or popular. This is incredibly important because minorities are often the first to face the consequences of global warming. To give a local example, during our first week of the Honors Academy we discussed the oppression forced upon the community of Opportunity, Montana. In the 19th century, Montana was known for its copper production. Cooper production was essential for providing America with some of the newest technology, however toxic by-products from the mining flowed into the Clark Fork River. In an effort to restore the Clark Fork, environmentalists removed millions of tons of poisonous soils. But where was this toxic waste dumped? Opportunity. This small, relatively poor community couldn’t do anything to prevent the toxins from ruining their landscape. In this situation, Opportunity was the minority and their well-being was sacrificed to fix an environmental disaster. If people in power, like Roger Koopman and Patrick Holmes don’t respect the views of all Montanans, Opportunity will not be the only unjust sacrifice made to clean up an environmental disaster. As climate change continues to be a very real threat, long-term solutions are needed because short-term fixes will fail to solve our most pressing issues. As the Montana Climate Assessment states, “understanding current climate change and projecting future climate trends is of vital importance, both for our economy and our well-being,” (Montana Climate Assessment, XXIV).
The race to stop climate change will not be the white majority, but a collection of all kinds of people. Climate change is a universal problem and will take a worldwide solution. As Jessica Sena, a representative of the Montana Petroleum Association who we spoke with said, we are “constantly fighting each other” but we must come together because climate change “can’t be solved by just one city, state, or country. It will take a global solution” to solve climate change, “because our atmosphere is global.” We will need to consider the beliefs of all people, because when it comes to the race to stop climate change we either all win together or we all lose together.
Sources:
1. Photo by Tracy on Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/tracyelizabeths/8126833995
2. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/08/americas_whitest_big_city_sure.html
3. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/mt
4. Opportunity, Montana: Big Copper, Bad Water, and the Burial of an American Landscape, by Brad Tyer
5. 2017 Montana Climate Assessment
1. Photo by Tracy on Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/tracyelizabeths/8126833995
2. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/08/americas_whitest_big_city_sure.html
3. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/mt
4. Opportunity, Montana: Big Copper, Bad Water, and the Burial of an American Landscape, by Brad Tyer
5. 2017 Montana Climate Assessment
Wait, What About General Climate Literacy?
By Sam Telling
DILLON, Montana—After a weeks-long tour of Montana meeting stakeholders and innovators, I can’t tout one climate change solution or another because our current political climate handicaps them all. We were told to get into the nat’s ass of an issue, to dig deep and explain thoroughly. I understand the importance of that. However, focusing on the granular of one problem or project doesn’t make sense to me, not yet. Instead, I keep going back to the importance of climate literacy itself.
Climate literacy can be defined as “understanding Earth’s climate system, knowing how to assess scientifically credible information, meaningfully communicating about climate change, and making informed, responsible decisions to combat climate change (Climate Literacy).” Only through widespread climate literacy can society have the foundation and urgency to be proactive towards climate change.
Just this summer, the percentage of Americans who believe in anthropogenic climate change hit a record high. But it’s still only sixty percent (Wise). The percentage of conservative Republicans who believe in anthropogenic climate change declined to twenty-six percent (Reilly). Sizable percentages of Americans provide cover for political leaders to stonewall progress on climate change.
They are holding closed the floodgates on deep reservoirs of potential solutions which if coordinated could provide a habitable planet. Progress in Montana is stifled.
David Oien created an entire market for legumes which replenish nitrogen in soil. Most government subsidies support the mass production of corn and wheat, which are typically farmed in a way that depletes soil health (Danello).
Twodot Land and Livestock outside of Harlowtown is a ranch that specializes in intensive grazing. Using this approach, they are on the vanguard of regenerative ranching. Even though they have shown benefits to soil, plant, and livestock health, few other ranches incorporate intensive grazing into their management.
Entities like Clearwater Energy have plans to utilize Colstrip’s grid access to harness wind and solar power (Lutey). Politicians including Democratic Governor Steve Bullock and Republican Senator Steve Daines continue to prop up carbon sequestration as Colstrip’s solution. Both of them know that neither the government or private businesses have the appetite to foot the estimated $1.2 billion to implement carbon sequestration (Maloney). They are wasting valuable time to find an alternative to coal.
Take a closer look at Colstrip; according to MSU Professor Tony Hartshorn, it was built in the 1970’s and 1980’s as an experiment in energy production with the anticipation that it would only operate for forty or so years. And now we need to start new experiments like the others being undertaken in Montana, just on a much larger scale.
Princeton University Professor Robert Secolow has developed what he calls Stabilization Wedges. Instead of increasing our emissions through 2055, these wedges are specific actions that can be taken to maintain 2005-level emissions. Increasing energy efficiency in buildings, raising automotive fuel standards and bio-fuel usage, building wind, solar, and nuclear energy sources, and developing forests and soils as carbon storage are all wedges Dr. Secolow proposed. He argues that the wedges will need an initial subsidized investment and then markets which wedges work best (Secolow).
Dr. Secolow’s optimism that humanity can still pull back from the brink and his pragmatic proposals to do so actually gives me goosebumps. I am truly inspired by the stakeholders and innovators we met across Montana who are experimenting with their own wedges.
My excitement is tempered by the general lack of urgency to solve this issue. Even some students in my climate class don’t think we should subsidize wind energy or defeatedly say that we need coal for now, failing to propose legitimate energy transitions. How do we increase climate literacy, particularly in Montana?
Begin with the Montana Climate Assessment. Future iterations must include a chapter dedicated to what energy future would be best for the state and impacts on more basic Montana values. What will happen to our recreational opportunities? How will human health be affected? Tourism? The authors must focus on what Montanans simply cannot afford to ignore.
Further, Montana State University should implement a class similar to Taking the Pulse of Montana as a requirement for incoming Freshman. The University is already taking an active role in composting and cutting down on waste, the logical next step is to engender climate awareness in its students.
As climate literacy rises, government accountability on climate change will also increase. Not only will individual efforts to combat climate change get the recognition they deserve, they will no longer be piecemeal and will instead become part of a concerted effort to save the planet.
Sources
“Climate Literacy.” Teaching Energy, Climate Literacy & Energy Awareness Network, 19 June 2017.
Danello, Chris. “The 9 Foods the U.S. Government Is Paying You to Eat.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 8 June 2015.
Lutey, Tom. “Montana's Largest Wind Farm Quietly Develops Northeast of Colstrip.” The Billings Gazette, 17 Apr. 2016.
Maloney, Peter. “DOE: Converting Colstrip Coal Plant to Carbon Capture Would Cost $1.2B.” Utility Dive, 2 Sept. 2016.
Reilly, Henrietta. “The Political Divide over Climate Science.” Axios, 23 June 2018.
Secolow, Robert. Stabilization Wedges: Mitigation Tools for the Next Half-Century. Stabilization Wedges: Mitigation Tools for the Next Half-Century.
Secolow, Robert. “Stabilization Wedges: Mitigation Tools for the Next Half-Century.” Princetown, 5 Apr. 2006.
Wise, Justin. “Poll: Record Number of Americans Believe in Man-Made Climate Change.” TheHill, 11 July 2018.
DILLON, Montana—After a weeks-long tour of Montana meeting stakeholders and innovators, I can’t tout one climate change solution or another because our current political climate handicaps them all. We were told to get into the nat’s ass of an issue, to dig deep and explain thoroughly. I understand the importance of that. However, focusing on the granular of one problem or project doesn’t make sense to me, not yet. Instead, I keep going back to the importance of climate literacy itself.
Climate literacy can be defined as “understanding Earth’s climate system, knowing how to assess scientifically credible information, meaningfully communicating about climate change, and making informed, responsible decisions to combat climate change (Climate Literacy).” Only through widespread climate literacy can society have the foundation and urgency to be proactive towards climate change.
Just this summer, the percentage of Americans who believe in anthropogenic climate change hit a record high. But it’s still only sixty percent (Wise). The percentage of conservative Republicans who believe in anthropogenic climate change declined to twenty-six percent (Reilly). Sizable percentages of Americans provide cover for political leaders to stonewall progress on climate change.
They are holding closed the floodgates on deep reservoirs of potential solutions which if coordinated could provide a habitable planet. Progress in Montana is stifled.
David Oien created an entire market for legumes which replenish nitrogen in soil. Most government subsidies support the mass production of corn and wheat, which are typically farmed in a way that depletes soil health (Danello).
Twodot Land and Livestock outside of Harlowtown is a ranch that specializes in intensive grazing. Using this approach, they are on the vanguard of regenerative ranching. Even though they have shown benefits to soil, plant, and livestock health, few other ranches incorporate intensive grazing into their management.
Entities like Clearwater Energy have plans to utilize Colstrip’s grid access to harness wind and solar power (Lutey). Politicians including Democratic Governor Steve Bullock and Republican Senator Steve Daines continue to prop up carbon sequestration as Colstrip’s solution. Both of them know that neither the government or private businesses have the appetite to foot the estimated $1.2 billion to implement carbon sequestration (Maloney). They are wasting valuable time to find an alternative to coal.
Take a closer look at Colstrip; according to MSU Professor Tony Hartshorn, it was built in the 1970’s and 1980’s as an experiment in energy production with the anticipation that it would only operate for forty or so years. And now we need to start new experiments like the others being undertaken in Montana, just on a much larger scale.
Princeton University Professor Robert Secolow has developed what he calls Stabilization Wedges. Instead of increasing our emissions through 2055, these wedges are specific actions that can be taken to maintain 2005-level emissions. Increasing energy efficiency in buildings, raising automotive fuel standards and bio-fuel usage, building wind, solar, and nuclear energy sources, and developing forests and soils as carbon storage are all wedges Dr. Secolow proposed. He argues that the wedges will need an initial subsidized investment and then markets which wedges work best (Secolow).
Dr. Secolow’s optimism that humanity can still pull back from the brink and his pragmatic proposals to do so actually gives me goosebumps. I am truly inspired by the stakeholders and innovators we met across Montana who are experimenting with their own wedges.
My excitement is tempered by the general lack of urgency to solve this issue. Even some students in my climate class don’t think we should subsidize wind energy or defeatedly say that we need coal for now, failing to propose legitimate energy transitions. How do we increase climate literacy, particularly in Montana?
Begin with the Montana Climate Assessment. Future iterations must include a chapter dedicated to what energy future would be best for the state and impacts on more basic Montana values. What will happen to our recreational opportunities? How will human health be affected? Tourism? The authors must focus on what Montanans simply cannot afford to ignore.
Further, Montana State University should implement a class similar to Taking the Pulse of Montana as a requirement for incoming Freshman. The University is already taking an active role in composting and cutting down on waste, the logical next step is to engender climate awareness in its students.
As climate literacy rises, government accountability on climate change will also increase. Not only will individual efforts to combat climate change get the recognition they deserve, they will no longer be piecemeal and will instead become part of a concerted effort to save the planet.
Sources
“Climate Literacy.” Teaching Energy, Climate Literacy & Energy Awareness Network, 19 June 2017.
Danello, Chris. “The 9 Foods the U.S. Government Is Paying You to Eat.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 8 June 2015.
Lutey, Tom. “Montana's Largest Wind Farm Quietly Develops Northeast of Colstrip.” The Billings Gazette, 17 Apr. 2016.
Maloney, Peter. “DOE: Converting Colstrip Coal Plant to Carbon Capture Would Cost $1.2B.” Utility Dive, 2 Sept. 2016.
Reilly, Henrietta. “The Political Divide over Climate Science.” Axios, 23 June 2018.
Secolow, Robert. Stabilization Wedges: Mitigation Tools for the Next Half-Century. Stabilization Wedges: Mitigation Tools for the Next Half-Century.
Secolow, Robert. “Stabilization Wedges: Mitigation Tools for the Next Half-Century.” Princetown, 5 Apr. 2006.
Wise, Justin. “Poll: Record Number of Americans Believe in Man-Made Climate Change.” TheHill, 11 July 2018.
Crazy ain't a bad thing
By: Reilly Teigen
I have recently completed the honors summer academy with MSU, where 19 students traveled around Montana to speak with various persons in agriculture, energy production, and forest management - all with the objective of relating their struggles and goals to climate change. In these three weeks, I noticed a theme between the diverse group of speakers – they often self-identified as “crazy” innovators who were trying something completely new in their field.
As a country, we undervalue these projects & the people behind them. Some may talk about the importance of innovation, but what are we willing to sacrifice for the pursuit of greater knowledge and efficiency? To answer this, I must look back to another motif – this time found in the political lens of our trip. The speakers with more political ties talked the talk about their support for innovation in Montana, but had little to back up their words. Where is the capitol to help new ideas get off the ground?
The US continues to subsidize old energy and agriculture practices, like barely profitable windmills, oil and gas (greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels), and corn ethanol for biofuel (grown on land which would better serve people and the environment as farms for food, not fuel). A solution seems clear: take from the old, and give to the new. I agree with our speaker Jessica at the oil and gas board, technology will be our escape from the harsher conditions climate change will bring. Let’s not make this a false promise, we need to start investing in energy and agriculture research if we want to beat the effects of the changing clouds. And if we must sacrifice the growth and cost of (inefficient) energy and ag in the short term, that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. Are you?
Let’s backtrack briefly. Why are these innovations important in the first place? To be entirely truthful, many may not be the lavish solutions their managers hoped for. But the mere fact that experiments are happening is good news for our fight against the negative effects of climate change. In the Montana Climate Assessment, summer precipitation is predicted to fall; with the worst consequences in the east. Even if the world greatly reduced its CO2 emissions, eastern Montana would still see an increase in droughts and days above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The question is not how can we stop climate change in its tracks (we can’t), but how can the citizens of Montana prosper through changing conditions.
The “crazy” innovators are already working on this problem. An aquaponics farm in Billings claims that its tech is the future of farming. We also visited a rancher who was experimenting with “intensive grazing”, and hoped their success would lead others towards the process which they claimed was better for raising nutritious cows, while regenerating soil nutrients. In addition, we toured a ranch with an elaborate compost tea operation, which was said to help soil microbiomes which in turn would increase crop yields. These are the crazy experiments we need in order to allow sustainable agriculture to outpace drought and heat brought on by, again, climate change.
Energy needs change too, The Colstrip power plant is Montana’s only baseline energy provider. Without it, we will have to rely on over tapped hydro, unreliable wind, and imported electricity. We unfortunately didn’t see any “crazy” energy projects. This is sad, as we need new ideas on how to support Montana’s power grid in a post-Colstrip world, and hopefully in a renewable and profitable way.
So I end this Op Ed with an idea about ideas. Ideas are often idealistic, but ideally they improve on existing ideas. Our country’s ideology, no matter your idiosyncrasy or political party, should idealize the importance of ideas and innovation and therefore, we should move subsidies from old systems to new kickstarts. Perhaps a few million for a mini hydroelectric, or for a new way to rotate animals on a ranch. We’ll deal with the qualifying factors for the new innovation subsidies when we get there. For now, we must gain support from public officials in changing how we deal with climate change. Surely a million monkeys, with a million projects, with enough time will produce enough solutions to live comfortably in a changed climate?
I have recently completed the honors summer academy with MSU, where 19 students traveled around Montana to speak with various persons in agriculture, energy production, and forest management - all with the objective of relating their struggles and goals to climate change. In these three weeks, I noticed a theme between the diverse group of speakers – they often self-identified as “crazy” innovators who were trying something completely new in their field.
As a country, we undervalue these projects & the people behind them. Some may talk about the importance of innovation, but what are we willing to sacrifice for the pursuit of greater knowledge and efficiency? To answer this, I must look back to another motif – this time found in the political lens of our trip. The speakers with more political ties talked the talk about their support for innovation in Montana, but had little to back up their words. Where is the capitol to help new ideas get off the ground?
The US continues to subsidize old energy and agriculture practices, like barely profitable windmills, oil and gas (greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels), and corn ethanol for biofuel (grown on land which would better serve people and the environment as farms for food, not fuel). A solution seems clear: take from the old, and give to the new. I agree with our speaker Jessica at the oil and gas board, technology will be our escape from the harsher conditions climate change will bring. Let’s not make this a false promise, we need to start investing in energy and agriculture research if we want to beat the effects of the changing clouds. And if we must sacrifice the growth and cost of (inefficient) energy and ag in the short term, that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. Are you?
Let’s backtrack briefly. Why are these innovations important in the first place? To be entirely truthful, many may not be the lavish solutions their managers hoped for. But the mere fact that experiments are happening is good news for our fight against the negative effects of climate change. In the Montana Climate Assessment, summer precipitation is predicted to fall; with the worst consequences in the east. Even if the world greatly reduced its CO2 emissions, eastern Montana would still see an increase in droughts and days above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The question is not how can we stop climate change in its tracks (we can’t), but how can the citizens of Montana prosper through changing conditions.
The “crazy” innovators are already working on this problem. An aquaponics farm in Billings claims that its tech is the future of farming. We also visited a rancher who was experimenting with “intensive grazing”, and hoped their success would lead others towards the process which they claimed was better for raising nutritious cows, while regenerating soil nutrients. In addition, we toured a ranch with an elaborate compost tea operation, which was said to help soil microbiomes which in turn would increase crop yields. These are the crazy experiments we need in order to allow sustainable agriculture to outpace drought and heat brought on by, again, climate change.
Energy needs change too, The Colstrip power plant is Montana’s only baseline energy provider. Without it, we will have to rely on over tapped hydro, unreliable wind, and imported electricity. We unfortunately didn’t see any “crazy” energy projects. This is sad, as we need new ideas on how to support Montana’s power grid in a post-Colstrip world, and hopefully in a renewable and profitable way.
So I end this Op Ed with an idea about ideas. Ideas are often idealistic, but ideally they improve on existing ideas. Our country’s ideology, no matter your idiosyncrasy or political party, should idealize the importance of ideas and innovation and therefore, we should move subsidies from old systems to new kickstarts. Perhaps a few million for a mini hydroelectric, or for a new way to rotate animals on a ranch. We’ll deal with the qualifying factors for the new innovation subsidies when we get there. For now, we must gain support from public officials in changing how we deal with climate change. Surely a million monkeys, with a million projects, with enough time will produce enough solutions to live comfortably in a changed climate?
The Symbiosis of Profits and Climate Change Mitigation
By Zach Archambault
BELLINGHAM, Washington—When it comes to working to solve a big problem, most people are too reluctant to do anything. Solving a big problem means changing, and changing means more work, more time, more effort, and, the baddest of the bunch, more money—especially when dealing with something like climate change. For most people, the time, effort, and money they assume they would be wasting in working to mitigate climate change will never be worth it. But the problem with that style of thinking is that it’s just not accurate.
Take Two Dot Ranch as an example. On Two Dot Ranch, an unusual technique of grazing is practiced. It’s called “high density grazing”. High density grazing is a technique in which all of the cows on a ranch graze on a new, single, low-acreage pasture each day—forcing the cows to eat all of the plants available, not just their favorites. Kathleen, the Ranch Manager, explained that this is a “restorative” agricultural technique (a step above sustainable). The cows won’t graze on that same pasture for another year or more, allowing the microbial communities in the soil to heal, and even enhance, that pasture.
This technique serves as an example of a change that does its part to mitigate climate change. It allows large sections of land to sequester carbon in the form of biomass, while still allowing for the ranch to profit. When asked about the amount of work on this kind of ranch versus a traditional single, high-acreage pasture style ranch, Kathleen said that “the work is about the same,” because on a traditional ranch more people are needed to go out and find the finished cattle, whereas on the high density grazing ranch, more labor is needed on the management side. As for differences in profitability, Two Dot’s cattle are raised grass fed, and with the variety of grasses they eat their cattle are much more nutritious than typical grass fed cattle and far more nutritious than grain fed cattle, and people pay big bucks for nutritious meat. High density grazing clearly has a positive effect on the people who do it, and the planet at large.
Again, even though most people seem to think that any change they make to fight a warming climate will hurt their wallets, the opposite is true. Patrick Holmes, Governor Bullock’s Natural Resource Policy Advisor, says the same thing: “in reality, the two [saving money (profiting), and creating a more resilient environment] can go hand in hand.” An example Mr. Holmes gave of this was a construction material called cross laminated timber. Cross laminated timber is pieces of wood that have been glued together perpendicular to one another to make a material that Mr. Holmes tells us “is as strong as steel and concrete”. So here we have an excellent construction material that is just as capable as the modern standards, but also has the added benefit of sequestering a lot of carbon too. It’s a win-win situation. But there’s more! Not only is it just as good as current construction materials, but, according to Mr. Holmes, it’s production also releases “a fraction of the emissions [compared to the production of steel and concrete]”. Again, it just gets better and better—for people and the planet.
With high density grazing and cross laminated timber both helping us and helping the Earth, why is it that people haven't adopted these sorts of changes more readily? I think it’s because too often we listen to the extremes of the political spectrum, and end up not doing anything. When we listen to right-wingers who sit in outright denial and shout that climate change is a hoax crafted to steal money from hard workers, we don’t act. We don’t because there’s no reason to, because the warming of the planet isn’t an issue to be concerned with, so therefore no changes need to be made. When we listen to staunch leftist activists assert a moral high ground and tout idealist solutions requiring incomprehensible amounts of capital to execute, we don’t act. We don’t because we’ve been conditioned to see any solution on a smale, doable, scale as more of a faux-solution than a real solution, and that we shouldn’t accept anything less than an ultimate fix.
What can be done? Just realize what’s good for the planet is good for you, because mitigating climate change and profits don’t have to be mutually exclusive, and, in fact, they have a symbiotic relationship.
BELLINGHAM, Washington—When it comes to working to solve a big problem, most people are too reluctant to do anything. Solving a big problem means changing, and changing means more work, more time, more effort, and, the baddest of the bunch, more money—especially when dealing with something like climate change. For most people, the time, effort, and money they assume they would be wasting in working to mitigate climate change will never be worth it. But the problem with that style of thinking is that it’s just not accurate.
Take Two Dot Ranch as an example. On Two Dot Ranch, an unusual technique of grazing is practiced. It’s called “high density grazing”. High density grazing is a technique in which all of the cows on a ranch graze on a new, single, low-acreage pasture each day—forcing the cows to eat all of the plants available, not just their favorites. Kathleen, the Ranch Manager, explained that this is a “restorative” agricultural technique (a step above sustainable). The cows won’t graze on that same pasture for another year or more, allowing the microbial communities in the soil to heal, and even enhance, that pasture.
This technique serves as an example of a change that does its part to mitigate climate change. It allows large sections of land to sequester carbon in the form of biomass, while still allowing for the ranch to profit. When asked about the amount of work on this kind of ranch versus a traditional single, high-acreage pasture style ranch, Kathleen said that “the work is about the same,” because on a traditional ranch more people are needed to go out and find the finished cattle, whereas on the high density grazing ranch, more labor is needed on the management side. As for differences in profitability, Two Dot’s cattle are raised grass fed, and with the variety of grasses they eat their cattle are much more nutritious than typical grass fed cattle and far more nutritious than grain fed cattle, and people pay big bucks for nutritious meat. High density grazing clearly has a positive effect on the people who do it, and the planet at large.
Again, even though most people seem to think that any change they make to fight a warming climate will hurt their wallets, the opposite is true. Patrick Holmes, Governor Bullock’s Natural Resource Policy Advisor, says the same thing: “in reality, the two [saving money (profiting), and creating a more resilient environment] can go hand in hand.” An example Mr. Holmes gave of this was a construction material called cross laminated timber. Cross laminated timber is pieces of wood that have been glued together perpendicular to one another to make a material that Mr. Holmes tells us “is as strong as steel and concrete”. So here we have an excellent construction material that is just as capable as the modern standards, but also has the added benefit of sequestering a lot of carbon too. It’s a win-win situation. But there’s more! Not only is it just as good as current construction materials, but, according to Mr. Holmes, it’s production also releases “a fraction of the emissions [compared to the production of steel and concrete]”. Again, it just gets better and better—for people and the planet.
With high density grazing and cross laminated timber both helping us and helping the Earth, why is it that people haven't adopted these sorts of changes more readily? I think it’s because too often we listen to the extremes of the political spectrum, and end up not doing anything. When we listen to right-wingers who sit in outright denial and shout that climate change is a hoax crafted to steal money from hard workers, we don’t act. We don’t because there’s no reason to, because the warming of the planet isn’t an issue to be concerned with, so therefore no changes need to be made. When we listen to staunch leftist activists assert a moral high ground and tout idealist solutions requiring incomprehensible amounts of capital to execute, we don’t act. We don’t because we’ve been conditioned to see any solution on a smale, doable, scale as more of a faux-solution than a real solution, and that we shouldn’t accept anything less than an ultimate fix.
What can be done? Just realize what’s good for the planet is good for you, because mitigating climate change and profits don’t have to be mutually exclusive, and, in fact, they have a symbiotic relationship.
Risky Business
8/12/2018
By Grace Beck
OSWEGO, IL-- Before climate class set out for our first trip, the workers at the MSU outdoor recreation center taught us the policy of “leave no trace”. The concept seems almost laughable to me because it seems like everywhere I go has a noticeable human footprint. Over the entire duration of the climate class we’ve gotten to see various forms of how humans impact the environment through intentional and unintentional actions. Some unintentional actions include spreading invasive species throughout Yellowstone by carrying the seeds on shoes or car tires and adding carbon dioxide and particulates into the atmosphere from burning coal, which leads to warmer temperatures and poor air quality. We’ve also discussed more intentional changes to the environment such as reintroducing buffalo to the Yellowstone ecosystem and removing Douglas-firs in the experimental forest to prevent severe wildfires. Though the intentional human actions sound a lot better for the environment I still have my concerns. At what point do we let nature grow without the touch of human involvement?
The perfect example of an intentional human impact on an environment is the experimental forest in Missoula, Montana. Peter Kolb explained that the main goal of the forest is to help prevent the “increase in size and possible frequency and/or severity” of forest fires predicted by the MCA (Executive Summary, page XXXVI). In the effort to protect the forest Peter Kolb and his colleagues set surface fires to kill the Douglas-firs and let the larch continue to grow. Though these controlled fires prevent catastrophic fires in the future, I question their methods because we could be hurting the environment more by burning the small ecosystem that lives on the surface. It is natural for a forest to burn down and go through the stages of succession and regrow so that nutrients can be be recycled, but burning it too often can push out species that would normally be present. For example, in my backyard I have a large prairie that used to be the home of mice, rabbits, chipmunks, and coyotes, but as I’ve grown up they have started to burn the prairie in controlled fires more often to prevent the spread of weeds. As a result, the population of those species has noticeably decreased to the point where they are barely present. Are we really helping an ecosystem in half of it is no longer there? By killing off the Douglas-firs we also stop the process of natural selection because Douglas-firs have shorter roots and absorb all the water before it can reach Larch tree roots (Alternative Forest Management Practices for Montana, page 3). In an environment left to grow on its own, Douglas-firs would dominate the forest. It’s strange that in an effort to conserve natural areas we are trying to stop all of the natural processes.
This also ties into the containment of invasive species. While we were in Yellowstone we were forced to participate in the laborious task of removing invasive species around our camp with park volunteers. Though it felt like an honorable job at the time, the end result made me fear that we did more harm than good. I noticed when we were done that a lot of the ground that was previously littered with invasive plant species was left bare and completely exposed to the sun. Leaving the ground in that state could lead to higher soil temperatures that will make it hard for native plants to survive and a loss of habitat for small critters like insects or rodents. In fact, one of the invasive species we pulled was cheatgrass which, according to Anne Rodman, grows well in dry areas, such as the one we left behind. The size of land we worked with was very small compared to the overall size of the park, but if the park worked groups at large levels major amounts of land could be left even more vulnerable than it was before.
Almost all environmental issues can be tied back to some sort of human involvement so letting humans get involved with natural processes can be risky. Though a human impacted ecosystem may look normal and healthy, there are a lot of factors at jeopardy, such as soil content, carbon storage levels, and water absorption, that are hard to predict and monitor because there are so many components of an ecosystem that go into it. Human activity has already caused enough issues in the environment so we should let nature take its natural course without humans getting involved and screwing it up.
By Grace Beck
OSWEGO, IL-- Before climate class set out for our first trip, the workers at the MSU outdoor recreation center taught us the policy of “leave no trace”. The concept seems almost laughable to me because it seems like everywhere I go has a noticeable human footprint. Over the entire duration of the climate class we’ve gotten to see various forms of how humans impact the environment through intentional and unintentional actions. Some unintentional actions include spreading invasive species throughout Yellowstone by carrying the seeds on shoes or car tires and adding carbon dioxide and particulates into the atmosphere from burning coal, which leads to warmer temperatures and poor air quality. We’ve also discussed more intentional changes to the environment such as reintroducing buffalo to the Yellowstone ecosystem and removing Douglas-firs in the experimental forest to prevent severe wildfires. Though the intentional human actions sound a lot better for the environment I still have my concerns. At what point do we let nature grow without the touch of human involvement?
The perfect example of an intentional human impact on an environment is the experimental forest in Missoula, Montana. Peter Kolb explained that the main goal of the forest is to help prevent the “increase in size and possible frequency and/or severity” of forest fires predicted by the MCA (Executive Summary, page XXXVI). In the effort to protect the forest Peter Kolb and his colleagues set surface fires to kill the Douglas-firs and let the larch continue to grow. Though these controlled fires prevent catastrophic fires in the future, I question their methods because we could be hurting the environment more by burning the small ecosystem that lives on the surface. It is natural for a forest to burn down and go through the stages of succession and regrow so that nutrients can be be recycled, but burning it too often can push out species that would normally be present. For example, in my backyard I have a large prairie that used to be the home of mice, rabbits, chipmunks, and coyotes, but as I’ve grown up they have started to burn the prairie in controlled fires more often to prevent the spread of weeds. As a result, the population of those species has noticeably decreased to the point where they are barely present. Are we really helping an ecosystem in half of it is no longer there? By killing off the Douglas-firs we also stop the process of natural selection because Douglas-firs have shorter roots and absorb all the water before it can reach Larch tree roots (Alternative Forest Management Practices for Montana, page 3). In an environment left to grow on its own, Douglas-firs would dominate the forest. It’s strange that in an effort to conserve natural areas we are trying to stop all of the natural processes.
This also ties into the containment of invasive species. While we were in Yellowstone we were forced to participate in the laborious task of removing invasive species around our camp with park volunteers. Though it felt like an honorable job at the time, the end result made me fear that we did more harm than good. I noticed when we were done that a lot of the ground that was previously littered with invasive plant species was left bare and completely exposed to the sun. Leaving the ground in that state could lead to higher soil temperatures that will make it hard for native plants to survive and a loss of habitat for small critters like insects or rodents. In fact, one of the invasive species we pulled was cheatgrass which, according to Anne Rodman, grows well in dry areas, such as the one we left behind. The size of land we worked with was very small compared to the overall size of the park, but if the park worked groups at large levels major amounts of land could be left even more vulnerable than it was before.
Almost all environmental issues can be tied back to some sort of human involvement so letting humans get involved with natural processes can be risky. Though a human impacted ecosystem may look normal and healthy, there are a lot of factors at jeopardy, such as soil content, carbon storage levels, and water absorption, that are hard to predict and monitor because there are so many components of an ecosystem that go into it. Human activity has already caused enough issues in the environment so we should let nature take its natural course without humans getting involved and screwing it up.
It's All Yours
August 12, 2018
by Heidi Lykins
STEVENSVILLE, MT -- Coming home after a 3 week #ClimateClass was a really big change. The furniture in the house was rearranged differently, my room is now an office space, and my younger sister had just finished with her Youth Conservation Corporation (YCC) job from Hamilton, MT. As she was showing me all her National Forest stickers she had accumulated in the past two months, I wasn’t paying attention to the cute designs but rather the website at the bottom of each that say: ItsAllYours.us. The website refers to the National Forest Foundation, but I felt it was also applicable to our national parks. That’s when I realized the one of the biggest changes that had occurred since coming home: my perspective of national parks and forests. Are they really all ours when our carbon emissions and footprints are the reason preservation in national parks isn’t possible?
Exactly one week ago, Erin, Ellie, Amy, and I had recorded a podcast discussing Yellowstone National Park and what preservation measures they are taking regarding water management. This week I’d like to point out the emissions in the park that are produced from tourists and their vehicles. The most obvious evidence to anthropological climate change is emissions from our gas-fueled vehicles and because Yellowstone is like a natural environmental research lab, it can be used as a model to represent nation and global wide climate change.
In 2017, Yellowstone Park recorded over four million visitors in the park that year. Visits have increased close to 40% since 2008. From experience, the vast majority of those visitors explore the park via personal vehicle. The increase in visitors and traffic has raised questions such as “How can the park prepare for a future in which visitation continues to increase?” and “How does the increased visitation affect the park resources and visitor experiences?” I can tell by reading on Yellowstone’s National Park Service website, these questions are not new to them.
The use of personal vehicles and their impacts are not unknown to park managers either. The National Park Service (NPS) has implemented several plans and ideas to combat emissions and each visitor’s carbon footprint in the park. Such plans include Yellowstone’s Strategic Plan of Sustainability, the Green Parks Plan,the NPS Climate Change Action Plan, and many others. Specifically referencing the Plan of Sustainability report of 2015 regarding emissions - they have only increased. By providing public transportation within the park, creating pedestrian friendly areas, implementing strategies for sustainable roads and trials, and many more ideas, Yellowstone is falling short of their goal to reduce emissions by 30% by year 2020.
But the problem isn’t the NPS. “The National Park Service mission requires us to provide people the opportunity to enjoy Yellowstone without allowing that enjoyment to damage or diminish the very things they came to see,” writes Neal Herbert. Yellowstone is required to meet the needs and wants of the visitors in an area that should be vice versa. I know it is very popular to complain how the government is never doing enough, but I feel differently when it comes to Yellowstone. The problem is the people. The problem is the fact that visitors refuse to educate themselves on the area they are visiting. Yes, national parks are for people to enjoy, but aren’t we supposed to appreciating them for their beauty, their history, and the fact that they have been preserved to be a national park?
When I look at my sister’s stickers that say “It’s All Yours”, it’s not just saying “come visit”. When you go to the website, it greets you with a short paragraph,
“Join us as we share the importance of our forests and grasslands. Through a growing movement of passionate voices, we are highlighting how special and vital these lands are for the very freedom and quality of life that we could all so easily take for granted.”.
It’s saying that it is our responsibility. If we want to enjoy national parks (and forests) for what they truly are and what they represent, we need to take that responsibility to preserve them. Research what the NPS is trying to do because it is for the benefit of you, the visitor. National parks are not for luxurious vacations. National parks are for educating, hiking, appreciating the land, and exploring the outdoors - and it’s all yours if we can keep it that way.
Sources:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sustainability/green-parks.htm
https://www.nps.gov/yell/getinvolved/sustainability-categories.htm
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sustainability/upload/NPS_Green_Parks_Progress_2015-Public.pdf
https://www.nps.gov/yell/getinvolved/visitor-use-management.htm
https://itsallyours.us/
In 2017, Yellowstone Park recorded over four million visitors in the park that year. Visits have increased close to 40% since 2008. From experience, the vast majority of those visitors explore the park via personal vehicle. The increase in visitors and traffic has raised questions such as “How can the park prepare for a future in which visitation continues to increase?” and “How does the increased visitation affect the park resources and visitor experiences?” I can tell by reading on Yellowstone’s National Park Service website, these questions are not new to them.
The use of personal vehicles and their impacts are not unknown to park managers either. The National Park Service (NPS) has implemented several plans and ideas to combat emissions and each visitor’s carbon footprint in the park. Such plans include Yellowstone’s Strategic Plan of Sustainability, the Green Parks Plan,the NPS Climate Change Action Plan, and many others. Specifically referencing the Plan of Sustainability report of 2015 regarding emissions - they have only increased. By providing public transportation within the park, creating pedestrian friendly areas, implementing strategies for sustainable roads and trials, and many more ideas, Yellowstone is falling short of their goal to reduce emissions by 30% by year 2020.
But the problem isn’t the NPS. “The National Park Service mission requires us to provide people the opportunity to enjoy Yellowstone without allowing that enjoyment to damage or diminish the very things they came to see,” writes Neal Herbert. Yellowstone is required to meet the needs and wants of the visitors in an area that should be vice versa. I know it is very popular to complain how the government is never doing enough, but I feel differently when it comes to Yellowstone. The problem is the people. The problem is the fact that visitors refuse to educate themselves on the area they are visiting. Yes, national parks are for people to enjoy, but aren’t we supposed to appreciating them for their beauty, their history, and the fact that they have been preserved to be a national park?
When I look at my sister’s stickers that say “It’s All Yours”, it’s not just saying “come visit”. When you go to the website, it greets you with a short paragraph,
“Join us as we share the importance of our forests and grasslands. Through a growing movement of passionate voices, we are highlighting how special and vital these lands are for the very freedom and quality of life that we could all so easily take for granted.”.
It’s saying that it is our responsibility. If we want to enjoy national parks (and forests) for what they truly are and what they represent, we need to take that responsibility to preserve them. Research what the NPS is trying to do because it is for the benefit of you, the visitor. National parks are not for luxurious vacations. National parks are for educating, hiking, appreciating the land, and exploring the outdoors - and it’s all yours if we can keep it that way.
Sources:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sustainability/green-parks.htm
https://www.nps.gov/yell/getinvolved/sustainability-categories.htm
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sustainability/upload/NPS_Green_Parks_Progress_2015-Public.pdf
https://www.nps.gov/yell/getinvolved/visitor-use-management.htm
https://itsallyours.us/
Youthful Ignorance is Youth's Undoing
Photo By: Tony Hartshorn
By: Brittany Lince
HELEN, MT--Over the past month I have heard and learned from many people of different walks of life and opinions, but the words that will always stick out the most to me was not from the speakers, pamphlets, or even fellow classmates; it was from my father. One of the last things he said to me before I left was “You'd better not come back a screaming liberal, lecturing us about climate change and how it’s destroying the earth”. I didn't reply. I looked to him as a hero and mentor, and I was afraid of disappointing him by going against the morals and opinions he had raised me with. I also lacked conviction in my beliefs and opinions on climate change. The real issue is not simply climate change and the factors that cause it, but rather willful ignorance.
During our trip I had the pleasure of listening to two old district attorneys from the Public Commissioner's Office try to convince me that climate change is not scientifically accurate. Like all good politicians, they only listened to evidence. However, the science of climate change was too “inconsistent” to use for policies. The Montana Climate assessment is a document of 269 pages developed over two years by “university faculty and staff, state and federal agency researchers, non-profit organization, resource managers, and citizens from across Montana” (pg. xxiv). This document unanimously supports that anthropogenic climate change is happening (pg. 10, 13). Another political issue is the removal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and the dismissal of the Federal Climate Reports dealing with global warming by President Trump. These individuals in places of power make policies without seeming to think how it will affect younger generations.
I noticed a trend in our speakers. People who were unconvinced or apathetic about climate change tended to be older men in positions of power. The people concerned with its effects and trying to make a difference tended to younger. Even Jessica Sena, a relatively young employee of the Board of Petroleum and Gas, admitted that climate change was happening and could bring about harmful effects. But how do the youth go about making change, and why are so few stepping up against the brush-off of climate change? I did not confront my father for the same reason that I believe many my age do not speak up against current climate policy; I am considered to be a youth, so my opinion will not be valued. I was also uneducated on climate change and politics and unable to express my opinion.
Over the years there has been a decline in youth participation in politics. One reason for this is a reduction of political discussions in youth. ¼ of all teachers thought that parents would be against their students discussing politics in a government or civics class (Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, 2018). The politics spoken of are usually safe and uncontroversial. Fewer students are being exposed to real political situations in their everyday lives. This creates a gap between education and a government we will eventually have to run. Almost every speaker mentioned the same thing during our talks. Youth need to become more involved and educated in society.
According to a journal from ScienceDirect, there is a link between ignorance about climate change and an unwillingness to discuss it (N. K., Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion, 2016). If youth realize that others share their opinions, they will be more willing to speak their minds. Education should stress participation in the government and teach a variety of views. There should also be more chances for youth to meet and talk with older generations in order to close the gap of ideas dealing with climate change created by age. Before this class, I had never actually spoken with officials working on climate change policies.. The only way to deal with it is to bring today's young adults to the table and hear their views.
As I write this, I am still afraid of disappointing my father. However, I will not step down on what I believe in and be quiet. I will continue to educate myself on issues and form my own opinions. I am tired of ignorance. I am tired of being told everything is fine. If my generation doesn't make a change, who will? Climate change will not compromise or go away if ignored. Today's youth must deal with tomorrow’s consequences.
Save Colstrip, Save Montana's Economy
8/12/18
By Madison Haagenson
BILLINGS, Montana -- After meeting with stakeholders and representatives from every corner of the Treasure State, it became evident that the future of Colstrip, Montana is in dire need to reduce its carbon footprint in order to continue to contribute to Montana’s economy. Every individual had an idea of what to do with Colstrip, but there was never a definitive answer when the question arose of what Montana’s plans for Colstrip are, so here’s my two cents: the Colstrip of today, does not have to be the Colstrip of tomorrow. Instead of shutting the Colstrip power plant and mine completely down, compromising numerous jobs and the community’s economy, the plant should be renovated to reduce its carbon footprint, allowing it to maintain its status as Montana’s most efficient producer of power.
Montana’s coal-fired power plants emit as much carbon dioxide as Mongolia, a country of almost 3 million people, according to a study from Environment Montana’s Research and Policy Center, and the Colstrip power plant emits about 13 million of the state’s 15 million metric tons. This staggering rate of emission is a huge factor in Montana’s contribution to climate change, and something needs to be done about it. Along with Colstrip’s horrendous carbon emissions, it also has a history of contaminating the surrounding environment. Prior to 2016 when an agreement was finally reached for Colstrip to dispose of its waste more safely, the plant had been contaminating surrounding water sources for decades. The plant’s ash waste was disposed of as wet sludge that was dumped into 800-acres of waste impoundments, which leaked toxic pollutants into surrounding groundwater for years on end (1). The agreement made Colstrip’s largest units begin to convert to completely dry disposal methods by July 1, 2022. Just as Montana found a way to solve the environmental catasrophe caused by Colstrip’s waste leakage, it can find a way to lower Colstrip’s carbon emissions through forward thinking and innovation.
So, how are we going to make Colstrip less environmentally nasty? Many ideas were thrown around during discussions with stakeholders, but the most common and agreed upon realistic solution was carbon capture technology. Carbon capture was brought up by several different stakeholders throughout these past four weeks, each coming to the basic conclusion that carbon capture is the technology that can keep coal-fired power plants, like Colstrip, running and still reduce carbon emissions, but the technology remains expensive and is not feasible until we can find a way to make money from the captured carbon. Patrick Holmes, Governor Bullock’s Natural Resource Policy Advisor, discussed Bullock’s opinion that the country needs to invest more money and effort into research of carbon capture technology, to ensure that at least some of the Colstrip plants can continue operating into the future, and that Montana coal can continue as a viable fuel. Much like any other problem in need of an innovative solution, that America has faced, the future of Colstrip and carbon capture technology lies in dedicated research.
The solution of shutting Colstrip down entirely is not economically sound. The economic activity created by Colstrip supports nearly 5,000 jobs and is one of the largest economic drivers in Montana, contributing almost $700 million to our economic output annually (2). Implementing carbon capture technology into Colstrip is expensive and would have both economic and societal consequences, but the long term economic effects of shutting Colstrip down would be much larger. On top of the economic activity created, Colstrip alone accounts for about $115 million in annual tax collections (2), and shutting it down would create a huge hole in our tax base. These economic factors need to be considered in making a decision about Colstrip since it plays such a large role in Montana’s economy, and representatives must determine which is the lesser of two economic evils; shutting down Colstrip completely or implementing pricey carbon capture technology.
With the definitive decision on what Colstrip’s future will look like still undetermined, there is nothing for Montanans to do but wait. With media spinning the facts on Colstrip in both radical directions, we must trust our representatives to approach this difficult issue with an open mind. After meeting with over 30 stakeholders in three weeks, I am confident in saying that there is not only one solution for Colstrip, and it will take major collaboration to find a solution that is best for the people of Colstrip, Montana’s economy, and the Earth as a whole, as the war wages on with climate change.
Sources:
1 - https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2016/after-decades-of-polluting-water-colstrip-plant-to-address-leaking-coal-ash-ponds
2 - https://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/what-losing-colstrip-really-means-for-montana/article_6a828201-af9f-5be6-b5cb-d1e38ea1953e.html
BILLINGS, Montana -- After meeting with stakeholders and representatives from every corner of the Treasure State, it became evident that the future of Colstrip, Montana is in dire need to reduce its carbon footprint in order to continue to contribute to Montana’s economy. Every individual had an idea of what to do with Colstrip, but there was never a definitive answer when the question arose of what Montana’s plans for Colstrip are, so here’s my two cents: the Colstrip of today, does not have to be the Colstrip of tomorrow. Instead of shutting the Colstrip power plant and mine completely down, compromising numerous jobs and the community’s economy, the plant should be renovated to reduce its carbon footprint, allowing it to maintain its status as Montana’s most efficient producer of power.
Montana’s coal-fired power plants emit as much carbon dioxide as Mongolia, a country of almost 3 million people, according to a study from Environment Montana’s Research and Policy Center, and the Colstrip power plant emits about 13 million of the state’s 15 million metric tons. This staggering rate of emission is a huge factor in Montana’s contribution to climate change, and something needs to be done about it. Along with Colstrip’s horrendous carbon emissions, it also has a history of contaminating the surrounding environment. Prior to 2016 when an agreement was finally reached for Colstrip to dispose of its waste more safely, the plant had been contaminating surrounding water sources for decades. The plant’s ash waste was disposed of as wet sludge that was dumped into 800-acres of waste impoundments, which leaked toxic pollutants into surrounding groundwater for years on end (1). The agreement made Colstrip’s largest units begin to convert to completely dry disposal methods by July 1, 2022. Just as Montana found a way to solve the environmental catasrophe caused by Colstrip’s waste leakage, it can find a way to lower Colstrip’s carbon emissions through forward thinking and innovation.
So, how are we going to make Colstrip less environmentally nasty? Many ideas were thrown around during discussions with stakeholders, but the most common and agreed upon realistic solution was carbon capture technology. Carbon capture was brought up by several different stakeholders throughout these past four weeks, each coming to the basic conclusion that carbon capture is the technology that can keep coal-fired power plants, like Colstrip, running and still reduce carbon emissions, but the technology remains expensive and is not feasible until we can find a way to make money from the captured carbon. Patrick Holmes, Governor Bullock’s Natural Resource Policy Advisor, discussed Bullock’s opinion that the country needs to invest more money and effort into research of carbon capture technology, to ensure that at least some of the Colstrip plants can continue operating into the future, and that Montana coal can continue as a viable fuel. Much like any other problem in need of an innovative solution, that America has faced, the future of Colstrip and carbon capture technology lies in dedicated research.
The solution of shutting Colstrip down entirely is not economically sound. The economic activity created by Colstrip supports nearly 5,000 jobs and is one of the largest economic drivers in Montana, contributing almost $700 million to our economic output annually (2). Implementing carbon capture technology into Colstrip is expensive and would have both economic and societal consequences, but the long term economic effects of shutting Colstrip down would be much larger. On top of the economic activity created, Colstrip alone accounts for about $115 million in annual tax collections (2), and shutting it down would create a huge hole in our tax base. These economic factors need to be considered in making a decision about Colstrip since it plays such a large role in Montana’s economy, and representatives must determine which is the lesser of two economic evils; shutting down Colstrip completely or implementing pricey carbon capture technology.
With the definitive decision on what Colstrip’s future will look like still undetermined, there is nothing for Montanans to do but wait. With media spinning the facts on Colstrip in both radical directions, we must trust our representatives to approach this difficult issue with an open mind. After meeting with over 30 stakeholders in three weeks, I am confident in saying that there is not only one solution for Colstrip, and it will take major collaboration to find a solution that is best for the people of Colstrip, Montana’s economy, and the Earth as a whole, as the war wages on with climate change.
Sources:
1 - https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2016/after-decades-of-polluting-water-colstrip-plant-to-address-leaking-coal-ash-ponds
2 - https://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/what-losing-colstrip-really-means-for-montana/article_6a828201-af9f-5be6-b5cb-d1e38ea1953e.html
A Difficult Problem
8/12/2018
Photo by Carl Court
By Clyde Schulein
LIVINGSTON, Montana --
Throughout the climate class, we have spoken to stakeholders in many aspects of Montana’s economy. We have been fortunate to hear the perspectives of farmers, ranchers, loggers, and even politicians as they all deal with the changing climate in their own ways. Over the course of the class, though, one phrase that we have consistently heard has begun to bother me. People will often admit that climate change is a threat, but, when pressured for solutions, they reply that it is a “complex situation” or a “difficult problem”.
This is not to say that that climate change is a not complex situation. The MCA makes many references to insufficient information or unreliable predictions (MCA, page 85, 205). The decisions that politicians make are wide-reaching in their effects and often rely on these uncertain projections (Patrick Holmes). Farmers and ranchers from rural areas must balance financial, ecological and even social sustainability of their practices (Kathleen McConkey). Citizens must mind their impact on climate while taking into account their economic well-being. However, this is beside the point. I do not dislike the phrase due to dissatisfaction with the state of climate science. In fact, I believe that climate science is telling us all that we need to know; the climate is warming, there will be substantial impacts, and humans are responsible (MCA, page 10, 13, 72, 150, 198). My dissatisfaction with the “difficult problem” stems from the sense of passivity that comes with it. People seem to be too afraid of failure or cost to throw a solution out into the open.
It is difficult to say what effect, if any, that new policies or changes could have in slowing climate change (Roger Koopman). Politicians face potential backlash from their voters, possibly leaving them out of a job. Farmers and ranchers could face significant dips in profitability. Even the average citizen faces increases of prices in everything from electricity to their groceries (US Energy Information Administration, 2014). This is what Al Gore meant with the phrase “an inconvenient truth”. Because we are responsible, we will have to make some changes, and these will be difficult. I myself am guilty of forgoing these changes; even today, I made a 31 mile drive to Bozeman to work at one of my favorite cafes instead of staying at home. We are slowly but steadily reaching a point of no return (Aengenheyster et al., 2018). Eventually, the “difficult problem” so many speak of will become an impossible one. We need a plan to prevent us from a catastrophic outcome.
People are waiting for the silver bullet, something to combat climate change without forcing us to make any “inconvenient” changes. Many hope that advancements in technology will save us, but nothing simple and painless has made itself readily available (Wally McRae). Fortunately, we already have many available options. Transitions to sustainable agricultural practices (David Oien), increased use of renewable energy sources, improved vehicle efficiency (Vehicle Technologies Office), and environmentally friendly materials exist today and offer a smaller carbon footprint (Basir, 2016). Policies as simple as increasing carbon and gasoline taxes or lowering the speed limit could potentially limit the impact of industry and civilian activity on the climate (European Environment Agency, 2011). However, all of these will be costly for consumers, and many require policy changes, the greatest opponent to which is the very nature of democracy. Politicians have a responsibility to protect the best interests of their voters, and the short-term interests of the voters are not always the same as their best long-term interests. Few politicians are willing to risk making an unpopular decision. We are stuck in a vicious deadlock.
It all boils down to the need to take action. It may be uncomfortable and it may not work, but, as William O’Brien said, it is “better to try and fail than never to try at all”. We cannot afford to do nothing. This applies not only to politicians but also citizens. There are any number of things that we can do as individuals to help in the battle against climate change, such as limiting personal plane travel (Maskin et al., Letter to International Civil Aviation Organization, 2014), bicycling more (Xia et al., 2013), forgoing plastic water bottles (Laville and Taylor, The Guardian, 2017), and switching to more plant proteins (Scarborough et al., 2014). We must rid ourselves of the passive mindset in the conversation about climate change and start to make our own inconvenient sacrifices while encouraging politicians to make the tough decisions.
Throughout the climate class, we have spoken to stakeholders in many aspects of Montana’s economy. We have been fortunate to hear the perspectives of farmers, ranchers, loggers, and even politicians as they all deal with the changing climate in their own ways. Over the course of the class, though, one phrase that we have consistently heard has begun to bother me. People will often admit that climate change is a threat, but, when pressured for solutions, they reply that it is a “complex situation” or a “difficult problem”.
This is not to say that that climate change is a not complex situation. The MCA makes many references to insufficient information or unreliable predictions (MCA, page 85, 205). The decisions that politicians make are wide-reaching in their effects and often rely on these uncertain projections (Patrick Holmes). Farmers and ranchers from rural areas must balance financial, ecological and even social sustainability of their practices (Kathleen McConkey). Citizens must mind their impact on climate while taking into account their economic well-being. However, this is beside the point. I do not dislike the phrase due to dissatisfaction with the state of climate science. In fact, I believe that climate science is telling us all that we need to know; the climate is warming, there will be substantial impacts, and humans are responsible (MCA, page 10, 13, 72, 150, 198). My dissatisfaction with the “difficult problem” stems from the sense of passivity that comes with it. People seem to be too afraid of failure or cost to throw a solution out into the open.
It is difficult to say what effect, if any, that new policies or changes could have in slowing climate change (Roger Koopman). Politicians face potential backlash from their voters, possibly leaving them out of a job. Farmers and ranchers could face significant dips in profitability. Even the average citizen faces increases of prices in everything from electricity to their groceries (US Energy Information Administration, 2014). This is what Al Gore meant with the phrase “an inconvenient truth”. Because we are responsible, we will have to make some changes, and these will be difficult. I myself am guilty of forgoing these changes; even today, I made a 31 mile drive to Bozeman to work at one of my favorite cafes instead of staying at home. We are slowly but steadily reaching a point of no return (Aengenheyster et al., 2018). Eventually, the “difficult problem” so many speak of will become an impossible one. We need a plan to prevent us from a catastrophic outcome.
People are waiting for the silver bullet, something to combat climate change without forcing us to make any “inconvenient” changes. Many hope that advancements in technology will save us, but nothing simple and painless has made itself readily available (Wally McRae). Fortunately, we already have many available options. Transitions to sustainable agricultural practices (David Oien), increased use of renewable energy sources, improved vehicle efficiency (Vehicle Technologies Office), and environmentally friendly materials exist today and offer a smaller carbon footprint (Basir, 2016). Policies as simple as increasing carbon and gasoline taxes or lowering the speed limit could potentially limit the impact of industry and civilian activity on the climate (European Environment Agency, 2011). However, all of these will be costly for consumers, and many require policy changes, the greatest opponent to which is the very nature of democracy. Politicians have a responsibility to protect the best interests of their voters, and the short-term interests of the voters are not always the same as their best long-term interests. Few politicians are willing to risk making an unpopular decision. We are stuck in a vicious deadlock.
It all boils down to the need to take action. It may be uncomfortable and it may not work, but, as William O’Brien said, it is “better to try and fail than never to try at all”. We cannot afford to do nothing. This applies not only to politicians but also citizens. There are any number of things that we can do as individuals to help in the battle against climate change, such as limiting personal plane travel (Maskin et al., Letter to International Civil Aviation Organization, 2014), bicycling more (Xia et al., 2013), forgoing plastic water bottles (Laville and Taylor, The Guardian, 2017), and switching to more plant proteins (Scarborough et al., 2014). We must rid ourselves of the passive mindset in the conversation about climate change and start to make our own inconvenient sacrifices while encouraging politicians to make the tough decisions.
Move Fast and Break Things
8/12/2018
by Wyatt Wright
THERMOPOLIS, Wyoming -- When Meriwether Lewis, William Clark and the rest of the Corps of Discovery first crossed over the western United States they were greeted with sweeping vistas of snow-capped mountains, windswept plains, and green oceans of conifers. Over the course of the next centuries the landscape would be dotted with mines, oil fields, farms, factories, logging camps, and other businesses and structures. The early settlers and businessmen coming west would have related to Mark Zuckerberg's words: "Move fast and break things", which is what they did. Oil fields drilled deep into the ground chasing oil and natural gas while venting methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. Mines gouged into the land, digging massive pits and flattening mountains to expose minerals using chemicals and explosives while leaving waste tailings full of heavy metals. Factories burned coal for power and produce toxic runoff and fumes. Farms used chemicals and techniques that made the soil weaker. Logging camps leveled forests, destroying habitats and weakening biodiversity. The environment was not the only victim here, these industries claimed lives. According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration early mining cost an average of 1,500 lives per year. The deadliest year, 1907, claimed 3,242 (United States Department of Labor, Injury Trends in Mining). The dust bowl, resulting from improper farming practices, killed anywhere from hundreds to thousands. In 1913 the Bureau of Labor Statistics documented 23,000 industrial deaths (CDC, Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Improvements in Workplace Safety -- United States, 1900-1999). Safety has improved but deaths still occur every year and while the plants and mines are still open the pollution continues. The responsibility for this destruction is on us. We paid them to do it, and continue to.
I didn’t agree with everything Jessica Sena said during our meeting at the Board of Oil and Gas Conservation, but a few things struck a chord. As she discussed the ubiquity of mining and oil products in everyday life as well as the life expectancy and quality of life improvements the industrial revolution caused, I felt like a hypocrite. Here I was, a climate class student, taking notes on a computer charged with electricity that likely originated at a coal plant and made up of metals and plastics stemming from oil and mining. I’ve also enjoyed never having cholera and surviving to adolescence, things that can be attributed to medical advancement brought about by the industrial revolution. The point is that our society is built on top of these industries and their products.
According to future projections like those outlined in the Montana Climate Assessment, it’s important to transition away from these industries if we want to prevent things like drought as a result of higher temperature and decreased snowpack (MCA p. 24, 32). No matter how much technology and legislation goes into them, they will always inherently cause environmental problems (such as open pit mines destroying habitat and oil rigs spilling gallons of oil into the ocean) and they will never be sustainable. However, without societal change, getting rid of non-renewables is likely a pipe dream. As much as it may be essential to combating climate change, without monumental changes at the consumer level these industries are staying.
I didn’t agree with everything Jessica Sena said during our meeting at the Board of Oil and Gas Conservation, but a few things struck a chord. As she discussed the ubiquity of mining and oil products in everyday life as well as the life expectancy and quality of life improvements the industrial revolution caused, I felt like a hypocrite. Here I was, a climate class student, taking notes on a computer charged with electricity that likely originated at a coal plant and made up of metals and plastics stemming from oil and mining. I’ve also enjoyed never having cholera and surviving to adolescence, things that can be attributed to medical advancement brought about by the industrial revolution. The point is that our society is built on top of these industries and their products.
According to future projections like those outlined in the Montana Climate Assessment, it’s important to transition away from these industries if we want to prevent things like drought as a result of higher temperature and decreased snowpack (MCA p. 24, 32). No matter how much technology and legislation goes into them, they will always inherently cause environmental problems (such as open pit mines destroying habitat and oil rigs spilling gallons of oil into the ocean) and they will never be sustainable. However, without societal change, getting rid of non-renewables is likely a pipe dream. As much as it may be essential to combating climate change, without monumental changes at the consumer level these industries are staying.
Plastic Revolution
8/12/2018
By Elliott Pryor
Oil fuels our world: our cars, our planes, and our electricity. We are drowning in it. Whether it’s our sandwich bags, shower curtains or raincoats, it surrounds us Human existence may be marked by the layer of plastics strewn throughout the world. Today we are trying to move away from fossil fuels with renewable energies, but how do we avoid the plastics? Plastics have a large carbon footprint of their own; based on this article by Samantha Staley and data from CDIAC ,1-5% of global emissions are attributed to plastics. recycling them would be the “equivalent of removing between six and 30 million vehicles” (Staley, Samantha).
Plastic is often used to wrap food for convenience and discarded along roads, in landfills, and in the oceans. But times are changing and new wrappers are being developed. My favorites: edible wrappers! There’s no waste leftover. You get to eat the product and the wrapper (or just have it biodegrade). They can serve as a barrier to moisture, oxygen, aroma, and oils. They can be used to slowly release additives into the food: expanding shelf life and reducing the amount of additives needed. They can also be placed around dry goods and easily dissolved in water for instant foods (Janjarasskul & Krochta).
A start-up company, Ooho, creates edible water bottles. They are spheres of water wrapped in seaweed. It’s a novel idea, and here’s the kicker: they’re cheaper than plastic (source)! The obvious problem is that we live in Montana, and kelp doesn’t grow super well here... but bees do.
Montana is a bee heaven, and currently the 3rd highest honey producing state in the nation (source); that means we have a lot of active bees. Beeswax coated products are a popular replacement for plastic packaging. You can easily find beeswax covered cloths to replace plastic wrap in our local Real Food Store in Helena. Unfortunately, it isn’t edible, but it does offer a completely biodegradable and reusable solution to plastic wrapping. We can harvest the honeycombs and render them into beeswax for wrappers. Another key ingredient of these wrappers is pine rosin and we have no shortage of pine trees to tap. According to the MCA, there is a total of 7.9 million acres of Lodgepole and Ponderosa pine forest in Montana (MCA pg 153). This would be a practical solution for Montana to move away from conventional plastic wrapping.
But why aren’t we just using the biodegradable plastics that are advertised everywhere? Because they don’t really work. This study found that out of the 5 common additives to help enhance biodegradability none “significantly increased biodegradation ” (Selke et al). But, bioplastics are on the rise. There are currently 2 main types of bioplastics: PLA and PHA. PLA has recently gone mainstream with the rise 3D printing. It is a corn-based plastic so it is renewable, but it isn’t as biodegradable as once thought. PLA will only biodegrade in certain circumstances +140℉, aerobic environment, and lots of microorganisms: basically an industrial scale composter. Unfortunately, landfills don’t have any of these qualities, so PLA will rot alongside the other plastics for hundreds of years (source).
PHA is a little more promising; it is a plastic created by microbes and is considerably more biodegradable. PHA will biodegrade in compost, like PLA, but also in fresh and salt water (source). About 10% of the world’s plastic ends up in the oceans every year (Plastic Debris in the World’s Oceans, 2006), so biodegradability in water is vital to limiting human impact on marine environments. Obviously, we don’t have oceans here in Montana, but another key advantage is that PHA will naturally biodegrade just in the soil (source). Kartik Chandran at Columbia is working on a way to use wastewater as the nutrient source for the PHA producing bacteria (source). This is a way that Montana could integrate its waste water into cash producing, non-fossil fuel plastics.
There is a dark horse on the horizon that could be very impactful in Montana: starch based plastic. Starches can be used as fillers to conventional plastic to help with biodegradability or to construct entirely starch based plastics (Fabunmi et al). This technology is still emerging, and isn’t quite ready to take over conventional plastics due to their mechanical properties. Why is this good for Montana? Montana has potatoes, which are full of starch. While this might be better news for Idaho, Montana ranks 11th in the nation in potato production: producing 412,720,000 lbs in 2016 (source).
The technology is there for us to transition away from fossil fuel plastics. Now it’s our job as consumers to help these technologies go mainstream.
Plastic is often used to wrap food for convenience and discarded along roads, in landfills, and in the oceans. But times are changing and new wrappers are being developed. My favorites: edible wrappers! There’s no waste leftover. You get to eat the product and the wrapper (or just have it biodegrade). They can serve as a barrier to moisture, oxygen, aroma, and oils. They can be used to slowly release additives into the food: expanding shelf life and reducing the amount of additives needed. They can also be placed around dry goods and easily dissolved in water for instant foods (Janjarasskul & Krochta).
A start-up company, Ooho, creates edible water bottles. They are spheres of water wrapped in seaweed. It’s a novel idea, and here’s the kicker: they’re cheaper than plastic (source)! The obvious problem is that we live in Montana, and kelp doesn’t grow super well here... but bees do.
Montana is a bee heaven, and currently the 3rd highest honey producing state in the nation (source); that means we have a lot of active bees. Beeswax coated products are a popular replacement for plastic packaging. You can easily find beeswax covered cloths to replace plastic wrap in our local Real Food Store in Helena. Unfortunately, it isn’t edible, but it does offer a completely biodegradable and reusable solution to plastic wrapping. We can harvest the honeycombs and render them into beeswax for wrappers. Another key ingredient of these wrappers is pine rosin and we have no shortage of pine trees to tap. According to the MCA, there is a total of 7.9 million acres of Lodgepole and Ponderosa pine forest in Montana (MCA pg 153). This would be a practical solution for Montana to move away from conventional plastic wrapping.
But why aren’t we just using the biodegradable plastics that are advertised everywhere? Because they don’t really work. This study found that out of the 5 common additives to help enhance biodegradability none “significantly increased biodegradation ” (Selke et al). But, bioplastics are on the rise. There are currently 2 main types of bioplastics: PLA and PHA. PLA has recently gone mainstream with the rise 3D printing. It is a corn-based plastic so it is renewable, but it isn’t as biodegradable as once thought. PLA will only biodegrade in certain circumstances +140℉, aerobic environment, and lots of microorganisms: basically an industrial scale composter. Unfortunately, landfills don’t have any of these qualities, so PLA will rot alongside the other plastics for hundreds of years (source).
PHA is a little more promising; it is a plastic created by microbes and is considerably more biodegradable. PHA will biodegrade in compost, like PLA, but also in fresh and salt water (source). About 10% of the world’s plastic ends up in the oceans every year (Plastic Debris in the World’s Oceans, 2006), so biodegradability in water is vital to limiting human impact on marine environments. Obviously, we don’t have oceans here in Montana, but another key advantage is that PHA will naturally biodegrade just in the soil (source). Kartik Chandran at Columbia is working on a way to use wastewater as the nutrient source for the PHA producing bacteria (source). This is a way that Montana could integrate its waste water into cash producing, non-fossil fuel plastics.
There is a dark horse on the horizon that could be very impactful in Montana: starch based plastic. Starches can be used as fillers to conventional plastic to help with biodegradability or to construct entirely starch based plastics (Fabunmi et al). This technology is still emerging, and isn’t quite ready to take over conventional plastics due to their mechanical properties. Why is this good for Montana? Montana has potatoes, which are full of starch. While this might be better news for Idaho, Montana ranks 11th in the nation in potato production: producing 412,720,000 lbs in 2016 (source).
The technology is there for us to transition away from fossil fuel plastics. Now it’s our job as consumers to help these technologies go mainstream.
Vote Yes To Save Colstrip
8/12/2018
By Joshua H. Phillips
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, Montana – For three weeks, #climateclass was repeatedly told variations of the same message: Coal is bad for the environment, renewable energy sources are unreliable, and we are all screwed. Of course, we learned about other things, like how changing agriculture practices are sequestering more carbon in the soils and how a lumber factory works, but that was kinda boring when compared to the challenge facing the energy sector. If coal and renewable energy can’t support us any more, what can?
Nuclear is an incredible source of energy. It is the cleanest non-renewable energy source, and it is just as reliable as coal in terms of energy production, and it’s cheaper (source). France is an example of the benefits of nuclear energy. Last year, France generated 90% of its energy from carbon-free sources. Just over 83% of this was generated by nuclear power plants. This means that 75% of French power is generated by nuclear power plants, making France one of the most energy-independent countries in the world in addition to being the world’s largest exporter of energy, having earned €3 billion from exporting excess energy (source).
If nuclear energy is so successful in France, could it be successful here? It is in the realm of possibility. Units 1 and 2 at the Colstrip power plant are scheduled to be shutdown by July 2022 with a shutdown of the remaining Units 3 and 4 in the foreseeable future (source). What if we could convert Colstrip from coal to nuclear? Two years ago, China declared a plan that would make use of existing infrastructure and convert coal power plants into nuclear power plants by replacing the coal furnaces with small, pellet-based nuclear reactors known as a Pebble Bed Reactors (PBRs) (source). This could be a fantastic way to both introduce nuclear power to Montana and retain jobs in Colstrip. Just think, the infrastructure (i.e. buildings, transmission lines, roads, etc.) already exists. Additionally, nuclear would provide Montana with a cheaper, cleaner energy as well as the possibility of a new export.
So why isn’t there nuclear energy in Montana? I asked the Public Service Commission about this, and Commissioner Bob Lake explained that beyond trying to figure out where to put a nuclear reactor, there were legal restrictions on nuclear power plants. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) restricts construction of nuclear power plants to only those approved by voters (source).
MCA cites concerns over diversion of capital from research into renewable energy sources, lack of responsibility and potential for devastating accidents, and the potential for terrorists to gain access to nuclear materials among other concerns. Today, many of those concerns can be addressed. To address concern over capital diversion, renewable energy sources are unreliable. Climate Class was told this by both the Bureau of Reclamation at the Yellowtail Dam and Invenergy at Judith Gap. Therefore, it makes sense to invest in a reliable source of energy.
To address concern over the lack of responsibility and potential for disaster, Montanans have shown that we are capable of going above and beyond regulation in order to protect our beautiful state. For example, Black Butte Copper Project plans to be the first to introduce sealed containers for shipment, and at Colstrip, state-of-the-art scrubbers reduce sulfurous dioxide emission levels to well below those required by the Clean Air Act (source, source).
Finally to address concerns over the potential of terrorist access to nuclear materials, the type of uranium used in nuclear reactors, if concentrated at all, is concentrated to levels far below those used in nuclear weapons. In addition, Malmstrom Air Force Base, located just outside Great Falls, is filled with military personnel trained to deal with nuclear situations.
However, any nuclear power plant will still need approval by the voters, and that alone has challenges. Many people associate nuclear reactors with disasters such as Chernobyl or, more recently, Fukushima, but they rarely give thought to the hundreds of safe, successful nuclear reactors around the world.
Beyond legal restrictions and social stigmas, different types of nuclear reactors are associated with their own problems. France makes use of High Pressure Water Reactors (HPWRs). HPWRs discharge clean waste water into streams, but due to this summer’s heat wave, France was forced to shutdown four reactors (source). This is just another reason PBRs would be a good fit for Montana. PBRs don’t require waste water discharge, and with an increase in the number of days over 90° and a decrease in late summer waters, HPWRs wouldn’t be feasible in the future (Montana Climate Assessment, pg. 51, 72).
As we have shown, nuclear power plants hold great potential for the State of Montana, yet they face significant challenges, including legal barriers, social stigma, and logistical problems. To overcome these challenges, we need to educate voters about these issues so that when it does come time, we can vote yes to save Colstrip.
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, Montana – For three weeks, #climateclass was repeatedly told variations of the same message: Coal is bad for the environment, renewable energy sources are unreliable, and we are all screwed. Of course, we learned about other things, like how changing agriculture practices are sequestering more carbon in the soils and how a lumber factory works, but that was kinda boring when compared to the challenge facing the energy sector. If coal and renewable energy can’t support us any more, what can?
Nuclear is an incredible source of energy. It is the cleanest non-renewable energy source, and it is just as reliable as coal in terms of energy production, and it’s cheaper (source). France is an example of the benefits of nuclear energy. Last year, France generated 90% of its energy from carbon-free sources. Just over 83% of this was generated by nuclear power plants. This means that 75% of French power is generated by nuclear power plants, making France one of the most energy-independent countries in the world in addition to being the world’s largest exporter of energy, having earned €3 billion from exporting excess energy (source).
If nuclear energy is so successful in France, could it be successful here? It is in the realm of possibility. Units 1 and 2 at the Colstrip power plant are scheduled to be shutdown by July 2022 with a shutdown of the remaining Units 3 and 4 in the foreseeable future (source). What if we could convert Colstrip from coal to nuclear? Two years ago, China declared a plan that would make use of existing infrastructure and convert coal power plants into nuclear power plants by replacing the coal furnaces with small, pellet-based nuclear reactors known as a Pebble Bed Reactors (PBRs) (source). This could be a fantastic way to both introduce nuclear power to Montana and retain jobs in Colstrip. Just think, the infrastructure (i.e. buildings, transmission lines, roads, etc.) already exists. Additionally, nuclear would provide Montana with a cheaper, cleaner energy as well as the possibility of a new export.
So why isn’t there nuclear energy in Montana? I asked the Public Service Commission about this, and Commissioner Bob Lake explained that beyond trying to figure out where to put a nuclear reactor, there were legal restrictions on nuclear power plants. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) restricts construction of nuclear power plants to only those approved by voters (source).
MCA cites concerns over diversion of capital from research into renewable energy sources, lack of responsibility and potential for devastating accidents, and the potential for terrorists to gain access to nuclear materials among other concerns. Today, many of those concerns can be addressed. To address concern over capital diversion, renewable energy sources are unreliable. Climate Class was told this by both the Bureau of Reclamation at the Yellowtail Dam and Invenergy at Judith Gap. Therefore, it makes sense to invest in a reliable source of energy.
To address concern over the lack of responsibility and potential for disaster, Montanans have shown that we are capable of going above and beyond regulation in order to protect our beautiful state. For example, Black Butte Copper Project plans to be the first to introduce sealed containers for shipment, and at Colstrip, state-of-the-art scrubbers reduce sulfurous dioxide emission levels to well below those required by the Clean Air Act (source, source).
Finally to address concerns over the potential of terrorist access to nuclear materials, the type of uranium used in nuclear reactors, if concentrated at all, is concentrated to levels far below those used in nuclear weapons. In addition, Malmstrom Air Force Base, located just outside Great Falls, is filled with military personnel trained to deal with nuclear situations.
However, any nuclear power plant will still need approval by the voters, and that alone has challenges. Many people associate nuclear reactors with disasters such as Chernobyl or, more recently, Fukushima, but they rarely give thought to the hundreds of safe, successful nuclear reactors around the world.
Beyond legal restrictions and social stigmas, different types of nuclear reactors are associated with their own problems. France makes use of High Pressure Water Reactors (HPWRs). HPWRs discharge clean waste water into streams, but due to this summer’s heat wave, France was forced to shutdown four reactors (source). This is just another reason PBRs would be a good fit for Montana. PBRs don’t require waste water discharge, and with an increase in the number of days over 90° and a decrease in late summer waters, HPWRs wouldn’t be feasible in the future (Montana Climate Assessment, pg. 51, 72).
As we have shown, nuclear power plants hold great potential for the State of Montana, yet they face significant challenges, including legal barriers, social stigma, and logistical problems. To overcome these challenges, we need to educate voters about these issues so that when it does come time, we can vote yes to save Colstrip.
A Human Pain, an Earthly Gain
8/12/2018
By Amy Humphrey
MT. AIRY, MD– There have been several years where, like many other people across the US, my family has planted a garden. However, the one thing I always dreaded when it came to that season was the weeds. I hate weeding. It’s not fun and, quite frankly, is a pain in the butt. I never saw the weeds as an actual problem, just as a hassle. However, recently I have learned that weeds are more of a big deal than I thought.
Yellowstone National Park is one of the top ten most visited of the national parks, receiving over 900,000 visitors in July alone (1). Little do most of those visitors know that the landscape in Yellowstone is involved in a war. Not a war with blood and bombs, but a war amongst plants. The threat: weeds, or referred to also as invasive or non native plants. There are 225 recorded non native plants in Yellowstone alone (2). Ann Rodman, who works in Yellowstone, pointed out that right now the biggest threat to the park is invasive vegetation species, such as cheatgrass.
While the park is maximizing efforts to manage these nuisance plants, the problem still remains on how to effectively prevent the expansion of these plants. But to do that, we have to figure out how these plants are able to spread so quickly. Most of the areas with non native plants are those most impacted by people, like along roads or trails (2). Another invasive plant growth impact is climate change. It’s obvious that the Earth’s climate is changing, and at a rapid pace. You don’t have to be a scientist to realize that. Many people, for example farmers or anyone who works the land, are realizing that things are changing, such as plants not growing in the same patterns as they used to.
You may be wondering how climate change specifically impacts weeds. “Studies show that the increased CO2 concentration can drive increased weed growth and reproduction” (MCA p. 231). Carbon Dioxide is one of the leading gases involved in warming the Earth through the Greenhouse Effect (MCA p. 14). And because of the genetic make-up of weeds, they easily adapt to their environment and are able to grow in extreme conditions.
So, obviously, two major problems: invasive plants and climate change. We need solutions for both problems. So, what do we do?
In an earlier writing that I published, I put out a call for people to pitch in and help by doing the one thing most people, including myself, hate. A call to roll up our sleeves and weed. Of course this means relying on the good side of human nature, that people will feel the urge to pitch in and help. Sadly, it’s hard to rely on the good of people in this day and age. Sorry, but the truth is that not many people like to help protect the world we live in. Some think they’re better than everyone, so they shouldn’t have to do anything like that.
And so the question remains. What do we do? Well, I think there are two solutions that would be very effective.
The first solution is bartering, the idea of the even exchange of goods and services. When people go to national parks, such as Yellowstone, many like to stay there overnight, whether it be camping or in some type of lodging. Staying in a national park can get pricey. Wouldn’t it be great to reduce those lodging prices for visitors? I suggest that we would provide an incentive for people to get up and help with invasive plant management through price reductions. What I mean is that if you plan on staying in the park, for every “X” amount of hours you spend weeding, then you receive “Y” percentage off of your campsite or lodging cost. I’ve heard of various places doing this, and it is working. It pushes people, especially those who like to vacation for a long time in one place, to do their part in maintaining their favorite vacation spots.
The second solution lies within the school systems in our country. With a policy that says as part of the curriculum, learning institutions must take students to various outdoor locations throughout the year, such as a national park, to work on weeding projects. Not only will it get kids up and moving, but will also help them to appreciate the world they live in, sparking an interest in them to do what they can to protect their world, like ending climate change.
(1) https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/visitationstats.htm
(2) https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/invasive-plants.htm
MT. AIRY, MD– There have been several years where, like many other people across the US, my family has planted a garden. However, the one thing I always dreaded when it came to that season was the weeds. I hate weeding. It’s not fun and, quite frankly, is a pain in the butt. I never saw the weeds as an actual problem, just as a hassle. However, recently I have learned that weeds are more of a big deal than I thought.
Yellowstone National Park is one of the top ten most visited of the national parks, receiving over 900,000 visitors in July alone (1). Little do most of those visitors know that the landscape in Yellowstone is involved in a war. Not a war with blood and bombs, but a war amongst plants. The threat: weeds, or referred to also as invasive or non native plants. There are 225 recorded non native plants in Yellowstone alone (2). Ann Rodman, who works in Yellowstone, pointed out that right now the biggest threat to the park is invasive vegetation species, such as cheatgrass.
While the park is maximizing efforts to manage these nuisance plants, the problem still remains on how to effectively prevent the expansion of these plants. But to do that, we have to figure out how these plants are able to spread so quickly. Most of the areas with non native plants are those most impacted by people, like along roads or trails (2). Another invasive plant growth impact is climate change. It’s obvious that the Earth’s climate is changing, and at a rapid pace. You don’t have to be a scientist to realize that. Many people, for example farmers or anyone who works the land, are realizing that things are changing, such as plants not growing in the same patterns as they used to.
You may be wondering how climate change specifically impacts weeds. “Studies show that the increased CO2 concentration can drive increased weed growth and reproduction” (MCA p. 231). Carbon Dioxide is one of the leading gases involved in warming the Earth through the Greenhouse Effect (MCA p. 14). And because of the genetic make-up of weeds, they easily adapt to their environment and are able to grow in extreme conditions.
So, obviously, two major problems: invasive plants and climate change. We need solutions for both problems. So, what do we do?
In an earlier writing that I published, I put out a call for people to pitch in and help by doing the one thing most people, including myself, hate. A call to roll up our sleeves and weed. Of course this means relying on the good side of human nature, that people will feel the urge to pitch in and help. Sadly, it’s hard to rely on the good of people in this day and age. Sorry, but the truth is that not many people like to help protect the world we live in. Some think they’re better than everyone, so they shouldn’t have to do anything like that.
And so the question remains. What do we do? Well, I think there are two solutions that would be very effective.
The first solution is bartering, the idea of the even exchange of goods and services. When people go to national parks, such as Yellowstone, many like to stay there overnight, whether it be camping or in some type of lodging. Staying in a national park can get pricey. Wouldn’t it be great to reduce those lodging prices for visitors? I suggest that we would provide an incentive for people to get up and help with invasive plant management through price reductions. What I mean is that if you plan on staying in the park, for every “X” amount of hours you spend weeding, then you receive “Y” percentage off of your campsite or lodging cost. I’ve heard of various places doing this, and it is working. It pushes people, especially those who like to vacation for a long time in one place, to do their part in maintaining their favorite vacation spots.
The second solution lies within the school systems in our country. With a policy that says as part of the curriculum, learning institutions must take students to various outdoor locations throughout the year, such as a national park, to work on weeding projects. Not only will it get kids up and moving, but will also help them to appreciate the world they live in, sparking an interest in them to do what they can to protect their world, like ending climate change.
(1) https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/visitationstats.htm
(2) https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/invasive-plants.htm
The Cost of a Cheeseburger
08/12/18
By Malcolm Martelon
By Malcolm Martelon
DENVER, CO -- I love a good cheeseburger. My mouth waters when I think of a thick patty with melted cheese, lettuce, onion, and tomato. And I’m not alone. The average American eats over 270 pounds of meat every year.(1) But I also love nature and the world I live in, and all of this meat consumption has serious impacts on its sustainability.
One of the primary impacts of the meat industry is increasing amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 is the main contributor to anthropogenic climate change, but there are other greenhouse gases with a much higher global warming potential (GWP). The meat industry contributes to as much as “65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the GWP of CO2,”(2) most of this coming from manure. Also, the meat industry “accounts for 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants.” And, finally, activity associated with meat production, leads to “64 percent of ammonia in the atmosphere, which contributes significantly to acid rain”.(2) In addition to the greenhouse gas emissions of the meat industry, there is also the problem of land use. Livestock accounts for a large portion of land use “including 33 percent of the global arable land.”(3)
On a couple of recent tours with our Montana State University Climate Class, I found out that it’s not hopeless. First, we visited Timeless Seeds Inc. in Ulm, MT. where CEO Dave Oien walked us through the process of taking lentils and other seeds from farmers and turning them into a food grade product. As Dave talked us through his favorite breakfast, a lentil shake, I became inspired. Lentils are jam-packed with nutrients, and environmentally conscious too! “Organic lentils have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions and require the least amount of water of the 20 nutrient-dense and protein-rich foods you can consume.”(4) Next, we went to Swanky Roots Farms in Billings, MT. where owner Veronnaka Klamert showed us what is going on at the leading edge of aquaponics. Aquaponics is a way of growing both fish and plants in a closed soilless system. Highly efficient, it cuts the amount of water used through natural filtration and recycling. “While a head of lettuce takes six gallons of water to produce traditionally, we can do it with one,” Veronnaka told us. By using aquaponics and vertical farming methods, we could potentially grow two acres of traditionally grown food in just a shipping crate. Aquaponics has long been used for leafy greens with excellent results, but a study on legumes in aquaponics shows that lentils and other legumes could also do great in an aquaponics setting.(5) Using aquaponics could mean being able to replace meat protein with these plant proteins across the country with a much better land use strategy.
With simple adjustments, we could make a huge impact. Imagine a world where we grow all of our food locally in our cities, in warehouses and shipping crates, and diversify our reliance on meat products by embracing plant-based proteins. If, as a country, we would adopt these two changes, we could not only cut greenhouse gas emissions and water use but also make for a healthier America. If you’re in, Timeless Seed’s website has a list of lentil based recipes ranging from cookies to lasagnas to lentil burgers. What do you say, are you willing to give up a few cheeseburgers to save the world?
1 https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters
2 http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
3 http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
4 https://www.timelessfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Lentil-Facts.png
5 Pappa, Valentini. (2013). The use of legumes in an aquaponic agricultural system.
A Beef With Beef
8/12/2018
Photo By Padlock Ranch
By Delaney Ericson
LAKE OSWEGO, OR--Coming from the suburbs of Portland, I had never seen as many cows in my entire life as I ended up seeing across Montana during climate class. I was told multiple times that there are two cows for every person in Montana. It makes sense. Beef is a huge part of the American diet, with an average consumption of 55.6 pounds a year. It’s fairly cheap and is a filling source of protein. But beef is responsible for a massive amount of greenhouse gases released, with the cows themselves producing over two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents each year, not to mention the 2.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide released from just clearing forest for grazing land.
Not only is beef responsible for large amounts of emissions, but 30% earth’s total land surface is dedicated to cattle. I like steak as much as the next person, but these numbers are frighteningly large. My family doesn’t go much longer than a couple days without eating beef, and I still think we’re on the low end of the beef consumption spectrum. Prices of beef are just too good for people to pass up, and the government encourages the low prices, with about two-thirds of commodity crop subsidies going to animal-feed crops (along with cotton and tobacco). For comparison, about a quarter of those subsidies went to human-food crops like wheat and peanuts, with no subsidies going to farmers growing fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts.
With a 16 ounce bag of lentils from Timeless Seeds priced around $5.50, depending on the type of lentil, versus a pound and a half of Walmart beef for the same price, it’s clear that the economics plays a huge role in our country’s food choices, as it does with everything else, so why doesn’t the government try to encourage a departure from our dependence on beef? By shifting subsidies over to more human-food crops, maybe companies like Timeless Seeds could drop their prices enough to be competitive as a staple protein.
The government should be highly motivated to do this, as a switch to more plant-based proteins would drop our carbon dioxide emissions significantly, not mention the amount of land and water we could save by not having to provide cattle with as much feed and grazing land, and as the Montana Climate Assessment points out, the longer growing seasons caused by warming temperatures will require extra water for crops (page 216), so any water that can be redirected from animal-feed crops to human-feed crops would definitely be needed. By just avoiding beef for one day a week for a year, a single person can keep 331 kilograms of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. By going completely vegan, so avoiding any cow-related product plus all animal products, you produce 60% less carbon dioxide then heavy meat eaters. Obviously this is quite a jump from no beef once a week to no animal products ever, but it does have a profound impact on the environment.
By subsidizing more proteins that aren’t beef, the government may be able to shift the country’s focus away from the burger. Not only would that collectively reduce our emissions, but it could result in an overall healthier population. Studies show cutting out red meat (so not just beef) lowers cholesterol levels and reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes. Beef also has some of the highest saturated fat levels in any meat. Even if we ignore the climate effects of beef for a second, it still seems highly beneficial for the government to switch their focus onto plant-based protein subsidies if they want to improve the nation’s health, which nobody could call a bad thing.
I have no plans to ever become a vegetarian. That may sound hypocritical after writing about how good it is for the environment, but I really do like burgers, as does most the country. However, by skipping beef for just one day every week, I can drastically reduce my carbon footprint. Heck, I think I could completely skip all meat for one day each week. And if government subsidies can help drop the prices of plant proteins? I see no reason why anyone else couldn’t do the same.
LAKE OSWEGO, OR--Coming from the suburbs of Portland, I had never seen as many cows in my entire life as I ended up seeing across Montana during climate class. I was told multiple times that there are two cows for every person in Montana. It makes sense. Beef is a huge part of the American diet, with an average consumption of 55.6 pounds a year. It’s fairly cheap and is a filling source of protein. But beef is responsible for a massive amount of greenhouse gases released, with the cows themselves producing over two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents each year, not to mention the 2.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide released from just clearing forest for grazing land.
Not only is beef responsible for large amounts of emissions, but 30% earth’s total land surface is dedicated to cattle. I like steak as much as the next person, but these numbers are frighteningly large. My family doesn’t go much longer than a couple days without eating beef, and I still think we’re on the low end of the beef consumption spectrum. Prices of beef are just too good for people to pass up, and the government encourages the low prices, with about two-thirds of commodity crop subsidies going to animal-feed crops (along with cotton and tobacco). For comparison, about a quarter of those subsidies went to human-food crops like wheat and peanuts, with no subsidies going to farmers growing fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts.
With a 16 ounce bag of lentils from Timeless Seeds priced around $5.50, depending on the type of lentil, versus a pound and a half of Walmart beef for the same price, it’s clear that the economics plays a huge role in our country’s food choices, as it does with everything else, so why doesn’t the government try to encourage a departure from our dependence on beef? By shifting subsidies over to more human-food crops, maybe companies like Timeless Seeds could drop their prices enough to be competitive as a staple protein.
The government should be highly motivated to do this, as a switch to more plant-based proteins would drop our carbon dioxide emissions significantly, not mention the amount of land and water we could save by not having to provide cattle with as much feed and grazing land, and as the Montana Climate Assessment points out, the longer growing seasons caused by warming temperatures will require extra water for crops (page 216), so any water that can be redirected from animal-feed crops to human-feed crops would definitely be needed. By just avoiding beef for one day a week for a year, a single person can keep 331 kilograms of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. By going completely vegan, so avoiding any cow-related product plus all animal products, you produce 60% less carbon dioxide then heavy meat eaters. Obviously this is quite a jump from no beef once a week to no animal products ever, but it does have a profound impact on the environment.
By subsidizing more proteins that aren’t beef, the government may be able to shift the country’s focus away from the burger. Not only would that collectively reduce our emissions, but it could result in an overall healthier population. Studies show cutting out red meat (so not just beef) lowers cholesterol levels and reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes. Beef also has some of the highest saturated fat levels in any meat. Even if we ignore the climate effects of beef for a second, it still seems highly beneficial for the government to switch their focus onto plant-based protein subsidies if they want to improve the nation’s health, which nobody could call a bad thing.
I have no plans to ever become a vegetarian. That may sound hypocritical after writing about how good it is for the environment, but I really do like burgers, as does most the country. However, by skipping beef for just one day every week, I can drastically reduce my carbon footprint. Heck, I think I could completely skip all meat for one day each week. And if government subsidies can help drop the prices of plant proteins? I see no reason why anyone else couldn’t do the same.
A World Without Oil
August 12th, 2018
By Dawson Bancroft
JOLIET, MONTANA -- Oil...its all around us. In our cars, on our roads, and in the electronics you are using to read this article. We just can not seem to get away from it. Montana pumps in 205,000 barrels of crude oil every day. We, as humans, need to find a way to reduce our use of oil and other fossil fuels or find ecosystem friendly alternatives. But we need to do it as a collective. As of right now, our nation is divided. We have people who say we need to stop drilling and mining. We also have people who say drilling and mining is a necessity.
I love Montana for its beautiful valleys and breathtaking mountains. I love fishing and hiking up by Red Lodge and camping over in the valley between Columbus and Absarokee. However, to get there I drive a car powered by oil, on a road made with oil by machines powered by oil. Even if I had a electric car, I would most likely still be powered by a fossil fuel. It seems no matter how far you go you still get absolutely surrounded by oil or another fossil fuel.
We’re starting to see some alternatives for oil but not enough of them everywhere. One of the examples of this is biodiesel. We were able to see one food truck on the whole trip that had a Powered by Biodiesel sticker (see the picture to the left). We need to work harder on making cars that produce less or no pollutants. We also need to make those affordable. (I know my family or I can not afford a brand new Tesla.) Older vehicles produce more carbon dioxide than the newer ones. Even with electric hybrids or even fully electric cars, we still produce the pollutants just in a different way.
Electric cars, such as Teslas, run off of (you guessed it) electricity. Most of which probably comes from a coal fired power plant, like Colstrip. We need to either step up our production of renewable energy or replace and upgrade our current ones. The problem is even if we want to do that we still need mining. It gives us copper and other valuable metals to make a lot of the renewable energy systems. A lot of our hydroelectric and wind power sources are out of date (as you can see from the picture to the below).
Oil is also in the plastics that we use everyday. From the computer you are reading this on to the plastics in our fans cooling us during this hot weather. There are several ways to make plastic without oil. The only problem is the cost. It takes energy-intensive processes. That's why we don’t use them. We need our government to understand the priorities to make this country survive in this changing world.
Our government needs to realize that we need to work on projects that can produce a substantial amount of power without putting out ton after ton of carbon dioxide emissions. Some of these projects include turning Coalstrip into a renewable resource town instead of a coal plant town. The next thing is a better way of transportation that is affordable. People have their own cars instead of horses because it's cheaper, both in time and money. The last thing is changing from oil in our plastics, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. This is a way to reduce the oil we use and will give us a cleaner, brighter future.
JOLIET, MONTANA -- Oil...its all around us. In our cars, on our roads, and in the electronics you are using to read this article. We just can not seem to get away from it. Montana pumps in 205,000 barrels of crude oil every day. We, as humans, need to find a way to reduce our use of oil and other fossil fuels or find ecosystem friendly alternatives. But we need to do it as a collective. As of right now, our nation is divided. We have people who say we need to stop drilling and mining. We also have people who say drilling and mining is a necessity.
I love Montana for its beautiful valleys and breathtaking mountains. I love fishing and hiking up by Red Lodge and camping over in the valley between Columbus and Absarokee. However, to get there I drive a car powered by oil, on a road made with oil by machines powered by oil. Even if I had a electric car, I would most likely still be powered by a fossil fuel. It seems no matter how far you go you still get absolutely surrounded by oil or another fossil fuel.
We’re starting to see some alternatives for oil but not enough of them everywhere. One of the examples of this is biodiesel. We were able to see one food truck on the whole trip that had a Powered by Biodiesel sticker (see the picture to the left). We need to work harder on making cars that produce less or no pollutants. We also need to make those affordable. (I know my family or I can not afford a brand new Tesla.) Older vehicles produce more carbon dioxide than the newer ones. Even with electric hybrids or even fully electric cars, we still produce the pollutants just in a different way.
Electric cars, such as Teslas, run off of (you guessed it) electricity. Most of which probably comes from a coal fired power plant, like Colstrip. We need to either step up our production of renewable energy or replace and upgrade our current ones. The problem is even if we want to do that we still need mining. It gives us copper and other valuable metals to make a lot of the renewable energy systems. A lot of our hydroelectric and wind power sources are out of date (as you can see from the picture to the below).
Oil is also in the plastics that we use everyday. From the computer you are reading this on to the plastics in our fans cooling us during this hot weather. There are several ways to make plastic without oil. The only problem is the cost. It takes energy-intensive processes. That's why we don’t use them. We need our government to understand the priorities to make this country survive in this changing world.
Our government needs to realize that we need to work on projects that can produce a substantial amount of power without putting out ton after ton of carbon dioxide emissions. Some of these projects include turning Coalstrip into a renewable resource town instead of a coal plant town. The next thing is a better way of transportation that is affordable. People have their own cars instead of horses because it's cheaper, both in time and money. The last thing is changing from oil in our plastics, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. This is a way to reduce the oil we use and will give us a cleaner, brighter future.
Taking "Going Green" to the Next Level
8/12/18
By Ellie Jackson
BOZEMAN, Montana -- We all dream of having a cleaner, greener planet: one with energy-efficient cars, no pollution, and all-recyclable everything. What would you think if this dream could eventually become a reality?
After speaking with different stakeholders around the state about their position on climate change and how it is affecting their respective industries, the common questions that seemed to circulate our discussions were, what can we do to mitigate our current situation, and what are our next steps? Climate change is threatening forests, water, and agriculture, and many are working to alleviate its effects on our planet. The bottom line is, conventional practices, including the use of fossil fuels, just won’t cut it anymore.
One solution, however, that was never mentioned during our course involves biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels. The research behind the use of biofuels is relatively new, but algae is becoming increasingly promising as an alternative fuel source due to its efficiency and adaptability. Algae recycle greenhouse gases to grow, and if produced at a large scale, this could reduce our overall carbon footprint. We are talking about a global impact. By introducing this more effective, sustainable source of energy, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would decrease significantly. Our global effort to reduce emissions has proved unsuccessful thus far. We are operating at an 8.5 RCP level, and transitioning to biofuels could be the turning point that leads us instead to a “stabilization” or a “decline” scenario (MCA, 43).
ExxonMobil and Synthetic Genomics, along with numerous partnering universities, have made significant headway in their research efforts. They have figured out how to improve algae’s fat content from twenty to forty percent, yielding more efficient fuel. According to ExxonMobil, biofuel is the “fuel of the future,” as it will produce fewer emissions compared to fossil fuels (ExxonMobil). Algae has a host of benefits; it has evolved over billions of years and can produce oil more efficiently than any other natural process. They can supplement gasoline, diesel, and marine and aviation fuels. Being as this is one of the only promising solutions to our energy crisis, one would be foolish to ignore it as a potential replacement for fossil fuels.
However, die-hard supporters of fossil fuels like Jessica Sena of the Montana Petroleum Association would be hard-pressed to consider biofuels as an alternative energy source. She would not be incorrect to argue that oil is essential to us as consumers, but biofuels can serve similar purposes. Apart from providing fuel, algae can be cultivated to produce things like plastics, fertilizers, and cosmetics, and therefore could eventually replace her oh-so-precious fossil fuels. She noted that as a planet, we are always looking for ways to “make our energy better.” But we’re not improving old methods; we’re innovating new ones.
Along with increasing problems due to emissions, issues are beginning as the population grows and land mass becomes increasingly scarce. We need a new source of energy that will not compete with agricultural resources and farmable land. Biofuels fit the bill. Algae produce rapidly and require few nutrients. On a commercial scale, there are many ways to grow it, making it incredibly versatile. Innovation is continually evolving in order to grow as much algae as efficiently as possible, compared to conventional refineries for oil production that are harmful to the environment. Recycling carbon back into our energy and agricultural systems is the only way we can truly achieve sustainability.
Sandy Arrow Ranch and Swanky Roots of Montana realize the necessity of refining traditional agricultural practices. Each has their respective methods; however, carbon capture is a method that can be adopted wide-spread. Algae can be used as a bio-fertilizer for crops and enhance their ability to capture CO2. Thus, not only can it fuel our cars efficiently, but also our crops (All About Algae).
The Montana Climate Assessment says that steps need to be taken because “change is inevitable.”(MCA, 237) We cannot simply ignore the fact that our climate is changing; we must learn how to adapt. We are putting our planet in imminent danger and desperately need to adopt new innovative methods if we want to make but the slightest headway in curbing emissions and protecting our environment. No one solution will completely rid us of the problems we’re facing locally and globally, but biofuels currently have the most promise for doing so. A greener, more sustainable future is just beyond the horizon.
Sources:
http://allaboutalgae.com/benefits/
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-breakthrough-algae-biofuel.html
http://www.swankyroots.com
https://www.sandyarrowranch.com
After speaking with different stakeholders around the state about their position on climate change and how it is affecting their respective industries, the common questions that seemed to circulate our discussions were, what can we do to mitigate our current situation, and what are our next steps? Climate change is threatening forests, water, and agriculture, and many are working to alleviate its effects on our planet. The bottom line is, conventional practices, including the use of fossil fuels, just won’t cut it anymore.
One solution, however, that was never mentioned during our course involves biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels. The research behind the use of biofuels is relatively new, but algae is becoming increasingly promising as an alternative fuel source due to its efficiency and adaptability. Algae recycle greenhouse gases to grow, and if produced at a large scale, this could reduce our overall carbon footprint. We are talking about a global impact. By introducing this more effective, sustainable source of energy, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would decrease significantly. Our global effort to reduce emissions has proved unsuccessful thus far. We are operating at an 8.5 RCP level, and transitioning to biofuels could be the turning point that leads us instead to a “stabilization” or a “decline” scenario (MCA, 43).
ExxonMobil and Synthetic Genomics, along with numerous partnering universities, have made significant headway in their research efforts. They have figured out how to improve algae’s fat content from twenty to forty percent, yielding more efficient fuel. According to ExxonMobil, biofuel is the “fuel of the future,” as it will produce fewer emissions compared to fossil fuels (ExxonMobil). Algae has a host of benefits; it has evolved over billions of years and can produce oil more efficiently than any other natural process. They can supplement gasoline, diesel, and marine and aviation fuels. Being as this is one of the only promising solutions to our energy crisis, one would be foolish to ignore it as a potential replacement for fossil fuels.
However, die-hard supporters of fossil fuels like Jessica Sena of the Montana Petroleum Association would be hard-pressed to consider biofuels as an alternative energy source. She would not be incorrect to argue that oil is essential to us as consumers, but biofuels can serve similar purposes. Apart from providing fuel, algae can be cultivated to produce things like plastics, fertilizers, and cosmetics, and therefore could eventually replace her oh-so-precious fossil fuels. She noted that as a planet, we are always looking for ways to “make our energy better.” But we’re not improving old methods; we’re innovating new ones.
Along with increasing problems due to emissions, issues are beginning as the population grows and land mass becomes increasingly scarce. We need a new source of energy that will not compete with agricultural resources and farmable land. Biofuels fit the bill. Algae produce rapidly and require few nutrients. On a commercial scale, there are many ways to grow it, making it incredibly versatile. Innovation is continually evolving in order to grow as much algae as efficiently as possible, compared to conventional refineries for oil production that are harmful to the environment. Recycling carbon back into our energy and agricultural systems is the only way we can truly achieve sustainability.
Sandy Arrow Ranch and Swanky Roots of Montana realize the necessity of refining traditional agricultural practices. Each has their respective methods; however, carbon capture is a method that can be adopted wide-spread. Algae can be used as a bio-fertilizer for crops and enhance their ability to capture CO2. Thus, not only can it fuel our cars efficiently, but also our crops (All About Algae).
The Montana Climate Assessment says that steps need to be taken because “change is inevitable.”(MCA, 237) We cannot simply ignore the fact that our climate is changing; we must learn how to adapt. We are putting our planet in imminent danger and desperately need to adopt new innovative methods if we want to make but the slightest headway in curbing emissions and protecting our environment. No one solution will completely rid us of the problems we’re facing locally and globally, but biofuels currently have the most promise for doing so. A greener, more sustainable future is just beyond the horizon.
Sources:
http://allaboutalgae.com/benefits/
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-breakthrough-algae-biofuel.html
http://www.swankyroots.com
https://www.sandyarrowranch.com