Thanks for reading! We hope you have enjoyed our blog and learned something new! Climate change is a growing problem and we can no longer do nothing. It’s time we all do our part to help the world whether it be eating less meat, using eco-friendly products, buying organic food, or even living in a “tiny house.” Every little bit helps!
The federal Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) responsible for developing and recommending “national policies to the President that promote the improvement of environmental quality and meet the Nation’s goals.” According to the White House website:
Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to “declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.”
On August 15, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13807 on Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure. The purpose?
America needs increased infrastructure investment to strengthen our economy, enhance our competitiveness in world trade, create jobs and increase wages for our workers, and reduce the costs of goods and services for our families…Inefficiencies in current infrastructure project decisions, including management of environmental reviews and permit decisions or authorizations, have delayed infrastructure investments, increased project costs, and blocked the American people from enjoying improved infrastructure that would benefit our economy, society, and environment. More efficient and effective Federal infrastructure decisions can transform our economy, so the Federal Government, as a whole, must change the way it processes environmental reviews and authorization decisions.
Read: fast-track infrastructure projects and don’t worry about NEPA or the Clean Power Plan.
In this case, Kathleen Hartnett White is the perfect climate science denier for the job.
President Trump has nominated White to be his top environmental advisor. It’s Hot Out strongly opposes White’s nomination.
Last Wednesday the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing on the nomination. By now you’ve probably seen coverage of White’s stammered responses to questions on widely understood and agreed upon principles of climate change. ICYMI the full hearing can be viewed here. Below is a brief video with some highlights.
While her rhetoric at the hearing was extremely troubling, possibly more concerning is her record on the issue of climate change. White is Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at Texas Public Policy Foundation, a “non-profit, non-partisan research institute.” The Texas Observer found that TPPF is funded by corporations like Exxon, Chevron and Koch Industries. A few weeks back we covered Koch Industries, a multi-billion dollar energy conglomerate in the business of refining, chemicals, biofuels, forest and consumer products, fertilizers, etc. They back the Cato Institute and it comes as no surprise they also back TPPF.
White co-authored a book called Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy that was published in May of 2016. If you think it sounds similar to Epstein’s The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels discussed last week, you’re right. Here’s an actual quote from the prologue:
“Thanks to the shale oil and gas revolution, America will never run out of energy. We have hundreds of years’ worth of oil, natural gas, and coal–with existing technologies.
Never is a very strong word. It seems White is no stranger to strongly worded argument against the EPA and clean energy. Articles like “Signing the Paris Agreement is the worst way to celebrate Earth Day,” “Renewables are incapable of replacing hydrocarbon at scale,” “Stay the course and halt the clock on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan” and “Restrain the imperial EPA” published to The Hill website spread rampant untruths. Here’s an excerpt from the latter:
Carbon dioxide is an odorless, invisible, harmless and completely natural gas lacking any characteristic of a pollutant. It doesn’t contaminate or defile the air, as actual pollutants do. Ambient levels of carbon dioxide in the air we breathe have zero adverse health effects, in contrast to high levels of genuine pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act like lead and mercury.
Misinformation and falsehoods like this have absolutely no place in our government, especially the CEQ. We need officials who will fight for clean and sustainable energy! Kathleen Hartnett White will undoubtedly do the exact opposite. Contact your local Senator to express your opposition to the nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White!
Check out this video recorded from 2006 by NASA. It depicts the CO2 levels in the span of one year
The American Nutrition Association encourages us to eat organic and help combat global warming in this recent newsletter. The newsletter addresses a new form of organic farming as a powerful tool in the fight against global warming. Organic farming is a new and improved agricultural production system that does not use genetically modified seed, synthetic pesticides or fertilizers. Conventional farming that uses pesticides and chemical fertilizers releases at least 3 times the amount of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
However, this new organic farming or regenerative agriculture systems reduce the release of carbon. A 23 year farming systems trail performed by the Rodale Institute found that “soil under organic agriculture management can accumulate about 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre foot of soil each year. The accumulation is equal to about 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre taken from the air and sequestered into soil organic matter. When multiplied over the 160 million aces of corn and soybeans grown nationally, a potential for 580 billion pounds of excess carbon dioxide per year can be sequestered when farmers transition to organic grain systems.” 580 BILLION pounds of carbon dioxide per year can be saved from going into the atmosphere.
In addition, organic farming relays on solar power and natural techniques therefore uses 1/3 less fossil fuel energy than conventional farming. Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources that we need to conserve as much as we can. Some people argue that organic farming produces less however, the trial also proved the organic plots actually yielded 25-75% more than the conventional chemical farming. It was especially better during dry years because the soil in organic plots could retain more moisture than the soil riddled with pesticides and chemical fertilizers.
So in choosing to eat only certified organic food produced by organic farming we are not only improving our own health but also the health and well-being of our planet. Insisting farmers make transitions to more natural farming techniques we are doing our part to fight climate change.
The average American produces more than four pounds of trash per day. Want tips on how to reduce your impact? Look no further than Lauren Singer, a NYC resident who can fit all of her trash from the past four years into one mason jar. Watch this video by Vox about going green and then visit Lauren’s blog to learn more.
Last week we talked about the effects of the animal agriculture industry on climate change. Insects use a fraction of the resources necessary to raise livestock and contain comparable protein, vitamins and minerals. Watch this TED Ed video to learn more about insects as a sustainable food source.
Watch this video by National Geographic to learn a little bit more about the different types of renewable energy.
This week, we’re going to be analyzing an article written by former NASA Administrator from 2001-2005, Sean O’Keefe. In it, O’Keefe supports Trump’s decision to appoint Jim Bridenstine as the new NASA administrator, or leader of NASA.
In his article, Sean O’Keefe focuses on the past achievements of Jim Webb, citing his background and experience as nothing short of normal. He compares this experience with Jim Bridenstine’s background as a Naval Aviator, citing “Bridenstine arguably has the best qualifications for success given the challenges ahead.” This statement comes charged with a few discrepancies. The whole premise of Sean’s argument is attacking the critics head on who have said Bridenstine lacks the necessary experience. Comparing a successful NASA era to an uncertain political policy is a bit far-fetched. O’Keefe is drawing the reader’s attention to focus more on a goal driven comparison. In the 1960’s our main goal was to beat Russia to the moon. We did just that, every worker associated with the NASA program doing their little bit of patriotism to achieve the common goal. Now fast forward into the 21st century, and our planet is dying. The main provider of climate data is NASA, and adding an inept President followed by an inexperienced leader will bring the science data down to its knees. Especially in today’s political agenda where budgets and numbers are scrutinized, the main message of the party in power is this: climate change is fake. That being said, we can depict this article as nothing but a buffer, more of a weak comparison of NASA’s golden era to an uncertain future. How does this article relate to our blog? Well its fairly simple. Most of the data used to observe and classify climate change comes from NASA.
Here’s a brief overview on how NASA has contributed to the conversation about climate change in the past. NASA plays an important role in climate science and policy. We need forward thinkers to facilitate free information and positive environmental progress. Our goal isn’t to beat Russia, or show our strength, let alone try to push the boundaries of space further than ever before. Our goal has to be shifted toward protecting what we have and understand how we can reverse or halt the effects of global warming that attribute to the REAL effects of climate change.
You might be wondering… what can I personally do to help the environment? You could contact your local representative, take shorter showers, recycle or purchase an eco friendly vehicle. Last week we discussed purchasing green household products. All of these are wonderful ways to get involved and make a positive impact.
What if there was one thing you could do that had a bigger impact on the environment than all of the above behaviors combined? It’s an unpopular position, especially in the United States.
Eat less meat. Or better yet, give it up entirely.
The standard American diet consists of a lot of meat. We’re known for steakhouses, BBQ joints and gigantic portions. Have you ever thought about what it takes to get that ribeye on your plate?
It turns out raising livestock on a large scale requires a significant amount of water and land, bearing a great burden on the environment. An article by Climate Nexus quantifies the exorbitant amount of precious resources required by livestock:
Animal agriculture puts a heavy strain on many of the Earth’s finite land, water and energy resources. In order to accommodate the 70 billion animals raised annually for human consumption, a third of the planet’s ice-free land surface, as well as nearly sixteen percent of global freshwater, is devoted to growing livestock. Furthermore, a third of worldwide grain production is used to feed livestock.
Further, according to a study by Worldwatch Institute, the livestock industry is responsible for 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Another study by the Weizmann Institute of Science found that beef consumption in the standard American diet creates 1,984 pounds of CO2 annually.
So we can just eat fish instead, right? According to National Geographic, overfishing and unsustainable harvesting is posing a big problem for our oceans.
Over the past 55 years, as fisheries have returned lower and lower yields, humans have begun to understand that the oceans we’d assumed were unendingly vast and rich are in fact highly vulnerable and sensitive. Add overfishing to pollution, climate change, habitat destruction, and acidification, and a picture of a system in crisis emerges.
Take a look at this infographic from the documentary Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret.
The threat the animal agriculture industry poses to climate change is a truly complex and multifaceted issue. Animal products have a high price on our environment. Next time you’re at the grocery store, consider replacing your steak with another plant-based option. It’s never too late to make a change! Head over to Cowspiracy’s website to watch the documentary and learn more about this multifaceted. They also have tips for adopting a more sustainable lifestyle. Is this something you’d be willing to try? Tell us your thoughts on this post in the comments below!
It's Hot Out 