This article describes how much greenhouse emissions are behind the food we eat, and how it is important to be more thoughtful about how much we use and don’t use. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, if food waste was a country “it would be the third highest emitter of greenhouse gasses after the U.S. and China”, and families aren’t just to blame. A lot of the food that doesn’t reach mouths are thrown out by the producers for minor deformities.

This article is a great supplement to the Omnivore’s Dilemma as it shows how much waste we produce outside our trash and typical carbon emissions. However, it also does a great job in explaining corporations responsibility for the waste, and does not place all the blame on consumers. The most surprising fact is that 40% of food is wasted after it is harvested and before it makes it to homes. Not only are there people starving in the world who would appreciate the food, but the amount of carbon that goes into planting and harvesting food plays a major role in climate change. This demonstrates a need for environmental regulations limiting how much food waste producers and consumers are allowed to create as well as a system to put some of the waste into proper use. 

This article explains how a lot of major companies from Delta to Ikea are planning on reducing their carbon emissions, and being transparent about it.  Not only that, but the targets these corporations are setting are lofty and ambitious, the numbers are higher and the time frame is shorter. Engie Impact, a sustainability company, has found that the average “time horizon is just eight years away” rather than the usual 25 years.

This self regulation is important, especially in America where government “control” over businesses is generally unpopular and difficult. It also shows the power consumers have, and that when people put pressure on companies to be environmentally responsible, it can work. While the goals set by these major corporations are described as “lofty”, those are the type of goals that they need to be meeting. I think it is a good step that these goals are being made, but it is equally important that consumers maintain the pressure on these companies and ensure that they are met in the short time frame that has been established. I will believe that these companies are truly committed to being environmentally responsible after I see it. 

In late February the United Kingdom’s appeals court blocked the development of a third runway in Heathrow airport. They argued that the government is neglecting their commitment to reduce carbon emissions and prevent the rise in global temperatures that they agreed upon under the Paris Climate Agreement. Britain has a target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 that can be jeopardized by any additional flights being brought into the country. 

This article is a great at showing why international climate agreements are so important, and it makes me scared to have a President who doesn’t believe in them. Clearly, there will be major sacrifices that have to be made in order to meet these agreements, but in the long run it will be worth it. I am glad that the UK is prioritizing important international treaties over luxury, and  I believe it sets an important example for the rest of the world. 

Recently, China’s  implemented policies prohibiting the import of recycled materials from the United States has had serious economic impacts that are being felt today. In response, Chinese companies are investing in paper companies in the U.S. so that they may still export recycled pulp and meet “China’s manufacturing output”. 

After watching the documentary in class about China’s waste problem, I am sympathetic to their countries attempt to limit waste. However, this article brings up a great problem with environmental regulation on businesses and the impact it can have on the economy, especially when it involves the potential of recycled material. I think this shows it is important for countries to work together, and it reminds me of the saying “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”. Potentially, countries could recycle each other’s waste if there is a market for their recycled goods. There is so much trash in the world but very little we have learned to do with it, finding a market for that trash (that is possibly in another part of the world) could be promising for eliminating our waste.

The Alberta Court of Appeals has recently decided 4-1 that the federal government’s plan for a carbon tax is unconstitutional. The provincial government of Alberta has expressed concerns that the tax is a “constitutional trojan horse” meant to broaden Ottowa’s powers. Leaders of the conservative party also expressed concerns that a tax would punish families for driving cars and heating their homes. While this decision carries weight, it is not final, and Ottawa is waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. 

I do not believe that the Canadian federal government is overstepping their powers. While I admit I am not an expert on their constitution, I believe that a government has a responsibility to protect their citizens, and that climate change is a serious threat. I also do not believe that  this tax is a punishment for families, I believe it is an opportunity for people to be thoughtful about their carbon emissions and for people to be responsible for their contributions to harming the environment. Companies should be paying more in taxes, but every person who is knowingly contributing to massive carbon emissions globally should find alternatives or pay for it. It is a a small price to pay compared to the cost of living in a world completely transformed by climate change.

Popovich, N., Albeck-ripka, L., & Pierre-louis, K. (2019, June 2). 85 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=8686A81F1A6DCF9588CE90983AD3BA93&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL.

Since he took office in 2016, President Donald Trump has made it one of the priorities of his administration to dismantle or weaken, Obama-era environmental protections. This article helpfully breaks down all 85 rules being rolled back into two categories: officially reversed, and still in progress. The laws and protections affected by the President range from protections on animals to water quality, infrastructure and planning, and much more.

This article was a good reminder of how relentless the Trump administration has been in harming the environment. It is important because a lot of the categories impacted by these rollbacks are overlooked and not given the proper coverage to spark public outrage. We have to remain diligent in our opposition to this dismantling because it has consequences that are far-reaching and seriously damaging not only environmentally, but as I learned from other news stories, culturally.

Burnett, J. (2019, October 13). Border Wall Rising In Arizona, Raises Concerns Among Conservationists, Native Tribes. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/10/13/769444262/border-wall-rising-in-arizona-raises-concerns-among-conservationists-native-trib.

As the building of President Trump’s border wall is underway in states such as Arizona, environmentalists are concerned about the impact the ecological impact the construction will have on “one of the most biologically and culturally rich regions of the continental United States”. Because Customs and Border Patrol and the Defense Department are in a rush to meet the goal of 450 miles of wall by the next election, conservationists are concerned they will show little regard for plant and animal life they find in their way. 

Beyond the intrinsic value of living things, this story upsets me because of the cultural significance the land has for many people who live in Arizona. There are culturally significant plants, springs, animals, and even archaeological sites that will be disregarded as the Trump Administration continues to waive federal environmental laws to expedite the construction. 

Tabuchi, H. (2019, October 28). General Motors Sides With Trump in Emissions Fight, Splitting the Industry. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/climate/general-motors-california-emissions-trump.html.

In late October, General Motors, Chrysler, Fiat, and Toyota, said that they were going to side with the Trump Administration during their ongoing battle with the state of California over stricter fuel economy standards. This decision pits them against other companies such as Honda and Ford, who have already agreed to meet the standards this year. This is a bold decision considering California is one of the largest consumers of cars, with nearly two million sold in the state, and the consequences of not agreeing to the deal can include limiting the sale of their automobiles in California.

I wrote about the fuel emissions standards being implemented by California for my last Adopt-a-Topic, and I was very pleased to hear that large automakers were agreeing to take responsibility for their role in pollution.  However, this decision by General Motors is not unexpected, as to agree with the standards would be difficult and deadlines are set for 2026. 

In the 11th Hour Court Halts Copper Mine from Desecrating Native American Tribes’ Ancestral Grounds. (2019, August 27). Retrieved from https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/court-halts-copper-mine-from-desecrating-native-american-tribes-ancestral-grounds.

In late August, federal courts ruled the last minute that a copper mine could not be established on important native grounds. The ruling came after the US National Forest Service approved the plans for the mine despite the fact that it would disrupt sacred springs, ancestral burial grounds, and much more. This decision by the US National Forest Service was made “without any basis of fact or law” because of the example set by the Trump administration’s rollbacks and disregard of environmental regulations.

The copper mine in question was planned to be the third-largest in the United States, bringing in quick profits, and therefore received special treatment. Because they were blinded by money, an arm of the United States government neglected not only important environmental consequences but the very real cultural significance of the land it was on. This is upsetting because it suggests that our government can be bought, even when it comes to land that is important both environmentally and culturally. 

Bote, J. (2019, November 3). After years of improvement, US air quality has gotten worse since 2016, report suggests. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/01/us-air-quality-worse-since-2016-after-years-improvements-report/2499356001/.

According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, particulate pollution has increased in the U.S. by 5.5 percent between 2016 (the start of the Trump Administration) and 2018. This data comes despite the fact that Trump Administration officials have said the environment is “getting cleaner”. The paper offers three reasons for this increase in pollution including less enforcement of environmental protection laws. However, the EPA denies these claims and suggests that pollution has in fact decreased since 2016, based on emissions reports, not ambient pollution levels like the new report. 

This article was interesting because of the conflict between the two reports. It highlights that data can be manipulated to convey a certain result and it made me appreciate research done by a “non-profit, non-partisan organization”. I think it is important to look at data from a wide range of sources to determine the state of air and water quality in our country, but regardless of what those numbers might be, it remains very important that the government enforces all environmental protections.