Denver, CO - The Democratic Convention is over, and hunters and anglers of all political stripes who attended already have Minnesota and next week's Republican National Convention in their sights. They see it as another forum where they can push for action on conservation issues, including global warming.

A recent poll by American Viewpoint found that people who hunt and fish are swing voters in this election, with more than half not yet committed to voting for a particular presidential candidate. Most poll respondents consider both gun rights and conservation to be important.

David Crockett is an avid sportsman and descendant of iconic frontiersman Davey Crockett. He told the sporting crowd in Denver that it's time for politicians to get down to serious business on reducing climate change and its threats to wildlife.

"In Minneapolis next week, we'll be in a state that had 4,000 moose at the time of the 2000 election; today the state of Minnesota has 400 moose. That has happened in that short period of time."

Crockett says there needs to be a bold initiative to take fast, meaningful action to halt global warming.

The poll found strong support among hunters and anglers for developing more renewable sources of energy--including wind, solar and biofuels--to help reduce climate-changing pollution.

Larry Schweiger is the CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, which commissioned the poll. He says it found most sportsmen are Republicans or independents who consider themselves to be conservative or very conservative--and they're worried about climate change.

"This is not an issue of left and right, but an issue of right and wrong. Hunters and anglers understand that we need to work together as never before to move toward a new energy economy."

The poll results are online at www.targetglobalwarming.org.




get more stories like this via email

Oregon students are back in the classroom, but their classrooms might not be as energy efficient or climate resilient as they should be.

As the changing climate impacts the state, aging infrastructure in schools is driving up utility costs.

Juliette Poff, marketing specialist with Energy Trust of Oregon, said energy is the second-biggest cost to schools, after teacher salaries.

Poff is a former teacher and she said anything that can make the classroom more conducive to learning is a win.

"Things like lighting can look like more focus for students," said Poff. "Having energy efficient windows can help with air quality, heating and cooling can help with comfort, and all of these things are impactful to the humans that occupy these spaces."

Poff noted that schools are often strapped for resources when it comes to upgrading infrastructure.

Energy Trust of Oregon offers help on that end with expertise and cash incentives for schools.

Over the past two decades, the organization has distributed more than $38 million in incentives for energy efficiency projects like - installing new insulation and windows.

Liberty High School in Hillsboro benefited over the summer from a $2 million upgrade to its H-VAC system, with assistance from Energy Trust of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Energy.

Mia Hocking is the resource conservation manager for the Hillsboro School District and said the new system is much more efficient.

"The efficiency is anticipated to improve enough to save over $100,000 in the electric utility annually," said Hocking. "So, just that alone is incredible."

Poff said the model for upgrading schools in Oregon could be replicated in other states. She said one important element her organization provides is navigation on how to find funding.

"We also work with a number of partners like the Department of Energy," said Poff, "and often schools can combine funding from the state - bonds, as well funding from Energy Trust - and any opportunity to maximize that funding is amazing for schools."




get more stories like this via email

By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Eric Galatas for Colorado News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

In the 10,000 years since humans first developed animal agriculture, livestock farming has become central to modern society. Unfortunately, it's also become one of the biggest drivers of climate change and environmental destruction. Animal farms create a staggering amount of air, water and land pollution, and with the consequences of climate change worsening by the year, addressing the environmental impacts of livestock farming is more important than ever.

Global warming is an enormous part of climate change, but it's not the only part. The concept of climate change encompasses not only rising global temperatures, but all sorts of other changes to the natural composition of Earth and its atmosphere, such as water pollution and land degradation. Here are some of the ways livestock farming contributes to those changes.

But First, a Brief Summary of Greenhouse Gasses

One of the biggest ways livestock farming contributes to climate change is through the emission of greenhouse gasses, which trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and cause global temperatures to rise. Insofar as livestock is concerned, there are three greenhouse gasses in particular of note.

• Carbon dioxide (CO2): The "main" greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide comprises around 80 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 exists naturally in the atmosphere and regularly circulates from the Earth to the air as part of the carbon cycle; however, the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities releases additional CO2, throwing off that cycle and increasing global temperatures. CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.



• Methane (CH4): Methane only accounts for 11 percent of global greenhouse emissions, and unlike CO2, disappears after a relatively brief 12 years. However, it's much more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere: over a 100-year period, one pound of CH4 has 28 times the global warming potential as one pound of CO2.



• Nitrous oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide only makes up six percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and exists naturally on Earth as part of the nitrogen cycle. It remains in the atmosphere for about 121 years on average after it's emitted, and its global warming potential is a whopping 265 times greater than that of CO2 over a 100-year period.

Because there are multiple greenhouse gasses with different warming potentials, greenhouse emissions are commonly converted to and measured in CO2-equivalents, or CO2-eq.


In various ways and to varying degrees, livestock farming emits all of the aforementioned greenhouse gasses. Here's how.


How Livestock Farming Creates Methane Emissions


Livestock are a significant source of methane emissions, thanks to a natural biological process called enteric fermentation. Cows, sheep, goats and other ruminant livestock have microbes in their digestive systems that decompose and ferment the food they eat, and methane is a byproduct of this fermentation process.


That methane is released into the atmosphere when the animals burp or fart, and it's also contained in their urine and manure. One cow can produce up to 264 pounds of methane every year, and it's estimated that in total, enteric fermentation from ruminant livestock is responsible for 30 percent of global anthropogenic methane emissions.


How Livestock Farming Leads to Pollution from Manure


Farm animals produce around 450 million tons of manure every year, and figuring out what to do with it is a major challenge for livestock farmers. Some farms store manure in large piles, landfills or lagoons - known as "settlement ponds" - while others simply dump it onto cropland and use it as untreated fertilizer.


All of these management methods result in the release of methane and nitrous oxide, which manure also contains. When manure is stored in an environment with insufficient oxygen, as is often the case with landfills and lagoons, it undergoes a process known as anaerobic decay, and releases nitrous oxide and methane into the air as a result. In addition, structural failures or extreme weather events often cause the manure in settlement ponds to leak into nearby soil and waterways.


When manure is used as fertilizer, it releases nitrogen into the soil. That's the point of fertilizer, as plants need a certain amount of nitrogen to grow. But when farms use this type of fertilization as a disposal method for excess manure, they often over-apply it to the crops in question, which causes the soil to absorb more nitrogen than is necessary.


You might wonder why it matters if soil contains too much nitrogen. There are two intertwined reasons: nutrient runoff and soil erosion.


Nutrient Runoff


Nutrient runoff occurs when rain, wind or other environmental forces disrupt soil and carry it into nearby waterways. When that soil has been fertilized with untreated manure, it pollutes the water in question, both with nitrogen and other toxins that are common in manure, like phosphorus. Nitrogen and phosphorus both stimulate algae growth, and excessive algae growth in a body of water leads to harmful algal blooms.


As their name implies, harmful algal blooms have a host of damaging environmental consequences. They release toxins that kill aquatic life and poison the drinking water, which can cause serious illness and even death in humans. Algal blooms reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, which aquatic life relies on, and prevent light from penetrating the water's surface, thus choking the life out of coral reefs and other aquatic plants that are crucial to Earth's ecosystems.


Soil Erosion


Nutrient runoff is exacerbated by another consequence of livestock farming: soil erosion. This is when topsoil particles become loosened and detached, which diminishes the quality of the soil and makes it much more susceptible to nutrient runoff.


A degree of soil erosion occurs naturally, but livestock farming greatly accelerates it in a few ways. One is overgrazing, which is when livestock graze on pastures for extended periods without the pastures being given time to recover. The hooves of cows, goats and other ruminant livestock can erode the soil as well, especially when many of them are grazing in one place.


In addition to making nutrient runoff more likely, eroded soil is less fertile and can support fewer forms of plant life. It is also worse at retaining water, which can increase the risk of drought.


Deforestation Due to Livestock Farming


It's impossible to assess the environmental impacts of livestock farming without also discussing deforestation - the practice of permanently clearing out trees from forested land and repurposing the land for other uses. Humans deforest around 10 million hectares of land every year, and 41 percent of tropical deforestation is carried out to make way for cattle pastures.


Deforestation is a monumentally damaging practice, and exacerbates all of the aforementioned impacts of livestock farming: greenhouse emissions, nutrient runoff and soil erosion.


Greenhouse Emissions Caused by Deforestation


When forested land is cut down, greenhouse emissions increase in two ways - one temporary, one permanent.


Trees absorb and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which makes them an indispensable resource for reducing global temperatures. When they're cut down, however, all of that carbon dioxide is released back into the air. What's more, the absence of trees in a previously forested area means that, for an indefinite period of time, any atmospheric carbon dioxide that would otherwise have been sequestered by the trees remains in the atmosphere instead.


The greenhouse gasses emitted during livestock-driven deforestation, combined with the gasses emitted by livestock farms themselves, account for 11-20 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. In the Amazon, which has traditionally been one of the world's largest sequesterers of carbon, so much land has been deforested that the rainforest is in danger of becoming a net emitter of carbon instead.


Soil Erosion and Nutrient Runoff Caused by Deforestation


In forested land, trees play an important role in protecting and preserving the soil. The canopy they provide protects the soil from the sun and rain, while the trees' roots help hold the soil in place.


Needless to say, clearing all of the trees in a forested area means that the soil doesn't get any of these benefits. As a result, the soil becomes eroded even before any livestock might step foot on it, which in turn increases the likelihood of nutrient runoff and water pollution.


The Bottom Line


The environmental impact of livestock farming can't be ignored. The sector's contribution to deforestation, habitat loss and pollution of all kinds significantly exacerbates climate change. Absent a significant reduction in global meat consumption, it will continue to present a formidable challenge to the long-term health of Earth and its many inhabitants.




Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

New federal legislation would make polluters pay for the costs of climate change mitigation.

On Thursday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., introduced the "Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act of 2024," which would create a $1 trillion, paid out by the biggest fossil-fuel companies over 10 years.

Funds would be used to rebuild and upgrade infrastructure, clean up the impacts of pollution in communities, and provide climate-related disaster assistance.

Van Hollen said seeking a portion of the fossil fuel industry's profits would not raise costs for consumers.

"It should have virtually no impact on energy costs," Van Hollen contended. "For a couple reasons: It doesn't add to the marginal cost of production, number one, and it only hits the biggest fossil-fuel companies, leaving many other companies in the market to compete with on price."

The legislation is sponsored in the House by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif. The fee would be levied against companies responsible for at least $1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions between 2000 and 2022.

Other climate superfund bills have been introduced in state legislatures in Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and California. Vermont became the first state to pass such a bill this spring.

The federal legislation would not preempt state laws or lawsuits seeking redress from fossil-fuel companies. It would also provide $15 billion to FEMA for climate-related disaster response.

Quentin Scott, federal policy director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is often unable to keep up.

"FEMA always runs out of money before the end of the fiscal year, because climate change has exacerbated extreme weather events, so they just don't have enough money," Scott explained. "This $15 billion is trying to bridge that gap."

FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund was exhausted in August for the second year in a row, and the 10th time since 2001. Last year, the U.S. saw a record 28 separate weather and climate disasters costing at least $1 billion each.

get more stories like this via email