California only got a "D" grade on this year's Environmental Scorecard, a report card put out each year since 1973 by the nonprofit California Environmental Voters.

The low score mostly comes from inaction on the many climate bills that stalled in the state Senate, even though Democrats have a supermajority. Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters, said many Democratic lawmakers talk a good game but then vote to delay climate action.

"We actually have the solution and the technology," said Creasman, "and all of those things are actually job creators too, and will advance our economy. What we don't have is the political will to do it at the rate and scale that science tells us we have to."

Opponents of climate-action bills often cite the costs to business. But the report blames inaction on the influence of fossil-fuel companies - finding that 52% of Democrats and 96% of Republicans accepted campaign cash from oil interests.

The scorecard says Gov. Gavin Newsom made pro-climate decisions 82% of the time. Overall, state Democrats earned a score of 80%, while Republicans got a score of 15%.

Assemblyman Steve Bennett - D-Ventura - said it's been tough to get colleagues to devote sufficient resources to decarbonize buildings and transportation, switch to renewables or modernize our grid and energy storage.

"Politicians don't get popular by asking people to make sacrifices today to solve a problem that's going to come in 15 or 20 years down the road," said Bennett. "And that's why we've been so slow in taking action on climate change."

Former Assemblyman David Chiu, now City Attorney for San Francisco, said there is hope - if Californians work together.

"There is enough wind off the coast of California to power the entire grid with clean power while creating great jobs for tens of thousands of workers," said Chiu. "But there is so much work we need to continue to do to advance clean-energy solutions."

You can look up your representative's score and read the entire report at envirovoters.org/scorecard.

Researchers at Colorado State University have found the state's nearly 23 million acres of forests are currently releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they capture.

Tony Vorster, research scientist in the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State University and the report's lead author, said forests act as both "sinks" and "sources" for carbon. Trees naturally absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, and the process is reversed when trees die and decompose.

"When you look at the contributors to that release of carbon, a lot of it, 64% of it is due to insect and disease," Vorster outlined. "Twenty percent of it is due to fire, and about 15% of it is areas that have been cut."

The carbon emissions data will likely increase, because since the last tests were conducted in 2019, the Cameron Peak, East Troublesome and Pine Gulch wildfires burned more than half a million acres. Burning fossil fuels is the single largest contributor of carbon emissions, the primary driver of climate change.

Vorster pointed out Colorado's forests continue to store lots of carbon, some 1,500 million metric tons, and they release less than 1% of that. Half of a tree's actual mass is made up of carbon.

"They hold carbon that would otherwise be in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide," Vorster emphasized. "The amount of carbon stored in the forests is equivalent to about 1.3 billion passenger vehicles on the road for a year."

The report suggested it might not be enough to rely on existing forests to offset man-made climate pollution and mitigate the effects of a changing climate. Vorster added the current trend, where forests release more carbon than they capture, is likely to continue with prolonged drought and bigger and more frequent wildfires.

By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Richardson for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Among the most popular bits of advice for those seeking to reduce their carbon footprint is to "eat local." But unfortunately, eating local is not a climate solution that packs much of a punch. When it comes to lessening food's climate impact, it's almost entirely about eating less meat and more plants - not where those plants and meat come from.

"If you want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food, focus on the types of foods you're eating, and not how far they've traveled to get to you," Chloë Waterman, senior program manager for Friends of the Earth's Climate-Friendly Food Program, tells Sentient. "You're not going to reduce the carbon footprint of your foods very much by eating locally, in most cases."

Around a third of all greenhouse gas emissions comes from food production. And most of that climate impact is thanks to meat - specifically, beef. In other words, the carbon footprint of food has much less to do with emissions from transportation than the resources - cows and land - needed to produce meat to begin with.

This isn't to say that eating locally produced food is bad. It's not, and as we'll see, eating locally can be beneficial in other ways. But strictly from the standpoint of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, eating local food isn't a powerful climate solution - at least not on its own.

Why Should We Care About Food Emissions to Begin With?

Although locally produced food isn't the answer to rapidly rising global temperatures, the focus on food in general isn't misplaced, as food production is an enormous contributor to global carbon emissions - and habitat destruction, biodiversity loss and a number of other negative environmental impacts.

At least 26 percent or more of global greenhouse gas emissions are the result of food production (and some studies have found as much as a third). There are other environmental impacts to consider too. Agricultural production gobbles up 70 percent of the planet's freshwater and occupies half of all habitable land on Earth. Agricultural expansion is a leading cause of species extinction worldwide. Livestock farms pollute the water and erode the soil, which poisons local aquatic life and increases the risk of flooding to local communities. This article is focused on emissions, but there are impacts to workers, communities and farm animals to consider too.

It's clear that if we're going to keep our planet livable for future generations, something about our food systems needs to change. But simply "eating local" isn't the answer, and there are two main reasons why.

Why Transportation Isn't the Issue

First and foremost, transportation only accounts for a small fraction of food-related emissions - some research puts this between six and 10 percent, though estimates vary depending on the food type. As such, focusing heavily on food transportation as an emissions-reduction strategy is misguided, because the impact is just so small.

This is especially true when it comes to meat, which has a much larger carbon footprint than other foods. Out of all the greenhouse gasses associated with beef production, for instance, less than two percent of them come from transporting that beef to your plate.

Where Food-Related Emissions Really Come From

The overwhelming majority of food-related emissions comes from the farms themselves. Animal farms are prolific emitters of methane and nitrous oxide, two potent greenhouse gasses, and other harmful gases like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.

"The emissions associated with growing and producing foods - what are called pre-farm gate emissions - are much, much greater than emissions associated with transportation," Waterman says.

This is true, by the way, whether we're talking about a factory farm or a small cattle ranch or independent dairy. Buying your meat from a local organic or regenerative farm does not lower its emissions. The opposite is true, in fact (see this explainer on 'less meat, better meat' to understand why), as factory farms are more climate-efficient if we're comparing the same type of meat produced (beef from a feedlot versus a regenerative cattle ranch, for instance). Again, we're just talking about emissions here, not water pollution or how animals are treated or any other metric.

Back to the beef. It's not just cows belching methane, but also the vast quantity of land (a whopping 80 percent of all agricultural land) that goes towards feeding these animals, both pasture and land used to grow feed crops like soy and corn.

Land - especially the uncultivated kind like a peat bog or a shrubby savanna - is a valuable climate resource, because these types of landscapes are very good at storing carbon and keeping it out of the atmosphere. And that in turn helps to offset the emissions we humans are constantly pumping out into the atmosphere. On top of that, whenever humans cut down a forest or other wild landscape to use it for farming, the land stops storing carbon, and we humans lose out on the opportunity to store carbon into the future too.

Scientists call this a carbon opportunity cost, and have been working on assigning an emissions number for these costs for foods like beef for years in order to make the steep climate cost of continuing to eat beef - a leading driver of deforestation - more clear.

Local Isn't Always Better

Locally produced food is often associated with small, family-owned farms, and eating local is sometimes presented as a way to redirect your food dollars from corporate behemoths to local families and communities.

"I think what most people are looking for when they're thinking about local [food] is, how do they support the small businesses and the food and farming community, not massive agriculture corporations that happen to have a location where you live?," Waterman says.

But "local" does not always mean "family-owned" - a fraught term in its own right as there are plenty of family-owned businesses that are also corporations. Local doesn't necessarily mean "independently owned," "small," or "non-corporate," and it doesn't automatically say anything about either the working conditions of the employees or the living conditions of the animals.

It's About What You Eat, Not How It Got There

As Waterman points out, the type of food you eat is much more important than how far away from you it was produced, insofar as carbon emissions go. And on this point, the data is unambiguous: The best way to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet is to eat less meat and dairy, and more plants.

We all need protein, but producing meat emits far more greenhouse gas emissions on a per-gram basis than non-meat proteins. Beef is far and away the worst offender in this regard: producing enough beef to provide 100 grams of protein emits a huge amount - 49.89kg of CO2-eq. That's more than twice the emissions of any other protein, other types of meat included.

By contrast, producing 100 grams of protein from tofu releases only 1.98kg of CO2-eq into the air. Rice, wheat and rye all emit less than 7kg of CO2-eq, and peas only release .44kg, making them over 113 times more environmentally friendly than beef from a carbon emissions standpoint.

"Are you buying fruits, vegetables, grains, generally plant-based foods that are lower on the food chain and have less emissions?," Waterman says. "Or are you buying beef, chicken, pork products, dairy that are just going to have higher emissions, local or not? Because those foods are so much more resource intensive to produce."

Yes, There Can Be Some Benefits of Eating Locally

With all of that being said, eating local food can be beneficial in ways unrelated to carbon emissions (and if it helps you eat more plants, it's good for that too).

Waterman cites resiliency as one such benefit: Buying from local food sources strengthens regional food supply chains, and this can act as a bulwark against unexpected shocks to the national food supply.

"If you're eating locally, you're supporting the build-out of local and regional food supply chains that might be shorter, and less subject to disruptions that may result from climate-related disasters, or things like the COVID-19 pandemic," Waterman says.

And although not all local farms are small and family-owned, plenty are just that, and patronizing them can be a great way to funnel money back into your own community. Plus, if buying local gets you to eat more plants instead of meat, that is, in fact, a win for climate. Finally, as anybody who's been to a farmer's market can tell you, local food is often simply tastier than the alternative.

There are, in other words, plenty of reasons to consider buying food that was made relatively close to where you live. But if the goal is to reduce your carbon emissions, eating locally produced food alone simply doesn't do it.


Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Each summer, more lake beaches shut down as toxic algae blooms spread across the water and while climate change is often blamed, new research revealed a deeper culprit: humans.

Researchers from Michigan State University used open data to study climate change in 24,000 U.S. lakes. Using new methods and satellite data, they found climate-driven patterns in algae levels across freshwater lakes.

Patricia Soranno, professor of ecology at Michigan State University and co-author of the study, has spent nearly 30 years researching what affects water quality. While climate change plays a role, she said human activity is the true driving force behind the growing problem.

"We know what causes lakes to be greener," Soranno pointed out. "It's agriculture runoff, urban runoff, extra nutrients that come from lawns. All of those things we've known for decades, that's what causes lakes to be green."

Soranno and her team found climate affected algae in a third of the lakes, but not as expected. Only 4% had lasting algae growth, while 71% saw short-term spikes.

The study revealed sudden algae spikes often go unnoticed, making climate effects harder to track. Researchers said their method helps fill this gap. Soranno added while human activity drives more blooms, lakes with less human impact are more vulnerable to climate change.

"It's affecting the lakes that are fairly pristine now and are in pretty good shape," Soranno noted. "This influences Michigan lakes actually, because Michigan lakes have fairly good water quality already."

Soranno stressed the need for strong policies and regulations to protect waterways. Her team has a goal to study every U.S. lake using satellite imagery. However, she is deeply concerned federal cuts could threaten their research.


get more stories like this via email