Environment

Hey all,

While I'm aware that most issues regarding reducing greenhouse gasses land more on companies and governments than they do on individual responsibility, I still want to work on forming my diet to overall be more climate-friendly.

I'm curious if there's a website that compares the carbon footprint of certain foods. Since I'm currently modifying my diet to be more healthy and nutritious, I was also thinking about maybe making some changes where possible that are more friendly to the environment.

What brought up this thought is that I'm currently making sweetened drinks at home using zero-calorie sweeteners, and with the options I have available and how little they differ from one another in my eyes, I was curious which option between Stevia and Sucralose was more environmentally friendly, and then it became a more general question as to where I can compare these things.

Thanks in advance!

Archived version

Project 2025 Would Pave the Way for More Corporate Pollution

One key tenet of Project 2025 is dismantling and disempowering federal agencies [...] Notably, the plan recommends gutting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). On day one, it would downsize staff at a time when the agency is already severely understaffed and under-resourced. This has led to, for example, absurdly long reviews of chemicals that threaten our water, air, and health [...]

Notably, the plan recommends gutting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). On day one, it would downsize staff at a time when the agency is already severely understaffed and under-resourced. This has led to, for example, absurdly long reviews of chemicals that threaten our water, air, and health [...]

Project 2025 would have a new administration pause and revisit Biden’s recent Lead and Copper Rule Improvement and PFAS regulations, which are vital first steps in responding to our country’s lead-in-water and PFAS contamination crises. This would put the health of millions of people at continued risk.

[...]

Safe, Affordable, and Sustainable Food Is Under Attack

Project 2025 wants to cut [...] regulations on pesticide use and genetically modified food to conservation programs that help farmers manage their land sustainably [and] brushes aside the role that our food system has in fostering a healthy environment, saying “environmental issues” are “ancillary” to agriculture. It would hamstring efforts to transform our food system to save our climate and environment while ensuring affordable, sustainable food for all.

Additionally, Project 2025 cruelly threatens to yank food access from poor and low-income families across the country. Notably, it calls for limiting access to SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — which help feed more than 40 million people in the U.S. It also calls for restricting the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which specifically helps children and families. Cutting these programs will allow more people to go hungry.

[...]

Project 2025 Puts a Livable Climate in Jeopardy

Its authors propose restoring coal mining on public lands and opening more of them to oil and gas leasing. They also recommend speeding up drilling permits, allowing fossil fuel corporations to more easily ravage our shared public lands for profit.

Notably, Project 2025 recommends clearing the way for the planet-wrecking liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry to balloon. Exporting even more LNG could lock in not only the U.S. into decades of more fossil fuels, but also the entire world.

Surprising absolutely no one ...

I've been watching Tom Nicholas for a bit now, and he gets more and more audacious as he grows his base. This is journalism. Not really a fan of the Tarantino aspect of "but we'll get back to that;" he's nonetheless someone to watch.

It's thoughtful, insightful and perhaps can offer a wider worldview of how desperate fossil-fuel companies are getting now that it's generally accepted that we are fucked.

It's an hour and change. Other than the Nebula ad at the end, there's no filler. You probably haven't heard about this act of civil resistance, but you really should.

This year’s area of low oxygen in the Gulf of Mexico is larger than average, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced on Thursday.

The “dead zone” is approximately 6,705 square miles, as measured last week. Within NOAA’s 38 years of measuring the dead zone, this year’s assessment marks the 12th-largest area of low to no oxygen, which can kill fish and marine life.

NOAA had forecast at the beginning of the summer that the dead zone would be above average. But the measurement announced this week is even larger than anticipated.

Experts fault upriver conservation efforts that are not keeping pace.

[...]

The dead zone occurs every summer and is caused in large part by nutrient runoff from the overapplication of fertilizer on Midwestern farms. During rains or flooding, water carries the fertilizer’s nitrogen and phosphorus from fields into the Mississippi River and waterways that feed into the river.

When the nutrients reach the Gulf, either from the Mississippi or the Atchafalaya River, they ignite an overgrowth of algae. As the algae dies, it decomposes and sinks to the bottom, depleting oxygen from the water.

When oxygen levels fall in areas of water, animals like fish and shrimp will leave. Some commercially harvested species such as shrimp will concentrate around the edges of the affected area, forcing local fishermen to travel outside the dead zone to cast their nets. But bottom-dwelling creatures, such as clams and burrowing crabs, aren’t as mobile. They cannot leave the dead zone and will suffocate and die.

[...]

“After nearly four decades of experience with the Gulf dead zone, it should be clear that we can’t continue to rely on the same policy tools to manage fertilizer pollution and expect a different result,” wrote Karen Perry Stillerman, deputy director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Perry Stillerman emphasized the need to demand a new approach, “one that not only helps farmers to shift their practices but also insists that they do so,” she added.

With all federal and state policies on the books as of June 2024, we estimate the US is on track to reduce its GHG emissions by 38-56% below 2005 levels in 2035, representing at least a doubling—and potentially as much as a four-times increase—from the pace of annual emissions abatement from 2005 to 2023. On the way to 2035, we find the US could reduce its emissions by 32-43% below 2005 levels in 2030. These emissions reductions under current policy are a measurable acceleration in mitigation even compared to our Taking Stock 2022 edition from just before the passage of the IRA, in which we found the US on track for a 24-35% reduction below 2005 levels in 2030. But they are not enough for the US to achieve its 2030 climate commitment under the Paris Agreement of a 50-52% reduction by 2030, or deep decarbonization by mid-century.