By Caleigh Wells for KCRW.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration
Students in Brittany Jefferson's class can rattle off facts and opinions about deforestation, corporate greed, rising tides, warming temperatures, and the unequal plight of poorer countries as soon as the topic of climate change is introduced.
And most of them are just 10 years old.
"Because of global warming, and the amount of gas that we use, and the animals that we kill, and all the trash that we're putting in the ocean, we're just taking everything," says a fifth-grader named Jack at Citizens of the World Silver Lake charter school.
That doesn't mean these students are sanguine about ecological collapse.
"It makes me feel overwhelmed," says Hayoon, one of Jack's classmates. "If I was in the next generation, I would just cry and eat ice cream all day."
With greater knowledge comes greater anxiety. And while it's important to LA Unified School District administrators to educate kids about the warming world - this year the LAUSD board passed a resolution committing to incorporating climate literacy into existing curriculum - that leaves teachers grappling with how to inform children without traumatizing them.
"They don't have faith in the people powerful enough to make systemic changes," says fifth-grade teacher Jefferson. "And so they're just like, 'Yeah, the world is burning. And so we're gonna burn eventually.' And so that's something that I am working to combat."
Generational trauma
Kids like Jack and Hayoon are part of a cohort "that is experiencing much higher levels of anxiety than earlier generations," says David Bond, a licensed clinical social worker and trauma specialist. It was different for their parents, Bond says, who might think, "'Well, somebody else is going to figure that out.'"
"For young people," he continues, "they are the ones who have to figure this out. And also there's a sense [that] older generations aren't doing enough to mitigate the harm that we have done to the environment. So there's a sense of anger and frustration at older generations as well."
Citizens of the World Silver Lake fifth-grader Sawyer is ready to prove the point.
"I feel like we take it a bit more seriously than some adults because we actually care about having this earth, not having it turned into just like a wasteland," he says.
But that doesn't make Sawyer hopeful. "Eventually, this is just going to end up in a way that kills us all."
Lucy Garcia with Climate Reality Project, which helped spearhead LAUSD's climate literacy effort, knows this is a problem. She believes one way to combat anxiety is talking about it in the classroom. When it's ignored, she says, "That's where the trauma is worsened. So the most important thing is to be able to have them see that we are working on it, that we need their help ... [rather] than to ignore it. Because they see it anyway - this is the age of the internet."
Bond agrees that climate anxiety and the internet can create a problem for kids, because social media can become a place for teenagers to air their stress and anxiety publicly, which encourages doomscrolling.
Teacher Blossom Shores at Van Nuys Middle School says her best antidote to climate anxiety is teaching kids about solutions that are working.
"They're more perceptive than we realize," she says. "Yes, we want them to understand the gravity of it, but we don't want them to have dystopian reality fears. ... It's so important for them to feel empowered."
When Shores recently gave a climate talk to a class of Van Nuys Middle School sixth-graders, it started with some bleak statistics. But when she got to the back half of the presentation and started talking about the exponential growth of wind and solar energy, some students were more than ready to jump on the optimism bandwagon.
"Now there's a chance that global warming doesn't get worse," says one student named Luciana.
Her classmate Tyler was glad to see some of the good news, but says it still doesn't outweigh the bad news.
"It hasn't done so just yet, but I hope it will in the future."
Caleigh Wells wrote this article for KCRW.
get more stories like this via email
Conservation groups in Maine are calling on the state's congressional delegation to protect federal funding for clean energy technologies.
A new report found the state has benefited from more than $2 billion in clean energy investments stemming from the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Jack Shapiro, climate and clean energy program director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said many of the programs have helped low-income and rural communities.
"From a cost saving perspective, from an energy independence perspective, from a climate perspective, this is the right path to be on," Shapiro asserted. "We hope that we continue to have federal support to do that."
Shapiro pointed out the state has received millions of additional dollars in climate resilience funding to better prepare for extreme weather events. The Trump administration is reported to be exploring ways to cancel already approved loans for clean energy and redirect those funds toward nuclear power and liquefied natural gas.
Maine has set an ambitious goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2045 and the state has directed millions of dollars toward offshore wind energy projects, an electric vehicle charging network and electric heat pumps.
Shapiro noted all corners of the state are benefiting from energy investments, including efforts to improve electric grid reliability.
"Power outages are a frequent occurrence and that can be addressed by local energy production, like solar and local energy storage and microgrids," Shapiro outlined. "A number of these investments have gone to support those things as well."
Shapiro added federal funding has also created good-paying jobs. The state's clean energy sector grew three times faster than the state's overall economy between 2016 and 2022 and now employs more than 15,000 people. Gov. Janet Mills has set a goal of 30,000 clean energy workers by 2030.
get more stories like this via email
Addressing Colorado's rising cost of living and protecting clean air and water are priorities for Democratic Representative Emily Sirota of Denver in the current legislative session.
Sirota recently introduced House Bill 1090 to regulate so-called junk fees charged by landlords.
The bill would protect tenants from getting bills that can add hundreds of dollars to their monthly rent, for things such as valet trash service, internet service, surcharges on rent payments, pest control and more.
"All sorts of additional fees are being added to folks' bill," Sirota pointed out. "We think if landlords want to charge those fees, they should be reflected in the rent."
Some see junk fees as deceptive and unfair trade practices, because landlords advertise one price to lure renters, but the price is not what they will actually have to pay. Industry groups argued fees are necessary to recoup hard costs and added out all fees are listed in black in white before tenants sign their leases.
Sirota has also introduced House Bill 1011, a measure to add guardrails as private equity firms buy up child care operations, firms already disrupting housing and health care markets.
"And really has been to the detriment of consumers in those sectors because their traditional business model is to increase prices or fees and drive down wages," Sirota observed.
The Trump administration has once again abandoned a promise the U.S. made in Paris nearly 10 years ago to combat climate change, and has instead promised to ramp up fossil fuel production and remove environmental protections. Sirota believes state lawmakers still have a role to play.
"We are trying to make sure that Colorado is able to protect its air and water and meet our climate goals, as we see this being unwound federally," Sirota explained.
get more stories like this via email
By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Judith Ruiz-Branch for Illinois News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from agriculture are not only coming from soil. They’re also flowing through the streams that run alongside farms, a recent study finds. Researchers at the University of Minnesota and University of Illinois discovered more than one-third of regional nitrous oxide emissions were measured from streams.
While often overshadowed by the more widely known greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, nitrous oxide is the third-largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Nitrous oxide also has an EPA-rated “Global Warming Potential” 273 times that of carbon dioxide (over a 100-year timescale), and is a significant contributor to ozone depletion. This means that even small amounts of nitrous oxide emissions can have a disproportionately large impact on global warming. And the flip side is also true: taking some action, including better manure management and eating less meat, can have a big climate impact for the better.
The discovery highlights a previously overlooked pathway for nitrous oxide to enter the atmosphere: as agricultural soils undergo the process of nitrification and produce nitrous oxide, the gas is transported via runoff into nearby streams. During the nitrification process, bacteria in soils break down ammonia — in this case from fertilizers — into nitrates that can produce nitrous oxide gas. While this gas may be released immediately from the soil, it can also become trapped in the soil or dissolve in water, only to be carried into streams during rainfall or snowmelt.
“What we basically found is there [are] other pathways, and this stream emission could be important,” Zhongjie Yu, hydrologist and researcher in the study, tells Sentient.
Traditionally, when researchers consider nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture, they focus on soil. Excess nitrogen from fertilizers accumulates in agricultural soil, where it can be transformed into nitrous oxide, and released directly into the atmosphere. However, this new study suggests that emissions from streams — carrying runoff from agricultural fields — can be just as important, if not more so, in certain regions. Factory farms can be a major driver of this issue, as these operations produce large amounts of waste, composed partly of nitrogen.
When researchers consider initial nitrous oxide emissions, it’s often in the context of fertilizer input to soil. This excess nitrogen accumulates in agricultural soil, and can then lead to the direct release of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.
Though the study used only the University of Minnesota’s Tall Tower Trace Gas Observator to sample air emissions, Yu and his research team are confident about the data.
“We found that N2O is emitted from streams, but we believe it’s originally from fertilizer nitrogen. It is just carried by water, and gets emitted from those aquatic systems. It’s not saying it’s a natural source, but it’s still related to fertilizer nitrogen. But it just provides another pathway that N2O gets lost from some land to the atmosphere.”
Yu also emphasized that agriculture is the dominant source of human-caused nitrous oxide emissions. This study not only challenges the conventional understanding of agricultural emissions, but also underscores a broader issue: agricultural runoff is not just a water quality problem — it is also a major contributor to climate change.
Nitrous Oxide: the Lesser Known Climate Threat
Human activities are significant contributors to nitrous oxide emissions. While other natural sources, such as the ocean, also release nitrous oxide, agricultural practices — particularly fertilizer application — are by far the largest contributor of anthropogenic emissions.
This gas is primarily produced when nitrogen-based fertilizers and manure are applied to agricultural soils. Microbes in the soil convert this nitrogen into nitrous oxide through processes such as nitrification and denitrification. The situation is made worse by the practices of industrial farming, which rely heavily on the use of synthetic fertilizers and animal waste.
Around 12 million tons of nitrogen are applied to crops each year in the United States. An EPA report found that agricultural soil management — like fertilizer use and other practices that boost nitrogen levels in the soil — accounts for nearly 75 percent of the United States’ nitrous oxide emissions. Within the agricultural sector itself, it makes up almost half of all emissions.
These soil management practices are primarily intended to optimize crop production, but much of the land is used for growing farm animal feed and biofuel crops. In 2020, only a small fraction of corn grown in the U.S. — less than two percent — was used for direct human food. Around 31 percent was dedicated to biofuels such as ethanol, while the majority, around 35 percent, went toward feeding livestock. With global meat consumption steadily rising, the demand for animal feed is expected to increase, further driving the need for feed crops like corn — along with higher fertilizer use and a corresponding rise in nitrous oxide emissions.
And now, the source of these emissions isn’t just the soil. Stream emissions can contribute to a much larger portion of annual nitrous oxide emissions than researchers previously thought.
“The high contribution of stream emissions suggests that soil emissions may have been overestimated in current regional nitrous oxide budgets,” Yu writes.
Yu points out that the link between agricultural runoff and stream emissions has often been overlooked in past research. Traditional methods use soil chambers to measure nitrous oxide emissions, a method that places a closed chamber over the soil, in order to capture any gases emitted from it. This approach primarily measures how much nitrous oxide is released directly from the soil, but misses the nitrogen that leaches out of the soil and flows into water systems, where it can then be converted into nitrous oxide and emitted to streams.
The Bottom Line
The source of nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture is more complex than scientists once thought. While traditional efforts to reduce nitrous oxide emissions have focused mainly on fertilizer management and improving soil efficiency, this new discovery emphasizes the importance of looking at the entire agricultural system, including runoff into streams. If the number of factory farms continue to rise, there is likely to be a rise in nitrous oxide pollution, particularly in streams, due to greater fertilizer use and runoff.
Yu mentions that improving water and nutrient management not only benefits water quality, but can also be a crucial tool in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fertilizer and manure runoff, especially from factory farms, can carry large quantities of nitrogen into waterways, which may then be converted into nitrous oxide — further complicating efforts to mitigate emissions from agriculture.
“We need to be a little bit careful here, because that water gets leached from surface soil and can end up in streams and rivers, carrying a lot of that greenhouse gas to those systems and having an impact there,” Yu says.
Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
