By Sakshi Udavant for Next City.
Broadcast version by Edwin J. Viera for New York News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration
Urban areas in US cities are estimated to lose an average of 36 million trees every year. This results in economic losses of up to $786 million and risks having an adverse impact on already worsening climate change.
The worse part? Many of these trees are considered "waste" and sent off to landfills. "More wood from cities goes into landfills than is harvested from US National Forests," says J. Morgan Grove, a research forester at Baltimore Field Station, USDA Forest Service. "40% of this wood can be reused for furniture, flooring, outdoor play areas, mulch, compost, soil improvements, bioenergy and even carbon sources for growing mushrooms."
That's what "reforestation hubs" are doing: Saving urban trees from heading to landfills by finding new ways to repurpose the wood. These wooden products can be sold to fund further tree plantations. This cycle reduces urban wood waste, saves money, helps increase forest cover, and most importantly, keeps carbon out of the environment.
"If we recycled all the trees that came down in US cities each year, roughly 20 million tons of carbon could be kept out of the atmosphere, equivalent to taking over four million gas-powered cars off the road for a year," says Ben Christensen, CEO and co-founder of Cambium Carbon, a New York-based startup working on reforesting America by creating the aforementioned wood repurposing-reforesting cycle.
Reforestation Hub, an initiative by The Nature Conservancy (a global environmental organization) and American Forests (a US-based forest conservation nonprofit), estimates up to 133 million acres of formerly forested lands in the United States could be reforested, absorbing 333 million metric tons of carbon per year, which is equivalent to keeping 72 million cars off the road. That's why the organization calls it "a low-tech, scalable and proven solution to climate change."
Creating a Circular Economy
Organizations like Cambium Carbon play a huge role in making this circular economy possible. For instance, Cambium Carbon works at three critical points: 1) saving the trees from ending up in landfills when they're first cut down or have fallen, 2) collaborating with millers and sawyers who can use the "wasted" wood, and 3) working with architects, builders and furniture brands who provide the market to incentivize salvage. This way, fallen urban trees go from being a "landfill filler" to a valuable commodity that creates resources for increasing the declining forest cover in US cities.
The organization claims to have diverted more than 45 tons of wood from landfills, moving about 291,000 board feet of wood or roughly 489 tons of finished product. They're now starting a new furniture line with Sabai Design, a sustainable furniture brand in Philadelphia, and planting new trees with the Sacramento Tree Foundation and the Baltimore Tree Trust. Their goal is to plant one billion new trees across the U.S. by 2030, the team mentioned in an interview with Next Pittsburgh.
Cambium Carbon is not alone. Other organizations like Cities4Forests and the Arbor Day Foundation are working with local officials to create the nation's first reforestation hubs by 2022 through a TNC Natural Climate Change Solutions Accelerator Grant.
Is the Solution Worth the Costs?
While collecting fallen trees from urban spaces and using them to make locally-sold wooden products sounds like the perfect idea to reduce wastage and make supply chains more sustainable, all of this is easier said than done.
One drawback is that the barriers and costs of these alternative wood waste programs may outweigh the benefits, says Melissa McHale, associate professor of Urban Ecology and Sustainability, UBC Faculty of Forestry. "Many cities lack the space to store, sort and process the wood waste, and the cost of creating a space like this, in terms of dollars and time, is prohibitive," says McHale, who also served on the leadership team for the United States Forest Service's Denver Urban Field Station (USFS DUFS). "Many cities do not have the ability to maintain and remove all of their problem or dead trees and depend on private companies to do so. Private companies, especially the smaller businesses, often do not have the time and equipment needed to remove a tree whole and transport it wherever it needs to go."
Fortunately, several organizations are stepping up with resources and ideas to make the wood repurposing process more efficient. For instance, Reforestation Hub maps out "relatively low-cost and feasible options to restore forests." The web-based tool highlights several key areas for affordable reforestation like large open patches within forests, croplands with challenging soils and post-burn landscapes. It also offers handy access to reforestation resources like links to find a professional forester, find your state's urban and community tree coordinator and access published articles on cost-effective tree planting.
Beyond helping the planet for years to come, initiatives like these also support local communities. Cambium Carbon has created a national network of local producers and national buyers to purchase locally salvaged, locally milled wood, which further funds local tree planting. For example, the communal tables in the entrepreneurship hubs on Towson University's campus are made of wood that would have otherwise gone to waste. Similarly, the trellis in the Visit Baltimore HQ office was made using "waste" now repurposed into what the team calls "Carbon Smart Wood."
"It's a big opportunity to put people first and to have projects that are not just good for the planet but are really good for communities," CEO Ben Christensen said in an interview with the Arbor Day Foundation. "[We're] creating systems that are helping to address problems like lack of employment and helping to support economic recovery coming out of COVID."
Cambium Carbon has employed 25 workers while also creating additional employment and partnership opportunities for several local carpenters and woodworkers through their sales and inventory management platform, Traece. Since the wood is sourced, repurposed and sold locally, workers in the region find more projects (like working on the Towson University tables) and resources (companies buying the new wooden products) to generate revenue that they wouldn't have access to if the fallen trees just went to a landfill.
Sakshi Udavant wrote this article for Next City.
get more stories like this via email
A New York bill aims to regulate the fashion industry's effects on climate change.
The Fashion Act would hold clothing and footwear companies accountable for their effects on the environment.
Fashion accounts for up to around 9% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, more than the aviation industry. The bill also creates a remediation fund for environmental, community or labor-related projects.
Rich Schrader, northeast government affairs director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, described how enforcement of the bill would work.
"The bill will create an enforcement mechanism that the attorney general in New York State will be responsible for," Schrader explained. "It's given a monitoring investigative and enforcement set of authorities. That's to ensure the companies are in compliance."
He pointed out the attorney general could fine companies not in compliance with the guidelines.
Fast fashion companies like Shein have only made things worse, studies have shown. The companies make clothes designed to be worn less than a handful of times before they're tossed away, ending up in a landfill. Fast fashion is responsible for around 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The bill has been referred to the Assembly's Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee.
A United Nations report found more than one-quarter of signatories to the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action are working with lawmakers on climate-related issues and regulations.
Maxine Bédat, executive director of the New Standard Institute, said issues persist in greening the process of making clothes.
"The textile mills, which are the ones that would be responsible for decarbonizing, are not getting any price premiums from the brands that they work with to decarbonize," Bédat noted. "There is zero incentive for them to decarbonize even though the technologies are there."
She argued more collaboration is needed between brands and manufacturers to develop an incentive structure. Bédat sees the New York bill as the foundation to build on, which a federal bill could do. The FABRIC Act would establish safer working conditions for garment workers and improve industrywide sustainability.
Disclosure: The Sane Energy Project and the Energy Democracy Alliance contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environmental Justice, and Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
By Jack McGovan for Sentient Climate.
Broadcast version by Edwin J. Viera for New York News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration
When Guherbar Gorgulu arrived to study at Erasmus University Rotterdam, she was surprised by the many plant-based options.
"In Turkey, you don't really have a lot of vegan options," she says, not to mention many people interested in talking about the impact of what they eat. "I really didn't have a community of people who also cared about animal rights and the environment."
That all changed when Gorgulu started attending weekly vegan cooking workshops hosted by the Erasmus Sustainability Hub - a student-led organization encouraging students to lead more sustainable lifestyles. Inspired to join the Hub as Food and Agriculture Manager, Gorgulu, along with her colleagues, have been active in fighting for climate action on campus. Initiatives include workshops, discussions and petitions to demand fully plant-based cafeterias.
The work seems to be paying off. In February, the university announced that they are aiming to make plant-based foods the norm on campus by 2030. The goal is part of the university's climate commitments; animal agriculture is responsible for around 20 percent of global emissions, and is also a leading cause of habitat loss.
Change is happening beyond Rotterdam. A dozen universities across the U.S. joined an incubator program this year to provide more plant-based foods on their campuses, and across the UK, student unions in Cambridge, Stirling, Birmingham and London voted in support of vegan menus this academic year. In 2021, universities across the entire city of Berlin went predominantly meat-free.
Rising Demand for Plant-Based Foods at Universities
It's no surprise to see rising plant-based initiatives on campus, says Emma Garnett, PhD, a researcher focusing on strategies for promoting more sustainable diets at the University of Oxford. "Students often form the backbone of many climate campaigns," she says. The Fridays for Future school strikes began in 2018, and many of those students are now at university.
In 2021, Nathan McGovern helped launch the Plant-Based Universities Campaign, which aims to push universities to serve 100 percent plant-based foods on campus.
McGovern is now a spokesperson for Animal Rising, previously Animal Rebellion UK, a group working on mobilizing student action on campuses.
"Our strategy is to pass motions through student unions," says McGovern, which become a mandate from the unions to the university itself. "This gives us a platform for negotiation." The four successful student union votes in the U.K. were part of this campaign - with the group eyeing 36 more universities for future efforts.
Garnett also highlights research which suggests that a big life change - such as moving to university - can an increased willingness to adopt green behaviors. Representatives from the student organization in Berlin, Studierendenwerk, attribute their decision to rising demand for vegan meals on campus. There, 16.5 percent of students identify as vegan, in comparison to an average of 1.6 percent across the rest of Germany.
Universities Hoping to Meet Climate Commitments
A growing number of universities are now committing to reduce their emissions by serving more plant-based foods on campus, says Edwina Hughes, Head of the Cool Food Pledge at the World Resources Institute (WRI).
Universities make up roughly a fifth of the 67 organizations who have taken the Cool Food Pledge run by WRI. The rest include hospitals, hotels and cities like New York, whose mayor has promised to reduce 30 percent of food-related emissions by the end of the decade.
Cities and schools that sign on must aim to reduce their food-related emissions by at least 25 percent by 2030 - a rate calculated by WRI to fall in line with Paris climate targets. The first 30 organizations who took the pledge have already successfully reduced their per-plate emissions by 21 percent, according to the organization's data.
The Cool Food Pledge team begins their work by looking at each organization's procurement data, and then calculating their carbon footprint. They measure this with the direct emissions of the food purchased, as well as the carbon opportunity cost - an amount based on how much carbon the land could store if it had been left alone as forest or other wild landscape.
What becomes clear, says Hughes, is that in order to drive down the climate impact of food, "it's really important to move away from climate impactful foods like ruminant meat and all animal based products towards plants."
Using Behavioral Science to Promote Plant-Based
Each organization also receives behavioral science recommendations to help them encourage diners to select plant-based options. Such small interventions - known as nudges - can be effective in university settings.
One meta-analysis spanning 21 years and 24 universities across different continents found that over two-thirds of nudges were successful in reducing meat consumption. The analysis also found that multiple complementary nudges were more effective than singular interventions. Nudges can take many forms - like adding more meal options, promotional messaging, pricing incentives, manipulating the layout of dining areas and changing the arrangement of food choices on menus.
Even in the classroom there are opportunities to promote plant-based eating. Economics students at a U.S. college reduced their meat consumption by roughly 10 percent over a three year period hearing a 50 minute informational campaign that talked about the environmental impacts of animal agriculture, combined with information on the health benefits of reducing meat consumption.
The intervention wasn't coercive, says Andrew Jalil, an associate professor in economics at Occidental College, Los Angeles, and lead author of the study. "It was just saying, here's what the scientific literature says, you do what you want to do."
Jalil highlights similar research in which students in a philosophy class were exposed to material arguing for vegetarianism. Based on student cafeteria purchases, this too translated to a reduction in meat consumption. With roughly half of all young people going to university, at least in the U.K., universities are an ideal institution for disseminating information to a range of people from different backgrounds.
Jalil points out there might be other factors influencing students to be more open to dietary shifts. They attend university to learn, they might be more concerned about the climate crisis due to their age and access to dining facilities removes any cooking barriers that might exist to trying out vegan foods.
Universities Still Face Challenges to Climate Action
Shifting what an entire university eats isn't easy. Many schools, Hughes says, are decentralized in the way they provide food, with different colleges offering their own menus. The logistics of reduction can be complicated.
What's more, Hughes adds, it would be naive not to think that "there are universities and faculties who are quite opposed to doing this kind of work because it comes into conflict with their ethos or with their research." Many universities, for example, have research centers focusing on livestock production.
Plus, as the Cool Food Pledge is voluntary, there's no guarantee that anyone will stick to it, and the same is true of any claims made in a press release separate from the pledge.
"It's their responsibility if they want to make progress," says Hughes, adding that she sees students, faculty and investors as the "informal police," who should act to put pressure on their universities if they fumble their targets. The WRI doesn't publish any data on individual organizations, which Hughes says universities could do in order to hold themselves accountable.
"Ultimately what you want is data - you want to be able to track progress," she says. "It's not very interesting to a lot of people but it is the material way to see whether anything is changing."
Even if these schools were accountable and making strides to reduce their food emissions, they might be hogging the limelight in a way that obscures trends elsewhere in society. In the case of the Cool Food Pledge, only a fraction of the organizations who've taken it are universities.
"We should bear in mind that universities often receive a lot of press interest, so we could be missing similar initiatives at other organizations due to less publicity," says Garnett.
In April, the mayor of New York, Eric Adams, made a commitment to reduce food emissions in the city by 33 percent by 2030, in part by serving less meat at schools and hospitals. Other councils, such as Cambridge City and Oxfordshire County, have made similar commitments to only serve plant-based foods at events and meetings, and push for more vegan options in schools. Last year, Ingka Group, responsible for a majority of IKEA stores, began selling plant-based foods at the same price or cheaper than meat options in their restaurants.
But for some activists, the publicity that universities attract is exactly why they should be targets for climate action.
"A lot of universities, by continuing to serve animal products on their menus, are giving legitimacy to an industry that has none," says McGovern. "These are the places we're referencing when we talk about the need to move to a plant-based food system, and they really need to be aligning their actions and their menus with that."
Jack McGovan wrote this article for Sentient Climate.
get more stories like this via email
As Coloradans begin to weigh their options in this year's presidential election, a new Carbon Brief analysis projects that a second Biden term would help reduce climate pollution - but the administration will still fall short of meeting its 2030 goals.
Report co-author Simon Evans - senior policy editor at Carbon Brief - said by contrast, a second Trump term that successfully rolls back Biden initiatives, including the Inflation Reduction Act as promised, would add four billion extra tons of fossil fuel pollution.
"That's equivalent to the combined annual emissions of the European Union and Japan," said Evans. "That amount of extra emissions, four billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, would cause global climate damage worth something like $900 billion."
Trump has repeatedly claimed that climate change is a hoax, and advanced policies that increased crude oil drilling in order to maintain American energy dominance.
Researchers project a second Trump term would wipe out all emission-reduction gains made over the past five years by installing wind turbines, solar panels, and other clean energy technologies across the globe twice over.
In the 20th century, Evans said nations controlling large fossil fuel reserves did hold significant economic and other advantages.
But in the 21st century and beyond, he said he believes countries with large portfolios of clean energy will have the advantage.
"Actually, clean energy technologies are a great way of bringing energy security," said Evans. "Because you're not relying on import, you're just relying on the wind and the sun that you have in your own country. And the U.S. is certainly very well endowed with wind and solar resources."
Four billion tons is also equivalent to the combined annual emissions of the world's 140 countries with the smallest carbon footprints.
Evans noted that people who can't afford air conditioning to survive extreme heat, or move away from areas prone to flooding and wildfire, will continue to face the biggest threats.
"The people around the world that are least responsible for climate change," said Evans, "whether that's in the poorest countries in the world, or the poorest people in the richest countries - those tend to be the people that are most exposed to the negative impacts of climate change."
get more stories like this via email