Climate-change groups are calling attention to the environmental destruction linked to the wood pellet industry - even as California is considering a proposal to build two plants. The U.S. is the biggest wood pellet exporter in the world - mostly to Europe.

Laura Haight, U.S. policy director for the Partnership for Policy Integrity, wants the European Union and the U.K. to change their policies.

"In Europe, they treat burning wood as renewable energy and heavily subsidize it. And they're importing massive quantities of wood pellets to fuel their power plants," she said. "And a lot of that is coming from the United States. That's where a lot of our forest destruction is happening. "

More than 100 groups recently wrote
to European Union leaders asking them to prohibit subsidies for wood that comes from living trees. Wood pellet companies claim they only use waste wood from logging or dead wood in the forest that fuels wildfire. But investigations have produced proof that companies have clear-cut forests in the southeastern U.S.

Haight added that burning wood for energy is terrible for the climate.

"There's a large release of carbon dioxide emissions into the air when you burn it. And at the same time, you're removing the tree that is helping us lock in our carbon and so you're both increasing emissions and reducing our capacity to store carbon," she said.

Two wood pellet plants -- the first of their kind in California -- are proposed for Lassen and Tuolumne counties. The plants would be built by Golden State Natural Resources, a public benefit corporation whose board members are local county officials.

Elly Pepper, deputy director of international wildlife conservation for the Natural Resources Defense Council, opposes the projects.

"It would be bad for the air, bad for the wildlife and lands, bad for the communities. And it would be basically California assenting to bioenergy as a renewable energy source when it's most definitely not," Pepper said.

The company did not respond to a request for comment but says on its website that the plants would quote "procure and process sustainably sourced excess forest vegetation into a pelletized renewable fuel source to replace the use of coal."

By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

When it comes to tackling climate change and industrial animal agriculture, a long-standing debate continues to divide advocates - is it better to focus on individual dietary shifts, or demand systemic change? Over the last decade or so, environmental and animal welfare organizations have grappled with how to combine individual behavior change with a broader push for collective action. Is it more effective to urge consumers to eat less meat, or to target meat and dairy companies to transition toward plant-based alternatives? Are individual shopping choices more impactful, or should we prioritize boycotts and pressure campaigns through grassroots activism?

A new report from the World Resource Institute reveals that both strategies can - and in fact must - work together. To combat climate change, the report finds, collective change and individual action require a joint effort.

"This research shows that people really can't do it alone," Mindy Hernandez, one of the authors of the WRI report, tells Sentient. "They need help in order to realize the very significant emissions reductions that are possible." Rather than getting caught up in the idea that "'corporations need to do something, or nothing matters,' systems-level players, specifically policy and industry actors, have a massive role to play." At the same time, Hernandez adds, "that does not give individuals a free pass."

The Surprising Origins of the 'Personal Carbon Footprint'

The idea of a "personal carbon footprint" didn't come from climate scientists or environmental advocates - it actually came from Big Oil, as a means of placing the onus on us. In 2004, British Petroleum (BP) introduced the carbon calculator, reframing the climate crisis as a matter of personal responsibility. The message was simple: Don't look at us. Look at yourself.

We're still grappling with the legacy of that messaging. A little more than 20 years later, global emissions continue to rise yet conversations around food and climate tend to be framed in terms of individual choices - both the effective ones like eating less meat and the not-so-effective ones for climate emissions, like buying local, "climate-friendly," "regenerative" or organic.

Meanwhile, the beef industry continues to pump out emissions, with little political will to tackle these emissions in a meaningful way.

Impact of Diet on the Planet

Around a third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food, and most of those food-related emissions are driven by meat, especially beef. Americans and other Global North countries must eat less meat and shift to more plant-forward diets, the research suggests. "Plant-based foods - such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans, peas, nuts, and lentils - generally use less energy, land, and water, and have lower greenhouse gas intensities than animal-based foods," according to the United Nations.

WRI's research also finds that "pro-climate behavior changes" are enough, potentially, to "theoretically cancel out all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions an average person produces each year - specifically among high-income, high-emitting populations." One of those climate-crucial behaviors, the research reveals, is cutting back on meat and dairy - especially beef and lamb.

Organic or regenerative food have various merits, but these do not include a reduction in climate emissions for beef, because organic and regenerative cattle ranching requires more land, and land has a climate emissions cost. Ultimately, none of these personal actions come close to the environmental impact of shifting away from meat and other animal-sourced products. "Full veganism can save nearly 1 ton of CO2 annually, about a sixth of the average global citizen's total emissions. But even reducing meat intake captures 40% of that impact," the report states.

Why Individual Change Is Not Enough

The WRI research also makes a larger point: focusing solely on individual behavior is not sufficient on its own. Without systemic change, we unlock just a fraction - about 10 percent - of our true climate action potential.

The other 90 percent, according to WRI, "stays locked away, dependent on governments, businesses and our own collective action to make sustainable choices more accessible for everyone. (Case in point: It's much easier to go carless if your city has good public transit.)"

Consider a student working to decrease their individual climate impact by eating less meat, WRI's Hernandez suggests. A systemic action the student could take would be to advocate for the school to adopt Meat Free Mondays or WRI's Cool Food Pledge, a program that helps organizations reduce the climate impact of their food offerings by shifting to plant-rich menus.

"Suddenly it's really easy for that student to keep their commitment to eating less meat," says Hernandez, and the collective emissions of the larger student body also then decreases.

The key is to have climate action, at both individual and systemic levels, working in unison. "Systemic pressure creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It's a two-way street," the WRI researchers write. "Bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them." And when more of us adopt these behaviors, "we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment."

Taking Action During Difficult Times

As the current administration continues to roll back environmental protections, it's a crucial time for both individual and collective action, Lauren Ornelas, founder of the nonprofit Food Empowerment Project, tells Sentient. "We can't say 'I can rely on the government to pass regulations that are good for the environment or that are good for the welfare of animals,' or 'I can rely on my policymakers to do those things.' It's kind of up to us," she says, "and this is the best time to acknowledge that in every aspect [where] we actually have power."

For those who care about food system impacts, that power can be found in what we choose to eat. "Food choices are always empowering," says Ornelas. So is taking part in a broader collective action, she adds, "to make sure that we are joining our voices with others to demand change."

And what could this look like? "Focus on the one thing that you think you can do in your household," Hernandez says." And then, think about what is the one systems-level thing you can do," like joining a local environmental or food justice group. Shifting diets away from meat and dairy may not solve the climate crisis alone, but eating less meat can be one empowering individual choice that can be made that much stronger by collective action.


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

As Florida emergency response officials conduct their annual statewide hurricane preparedness exercise this week, emergency managers are grappling with shifting federal disaster recovery policies and uncertainty about the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

David Richardson, FEMA's acting chief, said he intends to move more disaster-recovery responsibilities to the states, while President Donald Trump has floated "getting rid of" FEMA altogether.

David Merrick, emergency management program director at Florida State University, said it leaves a lot of uncertainty around support and rapid response.

"We don't know exactly what it's going to look like," Merrick acknowledged. "In places like Florida that has such a well-developed emergency management enterprise at all levels of government, I think we're going to be in a better shape than maybe some other states or territories, maybe. That's the only silver lining for us at this point."

This week's tabletop exercises and drills, which run ahead of the June 1 start of hurricane season, bring together state and local agencies to practice response coordination. This year, discussions are shadowed by federal proposals to overhaul disaster recovery, leaving officials focused on shoring up state and local resources.

Merrick takes comfort in a quote he often hears: FEMA has long held disaster response is "locally executed, state managed and federally supported."

"Which means the responsibility is at the local and then the state level to do everything and the federal role is really just support that with funding and grants and resources that we can't get access to," Merrick outlined. "No one believes that the federal support is going to vanish overnight. "

Florida still depends heavily on FEMA resources, from disaster declarations unlocking federal funds to covering 75% of recovery project costs. The timing is critical, with forecasters predicting 17 or more named storms this season.


get more stories like this via email

Congress is set to claw back $6.5 billion in climate-related Inflation Reduction Act investments to help pay for the Trump administration's priorities, including tax cuts and mass deportations but critics said the move would cost jobs and blunt the administration's goal of energy dominance by reducing domestic energy sources.

Saul Levin, campaigns and political director for the Green New Deal Network, said if passed, $580 million in funding would disappear from Colorado's 4th district, represented by Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.

"In the 3rd District, which is represented by (Republican) Jeff Hurd, there's an estimated $1 billion that has been invested through the IRA," Levin pointed out. "Regardless of people's exact politics, most people don't want that money to be pulled out."

The House Ways and Means panel plans to revoke tax credits for electric vehicle purchases and home energy efficiency improvements, according to Reuters. The House Energy panel's plan would cut funding for limiting methane emissions at oil and gas facilities, reporting greenhouse gas emissions, reducing air pollution near schools and expanding electric grids to bring wind and solar power to homes and businesses.

Philip Rossetti, senior energy fellow for the think tank R Street Institute, believes the subsidies for clean energy were too costly but did reduce climate pollution. He added the investments will need better transmission infrastructure to be effective.

"Princeton University did a study on this, and they estimated that about 80% of the emission benefits in the electric power sector from the IRA subsidies are locked behind additional transmission infrastructure buildout," Rossetti explained.

President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to put an end to the Biden-Harris administration's efforts to mitigate climate change. Levin noted current proposals in Congress do not cut direct subsidies to fossil fuel companies.

"Even though for decades it's been really clear that there's a huge public health risk to using fossil fuels, we're still giving out subsidies to the tune of $170 billion to oil and gas companies and CEOs," Levin emphasized.


get more stories like this via email