Alan R.P. Journet Ph.D.
Cofacilitator
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
alan@socan.eco
541-500-2331
March 27^th, 2023

 

Reference HB3590

Chair Marsh and members of the House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment:

I write as cofacilitator of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN), an organization of over 2,000 rural Southern Oregonians who are concerned about the climate crisis and urge statewide action to address it. The mission of SOCAN is to promote awareness and understanding of the science of global warming and its climate chaos consequences and stimulate individual and collective action to address it. Since rural Oregonians occupy the frontlines in experiencing the impact of the drought, shrinking snowpack, wildfires and extreme weather that the climate crisis imposes, we are strongly committed to statewide action.

We fully understand the allure of using woody biomass as a fuel source in a time when it’s important to lower carbon-based climate pollution.  The allure is based on the notion that burning woody biomass releases into the atmosphere carbon captured from our current atmosphere rather than from an atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago.  It is this aspect of the biomass that has resulted in its unfortunately being defined as a net zero carbon fuel.

The catch is that climate pollution does not simply result from the combustion of fuel, but also from the complete lifecycle of that fuel.  In the case of use of the woody biomass slash that accumulates from logging as a fuel, there seems to be a value in that the alternative to using the slash to generate electricity results in emissions that are equivalent to burning the slash where it is produced and piled. However, by generating electricity from this combustion, we gain the benefit of the generated electricity which could have the benefit of replacing fossil fuels. Of course, generating electricity from genuine clean fuel that does not emit climate pollution would be preferable.

The problem is that in the case of woody biomass, there is evidence that the complete lifecycle emissions from burning woody biomass does not provide the huge climate benefit often articulated in its defense (e.g., Sterman et al. 2018, Speare Cole 2021).

It is troubling that the proponents of this bill did not promote an unbiased study that evaluates the costs and benefits of this use of biomass, but clearly articulated the view that the purpose of the study is to demonstrate the value of using woody biomass.

The concern that I wish to express is that when OSU undertakes the study, they do so in an honest and unbiased manner and ensure that their conclusions regarding the use of woody biomass incorporate assessment of the full life cycle emissions resulting from the use of that woody biomass. We also urge that the assessment incorporate a determination of the reality that generation using woody debris does not result in an ultimate effort to harvest standing timber. Our fear is that the blossoming of a woody biomass utility industry will result in competition among plants for a limited supply of logging debris.  This will then likely result in the harvesting of standing trees for electricity generation. Should this occur, the climate costs of the program should include assessment of the carbon sequestration compromised as a result of timber harvest.

Respectfully Submitted

Alan Journet

Source:

Speare Cole # 2021. Biomass is promoted as a carbon neutral fuel. But is burning wood a step in the wrong direction? The Guardian October 21, 2021 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/04/biomass-plants-us-south-carbon-neutral

Sterman J, Siegel L, Rooney-Varga, J. 2018 Does replacing coal with wood lower CO2 emissions? Dynamic lifecycle analysis of wood bioenergy. Environmental Research Letters 13 015007 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512

 

Alan R.P. Journet Ph.D.
Cofacilitator
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
alan@socan.eco
541-500-2331
March 26^th 2023

 

Reference House Bill 3579

Chair Marsh and members of the House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment:

I write as cofacilitator of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN), an organization of over 2,000 rural Southern Oregonians who are concerned about the climate crisis and urge statewide action to address it. The mission of SOCAN is to promote awareness and understanding of the science of global warming and its climate chaos consequences and stimulate individual and collective action to address it. Since rural Oregonians occupy the frontlines in experiencing the impact of the drought, shrinking snowpack, wildfires and extreme weather that the climate crisis imposes, we are strongly committed to statewide action.

I write in support of HB3579.  Those of us concerned about addressing the climate crisis know that our use of energy is a primary driver of the crisis. This indicates that any steps we can take to convert our energy sources from fossil fuels to renewables accompanied by efficient storage components will contribute to this effort.

The bill itself articulates effectively exactly what is needed in stating succinctly:

”SECTION 1. (1) As used in this section, “clean energy technology” means a facility, piece of equipment or other property that:

“(a) Produces energy from the sun, water, wind, geothermal deposits or other renewable resources, including fuel cells, microturbines or energy storage systems and components;

“(b) Enables energy conservation in heating, cooling or ventilating residential or commercial buildings;

“(c) Facilitates or assists in manufacturing or expanding infrastructure to support electric vehicles, particularly medium-duty or heavy-duty electric vehicles;  or

“(d) Is otherwise capable, in the judgment of the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, of conserving energy or producing energy from renewable and low emission sources. “

In requiring the Department of Administrative Services to promote procurement of clean energy technologies and establish a Task Force to attract and support regional manufacturing activities that engage in providing clean energy technologies, HB3579 represents a huge strep towards promoting exactly the kind of energy sources that Oregon needs in order to achieve meaningful greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

For these reasons SOCAN supports HB3579 and encourages its passage with a ‘Do Pass’ recommendation.

Respectfully Submitted

Alan Journet

Comments Opposing Amendment -3 below

Alan R.P. Journet Ph.D.
Cofacilitator
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
alan@socan.eco
541-500-2331
March 3^rd 2023

 

 

Reference SB85-1

Chair Golden and members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources:

I write as cofacilitator of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN), an organization of over 2,000 rural Southern Oregonians who are concerned about the climate crisis and urge statewide action to address it. The mission of SOCAN is to promote awareness and understanding of the science of global warming and its climate chaos consequences and stimulate individual and collective action to address it. Since rural Oregonians occupy the frontlines in experiencing the impact of the drought, shrinking snowpack, wildfires and extreme weather that the climate crisis imposes, we are strongly committed to statewide action.

I write today to express support for SB85 Amendment 1, the Moratorium on Confined (or Concentrated) Animal Feedlot (Feeding) Operations (CAFOs).

Rather than detailing the full array of reasons that CAFOs are offensive, I will focus on the environmental and climate negatives. CAFOs are cruel and inhumane methods of producing food that deny the sentience or feelings of the confined animals and treat them as non-sentient unfeeling objects. The CAFO business model assigns to the animals in their charge but a single purpose – to generate profits for CAFO owners and stockholders. No doubt this concern will be addressed by others.

Over a decade ago Hribar (2010), writing for the National Association of Boards of Health,  pointed out that most meat and dairy products were no longer being grown in small family farms but had shifted to large farms with single species buildings or open pens. Hribar (2010) acknowledged that “properly managed, located, and monitored, CAFOs can provide a low-cost source of meat, milk, and eggs, due to efficient feeding and housing of animals, increased facility size, and animal specialization” and that they can enhance the local economy. However, her main concern, even a decade ago, was the negative effects of the operations on environmental and human health; she also expressed the concern that Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) pose a potential environmental hazard noting that this was recognized as long ago as the 1972 Clean Water Act.

In terms of the Groundwater hazard, Hribar (2010) stated: “Groundwater can be contaminated by CAFOs through runoff from land application of manure, leaching from manure that has been improperly spread on land, or through leaks or breaks in storage or containment units.”

The surface waters of the state and nation are threatened by manure escaping from treatment lagoons, particularly problematic during heavy rainfall (events which are expected to increase in frequency with climate change) and consequent floods (Hribar 2010). Contaminants include nitrogen, nitrates, phosphates and ammonia.  The first three of these serve as nutrients promoting algal blooms which initially starve water bodies of light, and then die only to decay and starve the water bodies of oxygen as anaerobic decomposition occurs. This suffocates aquatic animals whether invertebrate, insect larva, or fish.

Within and near the CAFO, air quality is compromised by emissions of gaseous and particulate items that pose health hazards to workers and neighboring communities (Hribar 2010). Notable among these are ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and methane. Anyone living near or driving by a CAFO and inhaling is well aware of these consequences.  Table 1 (from Hribar 2010) summarizes the air quality problems.

The environmental impacts of CAFOs in the area of groundwater and surface water contamination are responsible for the ubiquitous fish kills (e.g., Nicole 2013, Ellison 2018, Merchant and Osterberg 2020, Redman 2020) that are associated with CAFO mismanagement. These present serious inconvenience to neighboring communities.

In the discussion from over a decade ago, Hribar (2010) continues by delineating the human problems caused by CAFOs, discussing odors largely a result of the ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide and miscellaneous volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds; insect vectors notably house flies stable flies and mosquitoes; pathogens such as parasites, bacteria, and viruses (see Table 2); pathogens (see Table 2); anti-biotics employed to promote growth and resist disease, especially critical as more and ever more animals are confined together; and finally, property values.

The concerns expressed by Hribar (2010) have not been resolved. In a literature review, Brewer (2020) focused on antimicrobial resistance problems appearing in humans that result from CAFOs and the problem of manure contamination causing eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) of waterways. Dip (2021) reported: “that communities—and children in particular—living near CAFOs have higher rates of Asthma….”, and “In 2020, factory farms spent over $140 MILLION lobbying our elected officials against effective climate change legislation to ensure they can continue to use CAFOs….”No doubt these lobbyists will be out in force in connection with SB85-1.

The Climate Crisis

It is well known, I suspect, that the sequence of events leading to our climate crisis is as summarized below:

(1) the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases released as a result of human activity leads to à

(2) the capture of outwardly radiating heat from the Earth’s surface derived from incoming solar radiation (mainly in the short wavelength visible light range) being turned int longer wavelength heat radiation when arriving at and contacting the Earth’s surface.  This then results in à,

(3) greater heat energy in our atmosphere leading locally to reducing snowpack, greater evaporation and droughts inducing drying soils and vegetation and, in turn, greater wildfire risk plus more severe weather – especially storms, hurricanes, etc.

Projections of temperature trends resulting from the ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases suggest we plausibly will see a warming globally of between 3 and 5.1⁰C (5.4 and 9.1⁰F) relative to pre-industrial revolution conditions by the end of this century (IPCC 2021), an outcome that would devastate our natural ecosystems, agriculture, forestry and fisheries. This would be unmanageable and must be avoided!

This sequence clearly identifies the primary cause as the climate pollution resulting from human activities, particularly the release of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other heat-trapping gases into our atmosphere.  As depicted in Figure 1, the dominant gas is carbon dioxide. However, as presented in that Figure, where the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) (NOAA 2022) is shown, other gases are also important.  With carbon dioxide established as the basis for comparison with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) (or carbon dioxide equivalent CO₂e) of 1, other gases are reported relative to this.  The most recent IPCC Assessment Report 6 (IPCC 2021) reports the value for nitrous oxide (N₂O) as 273, and that for methane (CH₄) – because it is relatively short-lived in the atmosphere – as about 80 on a 20-year basis and between 27 and 29 on a 100-year basis.  The AGGI depicts the warming of the planet, measured in terms of the Radiative Forcing of the constituent gases in terms of Watts pe meter squared at the Earth’s surface. The AGGI was set at unity (i.e.,1) in 1990 with the deviation from that before and after 1990 showing a clear and consistent increase.  By 2021, the AGGI had reached 1.49.  This means that the AGGI has increased nearly 50% in a little over two decades. Potentially equally disturbing is the realization that gases other than carbon dioxide are contributing substantially to the problem.  All other gases combined are responsible for about 33% of overall global warming while the leader among these other gases is methane, contributing about 8% to global warming. The message should be clear, but in case not: this means that in addition to reducing the carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric concentration, we must address the other gases, especially methane.

An estimate of the contribution of livestock to the global climate crisis via emissions of gases from enteric fermentation was reported as 14.5% a decade ago (Gerber et al. 2013). Incidentally, an entirely parallel anaerobic bacterial breakdown process occurs in the gut of cattle to that driving decay in anaerobic CAFO manure lagoons. The product in both cases is methane. Since the overall contribution of methane to the atmosphere is much less than the reported value of 14.5% (see Figure 1 and discussion) this number seems high. Globally, methane comes from a diversity of sources, including, for example, natural wetlands, rice paddies, fossil fuel (especially fossil [natural] gas) extraction, processing and transmission, and permafrost thawing. Thus, either the earlier 14.5% estimate was high, or sources of other greenhouse gases have increased substantially thereby reducing the percentage role of methane from enteric fermentation. In the U.S., Massey and Keintzy (2021) reported that enteric fermentation in cattle is responsible for 179 million of the U.S. total of 6,577 Million Metric Tons of total emissions, all measured in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent. This is slightly over 2.7% of U.S. emissions. If this value is accurate, and the U.S. contribution of methane to the problem follows the global trend (i.e., about 8%), then enteric fermentation is responsible for over 25% of our national methane emissions.  The IPCC (2019), reporting on emissions from land use, concluded “Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) activities accounted for around 13% of CO₂, 44% of methane (CH₄), and 81% of nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions cumulatively during 2007-2016. This represents 23% (12.0 ± 2.9 GtCO₂eq yr-1) of total net anthropogenic emissions of GHGs.” Hersher and Aubrey (2019) note that currently 50% of vegetated land globally is dedicated to agriculture, while 30% of the cropland grows grain just to feed animals. Our hunger for meat products makes meat production a leading cause of deforestation – a process that both emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases itself and thwarts the capacity of removed trees to sequester further carbon from the atmosphere. The indication is that we should examine agricultural activities that result in methane emissions and respond accordingly by reducing them.

Ritchie (2021) reported that “agricultural products as a whole contribute 33% to global [greenhouse gas] emissions” again implying we need to address them. Meanwhile, in a study of trajectories for achieving Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warming targets, Clark et al. (2020) concluded: “Even if fossil fuel emissions were rapidly reduced, emissions from the global food system are on a trajectory that would prevent achievement of the 1.5° and 2°C targets before the end of the century.”

CAFOs inevitably contribute substantially to the problem since the sheer number of animals is immense.  However, purely from a climate perspective, it has been suggested that grass-fed cattle, taking longer than CAFO cattle to grow, actually emit more methane per unit of product.  Lupo et al. (2013), for example, assessed that grassfed cattle produced 37% more emissions than feedlot cattle, though they noted that 15 – 24% reductions occur when soil organic carbon gain from grassfed versus CAFO cattle was accounted.  Countering the conclusion that grassfed cattle are more greenhouse gas intensive that CAFO cattle, Hayek and Miller (2021), assessing emissions using a top-down rather than bottom-up approach, concluded that the methane emissions from confined feeding operations may be 39% – 90% higher than previously reported. This would negate the CAFO benefit reported by Lupo et al. (2013). Hayek and Miller (2021) also suggest “We find that region-wide emissions from meat and milk production could reach 1.52 (1.41–1.62) GtCO₂eq by 2050, an amount 21% (13%–29%) higher than previously predicted. Therefore, intensification may not be as effective in mitigating emissions in developing countries as is commonly assumed.” The purported climate benefit of CAFOs is clearly questionable.

Meanwhile among complete Life Cycle Analyses (LCA), support for the grassfed approach has been reported. For example, Stanley et al. (2018) concluded that, in grassfed operations: “Emissions from the grazing system were offset completely by soil C sequestration.” They added: “Soil C sequestration from well-managed grazing may help to mitigate climate change.”  A full life cycle study conducted on a grassfed regenerative grazing operation at the behest of General Mills at White Oaks Pastures in Georgia, concluded that the system: “effectively captures soil carbon, offsetting a majority of the emissions related to beef production.”  They even also suggested that the system: “may have a net positive effect on climate.”

Whether the greenhouse gas emissions from CAFOs are a little more per pound of beef or a little less, the associated environmental and health negatives of CAFO production discussed above should be enough to tip the balance against them. The comment offered by Matsumoto (2019) seems entirely appropriate here: “the world [needs] to cut back on its meat consumption…” This suggestion was also evident in the Brewer (2020) review where the author “stressed the importance for a reduction in meat consumption, as this is ultimately the driver of intensified livestock production systems.”

As a closing comment, I refer to the ‘right to farm’ laws and principles which, no doubt, will be promoted by those defending CAFOs. According to NALC (2022): “All fifty states have enacted right-to-farm laws that seek to protect qualifying farmers and ranchers from nuisance lawsuits filed by individuals who move into a rural area where normal farming operations exist, and who later use nuisance actions to attempt to stop those ongoing operations.” Note that the principle is not to defend an operation such as a CAFO that itself constitutes a threat to the lives, livelihoods, and health of neighbors and small family farms.

For these reasons, SOCAN urges a moratorium on further certification of Confined (Concentrated) Animal Feedlot (Feeding) Operations and supports SB85-1. It is not necessary to study this issue; sufficient information is available to allow a rational response.

Respectfully Submitted

Alan Journet

 

Sources Cited

Brewer C 2020 Environmental Impacts of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Current and Future Implications for Global Health and Sustainability. Master of Public Health Thesis, California State University San Marcos https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/pg15bk10x

Clark M, Domingo N, Colgan K, Thakrar S, Tilman D, Lynch J, Azevedo I, Hill J. 2020 Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science 370 (6517) 705-708. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

Dip A 2021 Why Are CAFOs Bad for the Environment? Action for the Climate Emergency. https://acespace.org/2021/08/06/why-are-cafos-bad-for-the-environment/

Ellison G 2018 Kent County dairy CAFO pipeline spills manure into river. M Live Michigan. https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2018/05/coldwater_river_manure_spill.html

Gerber P, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci, A Tempio,G. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Rome https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

Hayek M, Miller S 2021. Underestimates of methane from intensively raised animals could undermine goals of sustainable development. Environmental Research Letters. 16 (6) 063006. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac02ef

Hersher R, Aubrey A. 2019 To Slow Global Warming, U.N. Warns Agriculture Must Change. The Salt: What’s on your plate; National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/08/748416223/to-slow-global-warming-u-n-warns-agriculture-must-change

Hribar C. 2010 Understanding Concentrated environmental health Animal Feeding Operations and  Their Impact on Communities. National Association of Local Boards of Health https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf

IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems  Shukla P, Skea J, Calvo Buendia E, Masson-Delmotte V, Pörtner H, Roberts D, Zhai P, Slade R, Connors S, van Diemen R, Ferrat M, Haughey E, Luz S, Neogi S, Pathak M, Petzold J, Portugal Pereira J, Vyas P, Kissick E, Belkacemi M, Malley J, (eds.) https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/

IPCC 2021 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

Lupo C, Clay D, Benning J, Stone J 2013 Life-cycle assessment of the beef cattle production system for the northern great plains, USA. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2013 Sep;42(5):1386-94. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24216416/

Massey R and Keintyzy D 2021 (update of 2008 original) Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. University of Missouri Extension. https://extension.missouri.edu/media/wysiwyg/Extensiondata/Pub/pdf/agguides/agecon/g00310.pdf

Matsumoto N 2019 Is Grass-Fed Beef Really Better For The Planet? Here’s The Science. Tha Salt: What’s on your Plate National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science

Merchant J, Osterberg D. 2020 Iowans want action to limit concentrated animal feeding operations and their harmful effects. Des Moines Register.  Environ Health Perspect. 121 (6) 182–189.

NALC 2022 States’ Right-To-Farm Statutes. National Agricultural Law Center.  https://nationalaglawcenter.org/state-compilations/right-to-farm/

Nicole W 2013 CAFOs and Environmental Justice: The Case of North Carolina.

NOAA 2022 Annual Greenhouse Gas Index. U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/indicators/annual-greenhouse-gas-index.

Redman H 2020 St. Croix Co. Dairy with manure spill history reaches $65k settlement for 2019 fish kill. Wisconsin Examiner. https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2022/07/08/st-croix-co-dairy-with-manure-spill-history-reaches-65k-settlement-for-2019-fish-kill/

Ritchie H 2021 How much of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food? Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food#:~:text=They%20do%20also%20provide%20a,contributes%2033%25%20to%20global%20emissions.

Stanley P, Rowntree J, Beede D, DeLonge M, Hamm M 2018 Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems. ScienceDirect 162, May 2018, 249-258 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17310338#.WpHorNqe0qU.twitter

Thorbecke M,  Dettling J 2019 Carbon Footprint Evaluation of Regenerative Grazing at White Oak Pastures. Quantis https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf

 

Amendment 3 Opposition Testimony

 

Alan R.P. Journet Ph.D.
Cofacilitator
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
alan@socan.eco
541-500-2331
March 21^st 2023

 

Reference SB85-3

Chair Golden and members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources

I write as cofacilitator of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN), an organization of over 2,000 rural Southern Oregonians who are concerned about the climate crisis and urge statewide action to address it. The mission of SOCAN is to promote awareness and understanding of the science of global warming and its climate chaos consequences and stimulate individual and collective action to address it. Since rural Oregonians occupy the frontlines in experiencing the impact of the drought, shrinking snowpack, wildfires and extreme weather that the climate crisis imposes, we are strongly committed to statewide action.

I have previously submitted testimony on SB85-1, and will not repeat that here. However, in relation to the -3 amendment, I would like to reiterate the point that, in terms of furthering the climate crisis, CAFOs are a disaster. This is because of the greenhouse gas emissions that they inevitably release.

While greenhouse gas emissions result from the entire CAFO operation, my focus here is on the emissions that are produced from the husbandry of different animals and the production of different foods. A good comparison is presented in Figure 1 (Ritchie 2020) which assesses emission per kilogram of food produced. The critical data to compare are the beef (and dairy) cattle, lamb and goats, pork and chicken. It is very evident that among these domestic farm animals, poultry are the least problematic in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food produced, whether considering meat or eggs. Pork scores in the same vicinity. Meanwhile, dairy cattle, and lamb and goats score slightly higher. Finally, beef cattle clearly hit the climate pollution ball out of the park.

Another recent perspective is offered by UN (undated) citing the 2022 IPCC graphing Kilograms of emissions (again in carbon dioxide equivalent terms) per kilogram of food produced and reporting a similar patterns (Figure 2). Here, we find again that cattle (with a value similar to the Ritchie 2020 cattle average) similarly feature as the most climatically damaging of listed foods. Lamb clocks in at a little over half the cattle value, while cheese and pork follow and poultry score as the least damaging, with eggs lower than the meat and finally milk, according to this analysis and somewhat surprisingly, rating even lower than eggs.

The difference in details between these two studies is less significant than the overall pattern that identifies in both sources that cattle are the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases. Figure 1 indicates exactly why this is the case: the problem is the methane emitted as a result of the enteric fermentation of anaerobic bacteria in the gut of cattle which is largely belched out by the animals.

Considering other environmental issues generated by large CAFOs, McGarry (2020) concluded that: “the Clean Water Act is limited in two aspects that allow for CAFOs to escape permitting and regulation under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System: (1) the CWA does not allow EPA to regulate potential discharges, and (2) the Trump Administration’s limiting definition of waters of the United States under the CWA. The CWA is limited in that it can only regulate actual discharges into waters of the United States.”

Despite the claims of those owning or managing CAFOs or representing them organizationally, the evidence indicates that CAFOs are not excessively burdened with regulations CAFO

Before concluding, I note that Amendment -1 seems to be posted twice and no -2 is evident. While applying the moratorium just to Tier 2 poultry operations may offer some value in some arenas, the elimination of beef and dairy cattle from the provisions of this moratorium massively undermines the purpose of the proposal.

For these reasons, SOCAN records opposition to the -3 amendment to SB85 and reiterates support for the -1 amendment (s) as posted on March 21^st 2023. However, should -3 be approved, we support that as a first step to addressing the CAFO problem in Oregon.

Respectfully Submitted

Alan Journet

Sources:

McGarry D 2020 Environmental, Natural Resources, & Energy Law Blog: Nobody is Watching How the Sausage is Made: The Failure to Regulate CAFOs . https://law.lclark.edu/_ingredients/templates/details/blogs.php?id=133

Ritchie H. 2020 The carbon footprint of foods: are differences explained by the impacts of methane? Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane

UN undated Food and Climate Change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet. United Nations, Climate Action https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/food

 

Alan R.P. Journet Ph.D.
Cofacilitator
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
alan@socan.eco
541-500-2331
541-301-4107
March 18^th 2023

 

Reference House Bill HB2990

Chair Marsh and members of the House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment:

My name is Alan Journet, again I testify as cofacilitator of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN), an organization of over 2,000 rural Southern Oregonians who are concerned about the climate crisis and urge statewide action to address it.

When we discuss ‘addressing’ climate chaos, our minds often, and quite naturally, turn to how we can prevent the ongoing crisis from deteriorating further through mitigation. This generally involves either reducing our emissions of climate pollution, or capturing greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere through the promotion of photosynthesis as a natural solution, or through technology that captures the gas(es) from our atmosphere.  However, in addition to mitigation, addressing the climate crisis also involves developing programs that help those suffering from climate change to maintain viable and vibrant lives as we move forward together. Regrettably, as the climate crisis worsens, the future that is inevitable unless we eliminate human-induced emissions today will bring us an increasing frequency of severe weather and climate-induced phenomena. The serve weather events will include thunderstorms and flooding as well as heat waves and drought. Since we live in a Mediterranean (winter wet / summer dry) climate, western states have always experienced conditions that feature drying soil and vegetation annually each summer and fall. This annually produces conditions where fire is likely. Warming, which will be greater in the summers than winters, reduced summer rainfall, and reduced snowpack will all conspire to exacerbate the summer drying and thus elevate wildfire risk.

These are the conditions that Oregon residents will experience as the century unfolds. It is incumbent upon governments, local and state, to acknowledge this reality and prepare for it.  While those of us who are economically better off will likely have the wherewithal to survive these phenomena, those who are less economically advantaged will become ever more vulnerable to these calamitous events. Providing Oregonians with locations where they can escape these climate-induced phenomena will be critical to allowing our communities to survive. As a bonus, these Resilience Hubs will also serve the same purpose in the event of calamitous events unconnected with climate such as a Cascadia Subduction Earthquake.

Enough information has been provided on what Resilience Hubs comprise and what they offer that I will not repeat that here. Rather, I commend you to the website of our companion organization, Rogue Climate, for a discussion of Resilience Hubs. Suffice to conclude by noting that Resilience Hubs can be designed to meet local needs and thus serve Oregonians from rural and urban locations alike.

For these reasons, those of us in Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, operating in the heart of Almeda Fire country where many of our friends and family members, especially lower income residents, found themselves instantly without a home and with no place to shelter, urge passage of HB2990.

Respectfully Submitted

Alan Journet

 

Four bills will receive hearings from a Senate committee on Thursday

Julia Shumway, Oregon Capital Chronicle, Marhch 14, 2023

Oregon lawmakers and climate advocates are pushing for legislative action to build more efficient homes and office buildings to protect the environment and reduce long-term homeowner costs.

Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber, D-Beaverton, and Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, are spearheading the effort after spending much of last year leading a task force that recommended policies for making homes and office buildings more environmentally friendly and resilient to heat, smoke and air pollution. Those recommendations have turned into four bills they want passed.

More