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

 

Reference HB3459

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 are also extremely mindful of the need to maintain a focus on climate justice as we address the climate crisis.

It is in the latter vein that I write on behalf of SOCAN to endorse HB3459.

It is well-demonstrated that low-income families pay a relatively larger percentage of their income on energy than more affluent households. As reported by the U.S> Department of Energy, (Energy.gov undated) “According to DOE’s Low-Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool the national average energy burden for low-income households is 8.6%, three times higher than for non-low-income households which is estimated at 3%. In some areas, depending on location and income, energy burden can be as high as 30%.” It is critical that, as we address the climate crisis, we acknowledge that some residents are less able to withstand the economic discomfort caused by the clean energy programs than others.   It is also clear that, in Oregon, utility energy is critical to helping residents survive cold winter snaps and extended summer heatwaves.  It is critical, therefore, that we establish protections for vulnerable Oregonians to allow them to survive our climate.  Thus we support HB3459.

Respectfully Submitted

Alan Journet

Energy.Gov undated. Low-Income Community Energy Solutions. https://www.energy.gov/scep/slsc/low-income-community-energy-solutions#:~:text=Energy%20burden%20is%20defined%20as,which%20is%20estimated%20at%203%25

 

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

Authors of paper accepted for publication in Harvard Environmental Law Review argue firms are ‘killing members of the public at an accelerating rate’

Brian Kahn March 22nd 2023

Oil companies have come under increasing legal scrutiny and face allegations of defrauding investorsracketeering, and a wave of other lawsuits. But a new paper argues there’s another way to hold big oil accountable for climate damage: trying companies for homicide.

The striking and seemingly radical legal theory is laid out in a paper accepted for publication in the Harvard Environmental Law Review. In it, the authors argue fossil fuel companies “have not simply been lying to the public, they have been killing members of the public at an accelerating rate, and prosecutors should bring that crime to the public’s attention”.

More

Comments Opposing Amendment -3 below

Alan R.P. Journet Ph.D.
Cofacilitator
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
alan@socan.eco
541-500-2331
March 3rd 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 21st 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 21st 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.
7113 Griffin Lane
Jacksonville
Oregon 97530-9342
541-500-2331
March 18th 2023

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

I am a member of the Applegate Partnership and Watershed Council Board, and a Cofacilitator of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now. However, I write today in neither capacity, but simply as myself. As most of you probably know, I generally offer testimony on bills relating to the climate crisis. Today I write in reference to a bill that has less climate relevance than most on which I comment except that the beaver is an incredibly valuable animal in terms of its role in water management and conservation – critical adaptation considerations as climate change increases drought risk.

In 2010, I retired after 30 plus years teaching biology, mostly at Southeast Missouri State University. During those years, I taught ecology, conservation biology, environmental science and process of science. Since retiring and relocating to Oregon, I have been consistently amused by the way Oregon deals with the state animal – the Beaver. It makes perfect sense to me for Castor canadensis to be defined as a fur-bearing mammal. However, it has never made any sense to me that in Oregon the term ‘predator’ should have a very different meaning than it has throughout the rest of the world – and especially the world of biology. I have searched high and low for anywhere outside Oregon statute that ‘predator’ could possibly be used to describe beaver. Every definition that I have seen is consistent with my understanding: the term refers to an animal that eats other animals. On the other hand, the beaver diet comprises tubers, shoots, buds, foliage, roots, stems, barks, twigs and other plant substances.

For this reason, I applaud HB3464 which correctly removes the beaver from the miscategorized list of predators.

However, just as the beaver is not a predator, neither can the term predator be used accurately to describe ‘birds that are or may be destructive to agricultural crops.’ My sense of what the term ‘crop’ means confines this to plants. As I search for a definition that includes animals, I do not find one. Additionally, including rodents in the list of predators also requires a huge suspension of disbelief because rodents are almost universally herbivorous. The one exception to that principle of which I am aware is the Grasshopper mouse, which, indeed – and as its name implies – eats grasshoppers. This wee beastie, therefore, is a genuine predator.

If the effort that stimulated HB3464 is to clean up Oregon statutes so the term predator is used correctly, then I recommend HB3464 be amended to complete the clean up as identified above. If, however, the purpose is simply to save our state animal from the ignominy of being mischaracterized in statute, then I can happily applaud and support the effort.

Thank you all for your service and efforts in the legislature.

Respectfully submitted,

Alan Journet Ph.D.
7113 Griffin Lane
Jacksonville OR 97530-9342

 

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

 

Children exposed to glyphosate, once touted as “safer than table salt,” face increased risk of conditions found primarily in older adults that can lead to cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Liza Gross, Inside Climate News, March 17th 2023

For Brenda Eskenazi, what once seemed merely a rich vein of epidemiological knowledge has turned out to be a mother lode.

Eskenazi, who runs the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas study (known as CHAMACOS, Mexican Spanish slang for “little kids”), has tracked pairs of mothers and their children for more than 20 years. She’s collected hundreds of thousands of samples of blood, urine and saliva, along with exposure and health records. This treasure trove of data has produced unprecedented insights into the effects of environmental hazards on children living in California’s Salinas Valley, an agricultural region often called the “world’s salad bowl.”

So when Charles Limbach, a doctor at a Salinas health clinic, saw an explosion of fatty liver disease in his young patients and found a study linking the condition in adults to the weed killer glyphosate, he contacted Eskenazi.

More

Climate relevance?

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

 

Alan R.P. Journet Ph.D.
Cofacilitator
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
alan@socan.eco
541-500-2331
March 14th 2023

 

 

Reference SB870-1

Chair Sollman and members of the Senate Committee on 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 are also very aware that there are many vulnerable communities, families, and individuals in Oregon who deserve equitable consideration as we develop plans to remedy the climate crisis.

Buildings and Climate Pollution

We understand fully that building operations contribute substantially to both the global and U.S. total carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Rukikaire and Loran (2022) reported that globally buildings account for 34% of energy demand and some 37% of carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, quoting International Energy Agency (IEA) data, Architecture 230 (2022) reported that buildings contribute 40% of annual global carbon dioxide emissions, of which 27% results from operations and 13% from construction (the so-called embodied carbon emissions in buildings). Meanwhile, Leung (2018) reported that for the U.S., buildings account for 29% of the greenhouse gas emissions annually. She also reported that in commercial buildings, Heating, Cooling and Ventilation account for 30% of the total emissions, while in residential buildings, this value is 38%.

According to the state Department of Environmental Quality DEQ (2022), on an annual basis, residential and commercial buildings occupy second place among sectors in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. It therefore makes abundant sense that substantial effort should be expended on addressing emissions from buildings if we are to take seriously the mission of reducing climate pollution in the state.

In an International Energy Agency report, Fischer (2021) reported an earlier IEA conclusion that: “Energy efficiency represents more than 40% of the emissions abatement needed by 2040….” and suggests the: “currently existing cost-effective technologies are sufficient to double global energy efficiency by 2040.” Meanwhile, as an encouraging note,  Sioshansi (2020) concluded: “Making electric motors, lighting a[n]d HVAC more efficient has never been more critical or profitable.”  The evidence suggests clearly that promoting energy use efficiency in our buildings can contribute substantially to helping the satet achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

The Drawback of Fossil Gas (= Methane or Natural Gas)

The fossil fuel euphemistically called ‘natural gas’ is a fossil fuel composed of 70 – 90% (API 2021) methane, but when delivered to our homes, it is almost pure methane {Naturalgas.org 2013). Like other fossil fuels, when combusted, either in the power plant to generate electricity or in the home for heating or cooking, the gas produces carbon dioxide. Table 1 reports the pounds of carbon dioxide emitted per million BTUs of energy generated from fossil fuels.

Table 1 suggests that in terms of combustion emissions of carbon dioxide, fossil gas is an improvement over other fossil fuels. Unfortunately for the gas companies, this is not the whole story. In all energy resource cases, we must undertake full lifecycle assessment of emissions. In the case of gas, we go to the source and start there. The gas must first be extracted and processed, and then transmitted under pressure through pipelines to target end users. The first catch is that throughout the life cycle, gas leaks. In addition, unlike carbon dioxide which has a half-life of centuries to millennia in the atmosphere, methane has a half-life of only about a decade. The second catch arises from the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the gas. Methane is over 80 times worse than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas on a 20-year basis and nearly 30 times worse on a 100-year basis (IPCC 2021). It will be readily evident that this means not much methane has to leak to negate the combustion benefit depicted in Table 1.

In the popular press, the focus on what is driving global warming and thus the climate change consequences, carbon dioxide is often identified as the culprit. While carbon dioxide is assuredly the most important driver, it is accompanied by several other gases, notably methane, nitrous oxides and human-generated fluorinated gases. Several years ago, NOAA established an Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) reporting the impact of various gases on the overall trend. The AGGI set 1990 as 1, and reports divergence before and after this date of the various GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and their contribution to the overall impact. (Figure 1).

As can be seen, the AGGI in 2021 was 1.49, meaning that the impact of these gases is nearly 50% greater than in 1990. Additionally, of that 1.49 Index value, about 0.49 (nearly 50%) results from gases other than carbon dioxide.

Additionally, among these gases, methane contributes about 8%. The message is clear: we should not ignore gases other than carbon dioxide and specifically should not ignore methane, the major contributor among these other gases.

It was not until the last decade or so that studies of the leakage of methane during the fossil gas cycle were undertaken and its significance revealed. Before this realization, it was probably reasonable to argue that natural gas was the cleanest fossil fuel. That’s when the notion of natural gas as a bridge fuel to a renewable energy future was established. Regrettably, we now know this reputation is an illusion. Yet, it has remained a claim by gas companies (e.g., Neslen 2017).

Robert Howarth and colleagues from Cornell University, among others, have been studying this issue for many years. Howarth et al. (2011) were among the first to report that the range of methane emissions for conventional gas extraction and processing was 1.7 – 6.0% while that from shale extraction was 3.6 -7.9%. Howarth (2014) offered the mean for conventional natural gas extraction as 3.8% and that for shale extraction as 5.8% and reported the break-even percentage above which the gas becomes worse than coal as 2.8% assuming the 20-year GWP value for methane. The justification for using the 20-year GWP is simply that, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2018) argued net zero emissions is required by 2050, thus the length of time for action is short. This makes the 100-year value meaningless. It also means that, on average, both conventional and shale extraction produce methane emissions that rate their fossil fuel worse than coal in terms of its global warming impact. Thus, the conclusion has to be that methane (natural gas) is potentially worse than coal as a global warming fuel.

In a later report, Howarth (2019) concluded: “shale-gas production in North America over the past decade may have contributed more than half of all of the increased emissions from fossil fuels globally and approximately one-third of the total increased emissions from all sources globally over the past decade.” Zhang et al. (2020) concluded that for the largest extraction field – the Permian Basin: “[the] magnitude of emissions is 3.7% of the gross gas extracted.” Note that this is confined to Permian Basin emissions and does not include emissions from transmission out of the Basin to the end user. However, even this is substantially greater than the break-even point of 2.8%. Meanwhile, a study on 2018 emissions of methane from the full fossil gas life cycle indicates that it accounts for some 26% of the nation’s total methane emissions (Littlefield et al. 2022).

Additionally, Hmiel et al. 2020 assessed that anthropogenic methane emissions from fossil fuels represent 30% of the global source of the gas.

Assessment of the impact of emissions from fossil gas indicates that it is profoundly not ‘the clean fossil fuel’ and should be avoided as seriously as coal and oil should be avoided.

In order to maintain their market share and business model, gas companies are attempting to create the impression that they are committed to reducing climate pollution from their product. Unfortunately, the methods that they claim will achieve this goal are, at best, questionable.

A separate issue regarding fossil gas (methane) has emerged as a great concern over recent years: that regards the tremendous negative health impacts that its use in homes imposes on residents, especially, of course, children. Excellent discussions of these costs can be found in Gottlieb and Dyrszka (2017) and O’Rourke et al. (2022). Even for those denying the reality of the climate crisis, the health effects alone of continued reliance of fossil gas should warrant its rejection.

Leiserowitz et al. (2023) report that the ratio of Americans accepting that climate change is happening versus rejecting it is now about 4:1 (70%:16%) with 58% accepting that it is human-caused and only 27% thinking the cause is natural. It is time for us all to take the crisis seriously and act appropriately. SB870 is another Oregonian step in this direction.

For these reasons, Southern Oregon Climate Action now supports SB870-1, but suggests that it should preclude efforts that rely on fossil gas.

Respectfully Submitted

Alan Journet