Image 1. Visualization of OMA+OLIN’s design for the 11th Street Bridge Park in Washington, D.C. Image courtesy of OMA+OLIN.

Image 2. Map showing how the planned 11th street bridge design by OMA+OLIN will join the two sides of the Anacostia River, between Ward 6 on the west side and Wards 7 and 8 on the east side. Image courtesy of OMA+OLIN.

What is the Bridge Park Equitable Development Plan?

What can urban park designers do to make parks a site of equity rather than a source of inequality? The Bridge Park Equitable Development Plan in Washington, D.C., offers an answer.

The Building Bridges Across the River (BBAR), a nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C., noticed that poor, minority communities on the east side of the Anacostia River desperately needed higher paying jobs, accessible recreational programs, and affordable housing. They designed the 11th Street Bridge Park (Bridge Park) to address the current socioeconomic disparities facing African-American residents living in Anacostia, Wards 7 and 8, and provide development that will benefit people of all ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses.

Bridge Park emerged from a collaboration with local residents, non-profits, architects, agencies, business owners and government officials that began in 2015. BBAR created the Bridge Park Equitable Development Plan to identify the critical housing, economic, and cultural needs of traditionally marginalized communities in Southeast D.C. and outline strategies to address those needs before, during, and after the Bridge Park construction. From the very start, the voices of residents from Anacostia, Capitol Hill, and Wards 7 and 8 led the planning and design of Bridge Park.

What are the issues that minority communities in Southeast D.C. face?

When the Bridge Park Equitable Development Plan was being developed, BBAR highlighted the housing discrimination and low employment rates in Wards 7 and 8. As a result of historic economic, racial, and geographic segregation, Wards 7 and 8 have low homeownership, high poverty and high unemployment rates. These disparities are evident between Anacostia and Capitol Hill on the east and west side of the Anacostia River, respectively.

In the past fifteen years, the Capitol Hill Riverfront has developed into a thriving mixed-use district, while Anacostia has remained largely undeveloped. Currently, the unemployment rate in Anacostia, which is predominantly African-American, is more than 20 percent. Unemployment in Capitol Hill, which is predominantly white, hovers around 7 percent. BBAR and city leaders anticipate that Bridge Park will help unify and connect Capitol Hill and Anacostia.

Image 3. Visualization of OMA+OLIN’s design for the 11th Street Bridge Park, showing the ramp’s connection to the river below the bridge. Image courtesy of OMA+OLIN.

Image 4. Map of Anacostia River currently, Screenshot from the Bridge Park Equitable Development Plan. Image courtesy of BBAR.

How was Bridge Park designed?

The input of existing residents played an important role in developing the Bridge Park Equitable Development Plan. From 2015 to 2017, BBAR held several public meetings to brainstorm ideas for Bridge Park’s design. The design by the landscape architect firm Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) and Olin was eventually chosen (Image 1 and 3). As the city prepares to start the park’s construction in 2023, Wards 7 and 8 residents’ needs are at the forefront. For example, BBAR has partnered with the D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development, affordable housing developers, and other community organizers to create community land trusts, non-profit organizations that provide affordable housing opportunities to low-income families. In this way, current residents will not have to worry about being displaced by the park.

How will Bridge Park fix current socioeconomic disparities in Anacostia and Wards 7 and 8?

The Bridge Park will promote equitable and inclusive economic growth for communities on the east of the Anacostia River that have been long excluded from the city’s economic growth. To reach this goal, BBAR has made plans to give jobs to residents during and after the park’s construction. The First Source Agreement, negotiated by BBAR with the D.C. Government and local workforce development organizations, ensures that residents of Ward 7 and 8 have priority for new jobs created by community development programs that pay a living wage.

Bridge Park will be a site for recreation, environmental education, and the arts, featuring events by DC-area artists, humanities practitioners, and entrepreneurs. These events will celebrate the history and culture of surrounding communities and spotlight African-American narratives.

How is Bridge Park meant to be more than a park?

BBAR envisions Bridge Park to not only be a public park but part of a large ongoing effort to create inclusive and equitable development in Southeast D.C. Bridge Park will offer new educational, workforce, and homeownership opportunities. For example, BBAR plans to make Bridge Park an outdoor classroom to facilitate youth outreach, as well as partner with the D.C. Government to provide job opportunities in construction, landscaping, operations and maintenance, technology, cleaning, catering, programming, media and public art.

The Bridge Park Equitable Development Plan is a successful strategy that a large network of local and national experts helped to develop. That makes Bridge Park a leading example of how public and private sectors can work together to develop a community-driven park design.

Cities like St. Louis, TX, and Los Angeles, CA, are already adopting the Bridge Park Equitable Development Plan as a model for their development proposals.

How can urban park designers learn from the Bridge Park Equitable Development Plan?

Here are some of the lessons BBAR and supporting community organizers learned from building the Bridge Park Equitable Development Plan:

1. Learn from parks across the country with similar equity development goals 
2. Collect preliminary data on surrounding neighborhoods, such as current property values and poverty levels, to help inform planning decisions 
3. Hire local people and diverse voices throughout the planning and design process
4. Continue to engage city agencies, national and local experts, business owners, community leaders and local residents after completing the project
5. Set clear measurable goals and simultaneously track progress in meeting goals 
6. Build innovative initiatives that will provide opportunities for residents of all income levels and demographic backgrounds

 Your phone dings. It’s an emergency alert.

It reads: “Conserve energy: NYC is urging all households and businesses to immediately limit energy usage to prevent power outages as the intense heat continues. Please avoid the use of energy-intensive appliances such as washers, dryers and microwaves. Limit unnecessary use of air conditioning.”

Everyone in New York City received that emergency alert in  June 2021. The city was pleading with residents to lower their energy consumption. The heat wave was causing an increase in electricity usage by people desperate to get cool and as a result, the city’s power grid was in danger of failing. 

What happened this summer in New York is not a one off event. It is a harbinger of what our urban areas will continue to look like if left unchecked. 

What is an urban heat island?

Heat islands are a well-studied phenomena where urban spaces are hotter than surrounding suburban or rural areas. Cities become pockets of heat compared to cooler surrounding areas, hence the term “islands.” Even within cities themselves, temperature can shift widely based on the presence of things like trees and bodies of water.

Not by coincidence, urban heat islands are more pronounced in historically Black and Brown neighborhoods. This disparity is a legacy of our nation’s history of redlining, racially restrictive land covenants, and the ongoing lack of investment into those communities. This is seen across the country, including in my own Massachusetts backyard. Temperatures in Chelsea, Everett, and poorer areas of Boston can be 10 to 40 degrees higher than wealthier suburban towns like Newton, which are lined with plentiful trees and green spaces.

What causes heat islands?

Great question! The answer has two main parts: the absence of green spaces and the presence of asphalt and concrete. 

Green spaces cool down cities by providing shade and evapotranspiration– a fancy term for when evaporating water from trees and other plants cool the air around it. Asphalt and concrete on the other hand are absorbent surfaces rather than reflective surfaces. This means that they absorb heat and gradually release it, raising temperatures around them. 

These two factors combine to create heat islands, like in Chelsea versus Newton in Massachusetts. Buildings and road surfaces make cities hot, the lack of green spaces keep it so.

So heat islands aren’t caused by climate change?

Correct. Urban heat islands would exist with or without climate change. But the warming of our planet only makes situations like heat islands worse. In some cities, the rate of warming will be double the global average. This means that cities would see the effects of climate change more so than anywhere else, making them the hotbed (pun intended) of a public health crisis.

Okay, it’s hotter… so what?

Heat is a silent killer. Every year, more people die from heat than from all other natural disasters combined including seemingly more deadly natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods. Scientists estimate that heat kills around 12,000 Americans each year. By 2040 this number is predicted to rise to 30,000 deaths annually.

And this is much more than just heat strokes. When we think of heat-related deaths, we may solely envision the elderly dying from heat strokes but this is an incomplete picture. But these deaths are not just from heat strokes. Periods of extreme heat increase mortality from all causes. In other words, if you have any pre-existing conditions, exposure to heat is likely to make it worse. 

Heat has other surprising effects on health, including on the entire reproductive cycle from conception to delivery. High temperatures negatively impact sperm production, hindering people’s efforts at conception. Extreme heat also contributes to higher levels of oxytocin, the hormone that triggers labor contractions in pregnant women. This can lead to a higher frequency of preterm births, a condition that can be dangerous to the child and portend life-long adverse health consequences. 

City residents’ experience of heat islands is also driven by socioeconomic status. Heat doesn’t affect all residents equally, as not everyone has access to air conditioning or cars to get them to air-conditioned places.  In some major cities, like San Francisco and Seattle, less than half of all residents have air conditioning. In other cities, even though a majority of residents may have an air conditioning unit they may not be able to use it due to electricity shortages, as was the case in New York City this past summer. This means that summertime heat is inescapable–and therefore deadly–for far too many. 

What’s the solution?

Trees. 

Their benefits are everywhere. Trees protect biodiversity, reduce runoff in storms, reduce noise and air pollution, and give us the oxygen we need to breathe. But trees also provide another key benefit, something that is especially important for urban heat islands: air conditioning. 

Trees are mother nature’s very own cooling system. 

The presence of trees in urban spaces can lower temperatures by 15-20 degrees. And it gets better. Surface temperatures in the shade of a tree canopy can be 20-45 degrees lower than surrounding areas! This can make a drastic difference in reducing morbidity and mortality.

Trees are cool. Literally.

By planting trees in our cities we can reduce the overall temperature, protect ourselves from the dangers of heat waves and make our neighborhoods prettier while we’re at it! The benefits of planting trees in our urban areas can’t be understated. Planting trees can and should be part of our urban public health strategies. 

This is already happening in many cities across the nation. For example, a 2017 tree planting campaign in Dallas reduced the average temperature in some neighborhoods by 15 degrees, providing much-needed relief for residents living in a city famous for its sweltering summers. 

Trees are not a panacea for all of a city’s heat-related woes. There are other strategies too, like adding green walls and roofs, incorporating cooler materials into building design, painting rooftops white to reflect heat, or making buildings more energy-efficient to reduce waste heat. These strategies have a crucial role in cooling down our cities, like in narrow streets that don’t have the space to accommodate trees or areas where it would be difficult to maintain tree growth.

But trees, as simple as they are, remain one of the most effective strategies. It is not a cure all, but it is the best place to start. In this way, planting trees is not just an environmental issue, but an explicit urban planning, public health, and health equity strategy. 

Is there something I can do?

Yes! Residents in major cities like New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and others can request free trees, a feature that is part of many cities’ larger urban reforestation campaigns. Even if your city doesn’t have such a campaign (yet) requesting a tree might be easier than you think! Residents can also advocate for more green spaces and the protection of already existing green spaces from development. 

Before you begin to read this, take a moment, pause, and reflect: what was one of your most memorable lessons in school? What made it stand out? Why do you remember it to this day?

While there are a range of things you could be thinking about, it is likely that you are remembering something that was active, participatory, and made you feel like you had agency in your learning experience. 

This is the driving principle behind hands-on or experiential environmental education. As we move further and further into our climate crisis, it becomes more and more important for youth to gain an intimate appreciation and respect for our planet and its many ecosystems. 

Imagine you’re back in middle school again (terrible, I know, but stay with me) and you’re in an earth science class. Say you’re learning about compost. What would you find most impactful – a textbook lesson, no different than the rest of your day, or scooping up a handful of compost, seeing the components up close, as you watch the worms eating and processing the food scraps right before your eyes.

Most people only remember a fraction of their childhood education.  Depending on your career path, this is okay. You will specialize and reinforce what you need and want to know. But, in the case of Earth Science and environmental literacy, no one is exempt from living within these systems. Change is caused by the stewardship of many, and it is imperative that we incorporate values of care and love for the earth into mainstream educational curriculum.

Experiential outdoor education is good in theory, but what does it look like in practice?

Hands-on outdoor learning is not a new concept, particularly within Indigenous communities. Until recently, however, there has been a lack of tangible data that public education curriculums have require. This study, “School-Based Experiential Outdoor Education: A Neglected Necessity,” definitively shows that there is great value in bridging the gap between classroom/textbook based and field learning. 

The study criticizes the  schools that teach to the standardized test, and the negative consequences that have for student engagement, retention, and social/emotional development. In reviewing a large amount of literature, they found that “Experiential involvement in active, in-context, outdoor environmental education is exciting and emotionally engaging for children and consequently leads to deeper and more effective learning”.  

Despite these scholars increasingly realizing the value in this model, teachers are still shackled by standardized curriculum and tests. While there are rays of hope in the recent rise of test optional policies for universities, this red tape will take some time to cut through.

What can be done outside of the formal education curriculum?

The other way that environmental education functions is through more independent programs. The true nature of these outdoor learning experiences is to get to know the environment around you. This frustrates the writers of standardized curriculums, but gives you the gift of getting to know your surroundings on a deeper level. Orienting these programs towards local community growth and change is not only incredibly fulfilling, but one of the most powerful forms of activism available.

Wherever you’re reading from, take a second to search and see if there are any outdoor classrooms or volunteer opportunities for you or (if applicable) your children. You may be surprised. I am a student at Wellesley College, and within a short drive (or even walking distance!) there are many opportunities. The Natick Community Organic Farm, the Lilja School Multiage Classroom, and City Sprouts in Cambridge are some great examples.

I’m interested in more of these resources!

Great! See below for some useful links. One thing that the COVID-19 pandemic has done is make a lot more things accessible through an online platform. This may seem counterintuitive to the mission of hands on education, but there are ways that weave in activities – scaffolding back and forth between the computer and the outdoors. 

I myself worked on a project in the summer of 2020 that transferred a summer watershed workshop [for what organization] to a series of engaging videos, diagrams, and at home activities. While it can be a little challenging, creativity and taking time to explore these things yourself can be incredibly valuable.

Environmental Education at Home

https://www.neefusa.org/education/environmental-education-home

Lesson Guides for Teachers

https://www.plt.org/curriculum/environmental-education-activity-guide/

https://www.epa.gov/students/lesson-plans-teacher-guides-and-online-environmental-resources-educators

https://www.edutopia.org/article/outdoor-and-environmental-education-resources

Interested in Learning More?

Check out the North American Association For Environmental Education – a robust resource for many things environmental education!

There’s a new opportunity to solve climate change, and it’s in our wallets. Americans from across the country are working together to save the planet while saving money using green bonds. This ”local finance revolution” channels investment in clean energy, job creation, and community enhancement in a holistic effort to address climate change. Exciting new investment strategies green our wallets for a greener world.

So what is a bond? And what makes one green?

Bonds offer individuals the opportunity to engage in collective efforts to support urgent projects or programs. Individual investors lend small amounts of money to the government (at local, state, and federal levels) by purchasing bonds, which the government uses to finance priority projects. 

Bonds were used to finance World War II as well as infrastructure projects during the 2009 financial crisis. Bearing flashy, patriotic names such as Victory Bonds or Build America Bonds, grassroots financing has demonstrated the ability to generate billions (or trillions in 2021 dollars, in the case of World War II bonds) of dollars in capital. 

This is important, because right now we need an unprecedented level of investment to scale up clean energy and fight climate change. 

Individuals can purchase green bonds, the proceeds of which are used to stimulate investment in green innovation and resilience projects. Green bonds are designed to fill gaps in private sector investment, allowing the government to step in and direct funding to the projects that need it most. Green bonds are the fruit of public-private sector partnerships, and are issued by green banks created by the government to amplify the impact of public funds by attracting private investment. 

What is a green bank and how does one work?

It’s not your typical bank with an ATM, custom pens, and lollipops. ​​Established by legislation, green banks are non-profit financial institutions that issue bonds to individual investors. Returns from green bonds are not as high as other, riskier, investments, but the bonds offer modest monetary returns with even greater social returns. 

Green banks put investors’ money to good use. Since 2011, 21 green banks have popped up across the US, generating $7 billion for clean energy projects with the support of ordinary Americans.

Connecticut is home to the US’ first green bank. Since its creation in 2011, the Connecticut Green Bank has invested nearly $300 million of public revenues to generate $1.65 billion in private investment, attracting $6.60 of private investment for every $1 invested by the Green Bank. This means that every $1 of public funding goes 6.6 times farther—opening up more funding for critical efforts. The Bank issues bonds through its website once a year, and the bonds generally sell out within a few days. Individuals purchase bonds, bond proceeds finance green projects, and investors receive returns of 2.42% in 2021.

Enough with the technical details! What do these green bonds actually do?

Proceeds from green bonds go directly to fund projects that are key to fighting climate change. These impacts look like affordable and accessible renewable energy, electric vehicle charging stations, and efficiency retrofits in buildings. Green banks work directly with local communities to ensure that funding goes to priority projects, channeling investment directly from investors to their own communities. 

The Connecticut Green Bank is a good example of what green banks can achieve. Here are some highlights:

• 46,000 low- and moderate-income homeowners have solar panels on their roofs.
• 8.9 million tons of CO2 emissions were avoided due to investment in clean energy—the equivalent of planting 134 million 10-year-old tree saplings.

I’m a college student…can I afford a green bond?

Green bonds are intended to be accessible to ordinary people, yet they are still out of reach of many at around $1000 each. Still, they represent a grassroots financing effort that is accessible not just to pension fund managers, but to a broader audience of Americans. Going forward, bonds should be made available in even smaller amounts to engage even more individuals in climate action.

How can I make my money fight climate change?

Green bonds offer us the opportunity to solve the global problem by putting our money to work, providing a decent and reliable return on investment along with a plethora of direct community benefits. 

Together, our spending decisions have the collective power to drive the clean energy revolution, boost climate resilience, and support our communities. Green wallets are one of the most promising keys to a greener future.

Although coffee is a staple of many people’s daily routine, it is also at the heart of one of the world’s most unstable commodity markets.

The structure of the coffee market is rooted in a history of the Global North exploiting natural and labor resources in the Global South. Colonial powers like Great Britain, the Dutch Empire, and France relied on artificially low expense of forced labor to mass produce coffee and reap large profits. 

Today, this dynamic of inequality between the Global North and South continues. 

While many coffee farmers struggle to make a living because of low prices, large roasters earn profits of more than 15%. In the world of coffee, it is the farmers who make the least money. Most profits go to roasters and distributors. While the overall retail revenue is a staggering $200 billion, less than 10% of that money goes to growers.

 The coffee price problem manifests into greater issues like food insecurity, migration, climate resilience, and environmental protection. Many if not most coffee producing countries face humanitarian crises when the coffee commodity price falls below $1.00 USD per pound.The unit price for coffee plunged from $2.20 USD/lb in 2015 to around $0.86 in 2019. Literature review conducted by the Specialty Coffee Association (SCA) found that the profitability threshold is at approximately $1.14/lb. In Guatemala, for example, low coffee prices have prompted increased migration to U.S borders in 2019. 

In recent years, coffee consumers are increasingly aware of the Fairtrade label. Fairtrade’s goal is to improve the livelihood of workers and commodities for which Fairtrade covers includes cocoa and coffee. 

Here’s a quick guide to navigating the price dynamic of coffee.

 Why is there a coffee price crisis?

The problem is not demand:  it is relatively stable. Instead, the volatility is rooted in supply.  

The volatility of the coffee market is in part driven by unpredictable weather challenges like drought, floods, and pests. Recently, bursts in production in Brazil and Vietnam have generated surplus, causing the price to drop as demand remains largely unchanged. The increased production comes from investment in machinery, which greatly reduces labor costs for producers. Central America countries cannot undergo the same farm management changes because farms are on hillsides, which makes machinery difficult to use, or because small independent farmers cannot afford machinery. 

The fluctuation in supply is difficult to stabilize because it takes a long time from planning to growing to harvesting coffee, meaning that producers cannot shift their supply fast enough to account for demand. 

Consolidation in the industry is also affecting suppliers.  Large roasters/retailers are consolidating into larger entities by buying competitors out, thereby gaining increased leverage in negotiating lower prices. 

How does Fairtrade coffee mitigate the price crisis?

 In simplest terms, Fairtrade grants producers a minimum price. This, Fairtrade claims, protects coffee producers from price crashes. When the market price falls below the Fairtrade Minimum Price, as it had in recent years, producers with Fairtrade coffees can demand the minimum price, which may help cover their production costs. Yet, even the Fairtrade premium, $0.20/lb, is not always sufficient for farmers to make a living.  

But the farmers do not necessarily receive the premium directly. Instead, that premium goes to a shared fund among the farming community to support education, health care, and climate change adaptation projects. In this sense, Fairtrade improves growers’ livelihood and working conditions. 

 So why is there still a price crisis?

 At roughly 6% of overall coffee trade, Fairtrade coffee makes up just a small portion of the global coffee trade. Moreover, Fairtrade USA certified 176 million pounds of coffee in 2018 but only 35% of that coffee was sold at the Fairtrade price because the demand just isn’t that high. In practice, certification does not guarantee trade on fair trade terms. So, despite the traction Fair Trade gained over recent years, it still only holds a sliver of the market. 

 If Fairtrade doesn’t work, what are the alternatives?

 Fairtrade often comes to mind as a good way to support growers or as the solution to the coffee price crisis, but it may at most be a short-term safety net for a relatively small portion of producers. 

Several paths exist in addition to the Fairtrade model.

 The coffee industry, from farmers to roasters, have partnered up to reach goals meant to enhance environmental and human health.  This includes commitment to sustainable growing and sourcing methods. For example, small farmers currently bear most climate-based production risks (e.g. drought), which translates into increased production costs when these risks become realities. Engaging buyers with producers can allow development of better risk management strategies and insulate producers from cost instability. Notably, there are yet very concrete and effective solutions. Hence, the continued volatility of the coffee market. 

Changing how coffee is purchased could help too. For instance, more independent roasters are now reaching out directly to independent cooperatives, which is the working unit of coffee farmers in producing countries. Such initiative ensures that bean qualities meet market needs while reducing the chance of exporters and importers taking most of the profit. When small roasters do so, they likely highlight the uniqueness of beans coming from the cooperative they collaborate with. This enhances coffee drinkers’ knowledge and awareness of high-quality coffee as well as increase attachment to producing regions or countries. 

On a positive note, coffee commodity price for 2021 is trending upwards again. But price fluctuation of such scale remains unhealthy and especially problematic given that the victims are largely small independent farmers in developing countries with little to nonexistent social safety nets. 

Image source: Unsplash

Neither existing nor proposed climate policy is enough to tackle climate change.

The Green New Deal is an ambitious climate policy proposal, yet it forgets about the oceans. To succeed, it must therefore be paired with a Blue New Deal, which centers ocean-based climate concerns and solutions.  This combination would give humanity a better chance at addressing the climate crisis.

But, right now, the Green and Blue New Deals are only a vision.

The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act (OBCSA) is a reality! Sort of.

What is the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act?

The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act capitalizes on how the oceans can help fight climate change.

House Natural Resources Committee Chair Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) first introduced the bill to Congress in October 2020. The bill did not make it out of committee in the 116th Congress. 

On June 8, 2021—World Oceans Day—Rep. Grijalva reintroduced the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act to the 117th Congress. This past summer, the Natural Resources Committee held a hearing and now the 2021 OBCSA is slowly advancing through Congress.

What is included in the current bill?

A lot—and that’s a good thing! The bill is as comprehensive as any ocean-centric climate plan has ever been.

From focusing on providing offshore wind energy while limiting oil and gas developments to improving overall ocean health by addressing ocean acidification and harmful algal blooms, the bill covers a wide range of ocean-related issues and climate solutions. 

Other highlights of the bill’s 300+ pages include prioritization of climate-ready fisheries by adjusting fishing and aquaculture practices, protecting and utilizing “blue carbon” spaces such as marshlands for carbon sequestration, and promoting technological advances to boost sustainable shipping and trade practices.

Another important provision is a tax on virgin (new) plastics, which aim to reduce production of single-use plastics. Many such plastics end up in the ocean and kill marine life. The tax would also help to fund other programs included in the OBCSA.

Plastics are a large source of pollution in our oceans. (Image source: Unsplash)

Does the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act address environmental justice?

A key emphasis in the 2021 bill is a commitment to including Indigenous voices in crafting climate solutions. The bill also highlights the importance of recognizing tribal autonomy over ancestral lands.

One provision authorizes the Tribal Resilience Program, which would be a subgroup of the White House Council on Native American Affairs.  This program would provide funding for Indigenous communities to carry out traditional practices that promote coastal resiliency and combat climate change.

Additionally, a number of provisions center the need for recognizing and legitimizing traditional Indigenous knowledge. This knowledge can and should serve as a legitimate source of ocean-based climate solutions from ocean conservation to coastal management efforts.

Does the bill have any support?

It does—in fact, over 130 organizations and 19 aquariums have signed on to show their support for the OBSCA. The House Committee hearing last June featured a wide range of supporting voices including those of elected officials, independent scientists, and policy advisors.

Nevertheless, getting the OBCSA to a vote, muchless signed into law, is going to take a lot of work. The political divide over climate change and the need for climate solutions—despite there being no divide over the facts of climate change amongst scientists—means turbulent seas ahead for the bill. 

How can I help make this bill a reality?

If you want to see the OBCSA signed into law, you need to tell your congressperson that’s what you want!

So, take a few minutes to call or email your congressperson. Don’t know who your congressperson is? Use the resources below to find out.

Find Your Congressperson

Find your representative: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Find your senator: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

Here are the basics of the corn-based fuel, ethanol. 

What is ethanol?

Biofuels are transportation fuels made from plants. Ethanol is a type of biofuel made from corn.

Is ethanol always made from corn?

In the United States, a majority of ethanol is made from corn.  But ethanol can also be made from soybeans, sugarcane, wheat, barley, sorghum, switchgrass, or miscanthus. 

Why is most ethanol made of corn?

Corn is high in starch, meaning it contains lots of energy. By distilling this energy during a fermentation process, corn can be turned into fuel. 

Its starchiness is just one reason corn-based ethanol dominates the market. The other reason is political.

Federal policies require refiners to blend ethanol into gasoline. A law passed in 2007 established the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires yearly increases in the amount of ethanol be blended into gasoline. Farmers have responded by growing more corn. Thus, corn has remained an abundant commodity in the United States and continues to be the main source of biofuels

The RFS aims to reach 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, but these targets are rarely met. Only 12.6 billion gallons of ethanol were consumed in 2020, around 10% of the total gasoline consumed in the U.S.

Where can I purchase fuel with ethanol? 

Likely the nearest gas station! Whether you know it or not, your car likely has some ethanol in the tank right now. On its own, ethanol is not strong enough to power most cars, so it’s typically blended with gasoline — to make E10, E15, or other types of gas.

Ok….But what do E10, E15, or E85 mean?

E10 and E15 stand for the percentage of ethanol blended into gas. E10 means the mixture is 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline; E15 is 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline. Most cars on the road today use E10 or E15. 

There are also blends like E85, which is 51%-83% ethanol. A flex-fuel vehicle is designed to burn these ethanol-rich fuels. By checking the color of your gas cap, you can quickly determine if you have a flex-fuel vehicle. A yellow cap means you can put E85 in your car. E85 is typically the cheapest fuel at the gas station. But it’s important to know that your car likely won’t get as many miles per gallon with higher blends of ethanol. 

Fuel blend options at a gas station. Image Courtesy:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Blender_fuels_close-up_view.JPG/640px-Blender_fuels_close-up_view.JPG

Check out these resources to learn more about how to identify a flex-fuel vehicle: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/flextech.shtml 

I’ve heard that ethanol is just as bad for the environment as gasoline, is that true?

Yes and no… There is actually quite a bit of controversy about how sustainable ethanol is.

Basically, there are two sides: biofuel advocates (farmers, ethanol plants, agriculture-focused trade associations) and biofuel opponents (environmentalists, renewable energy experts, and oil refiners). 

Biofuel advocates argue that ethanol is a renewable energy source that reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and lowers carbon emissions. They often claim that ethanol is a home-grown (which it is!), clean energy solution. A 2021 study found that ethanol is half as carbon-intensive as gasoline. A 50% reduction is certainly an improvement, but it doesn’t mean biofuels are carbon neutral. 

Biofuel opponents have argued for years that ethanol is not a viable fuel. Ethanol is not carbon neutral and turning corn into fuel requires energy (the distilling process mentioned above), which produces a lot of CO2. A recent report calculated that the amount of corn planted today does not offset these emissions. 

We also know that ethanol puts other natural resources at risk. Corn requires significant amounts of nitrogen fertilizer to grow. Lots of fertilizer means lots of potential pollution, especially for lakes, rivers, and oceans. 

So… it seems like ethanol might not make sense environmentally. Why do we keep it around?

The short answer: politics keep ethanol in our gasoline.

What’s arguably most important to understand is that ethanol holds a lot of social and economic promise for rural communities in the Corn Belt. Ethanol sales support rural communities, farmers, and sustain local economies. Many politicians continue to be staunch supporters of ethanol since any proposed changes in ethanol regulations are seen as threats to Midwestern farmers. 

 ***

The above only introduces the complexity that accompanies ethanol in the United States. While the science might clearly say “hey, this isn’t a fuel we should be depending on anymore,” that is only one layer of the debate. The social and economical angles of ethanol – only touched on in this piece – mean there are significant consequences for farmers and their communities if we were to take the fuel off the market today. 

You read that right. A cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) is now a national currency in El Salvador. Not only that, this currency revolution is powered by volcanoes. This is your guide to what that even means.

Chingo Volcano in El Salvador, Photo by Giuseppina Kysar, Smithsonian Institution (Giuseppina Kysar, Wikimedia).

What is Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, a digital peer-to-peer currency, that cuts out third parties like banks or the government. This is ironic now that it’s being used as a national currency. Bitcoins are basically computer files that sit in a digital wallet app you can download for your smartphone. It’s secure and untraceable and its value historically has been pretty volatile

Sounds sketchy, right? Maybe, but people have bought into it. Since its founding in 2008, Bitcoin’s value and quantity have skyrocketed. One Bitcoin is currently worth $60,960.86 and daily Bitcoin transactions exceed $28 billion. That’s a lot of money invested in something that is not physically tangible. You can get Bitcoin by buying it with other currencies, taking Bitcoin as payment, or creating it by Bitcoin mining. 

How does Bitcoin mining work?

Bear with me on this one. Bitcoin mining is based on computers solving complex computational problems. Under its current system, Bitcoin transactions have to be “validated” to protect from fraud. Unlike a physical dollar bill, which cannot be duplicated, it’s much more complicated to ensure that there are no duplicate transactions when your currency is virtual. The mining process produces new Bitcoin and verifies transactions of the Bitcoin already in circulation.

Although this ensures the integrity of Bitcoin, it also ends up being a big environmental problem. Bitcoin mining requires a lot of electricity. It consumes more electricity annually than the entire nation of Finland and produces 22-22.9 million metric tons of CO2 annually. It also produces a lot of e-waste (22,000 large dump trucks worth per year, a number currently on the rise). Between energy use and e-waste, Bitcoin is a drain on the environment.

President Nayib Bukele and his wife, Gabriela Rodríguez in 2016 (Presidencia El Salvador, Wikimedia).

So, what’s happening in El Salvador?

Starting in September, El Salvador became the first country to adopt Bitcoin as a legal currency (in addition to the US Dollar, its other official currency). El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, tweeted that “El Salvador has the right to advance towards the first world.” 

The government produced its own digital wallet app called Chivo, Salvadorean slang for “cool.” It encouraged Salvadorans to use the app by offering $30 worth of Bitcoin for signing up. El Salvador bought 650 Bitcoins (worth approximately $32.9 million at the time). The app allows Salvadorans to exchange dollars for Bitcoin, use Bitcoin as a form of payment, and transfer money using Bitcoin. With half a million more users than expected, officials scrambled to keep up with demand.  Chivo was temporarily disconnected because of the influx of people using it. But, later that same day it was already being used by local McDonald’s as a form of payment. 

Why would El Salvador adopt Bitcoin?

President Bukele hopes that Bitcoin will help alleviate El Salvador’s economic problems. Fees associated with remittances, when Salvadorans abroad transfer money back home, are a major concern. According to Bukele, Bitcoin will help Salvadorans avoid hefty cash transfer fees. For context, the monthly minimum wage in El Salvador is $365 and the average monthly remittance transfer is $195. These remittances make up one-fifth of El Salvador’s economic activity. With Bitcoin, the transfers from abroad can happen in minutes and occur fee-free, saving Salvadorans $400 million per year. It will also support the 70% of Salvadorans that do not have bank accounts but might use the app instead.

Is this a good thing?

The consequences of El Salvador’s move are unclear. Certainly, the additional financing options, especially fee-free remittances, should help the country’s struggling economy by avoiding hefty fees (which usually go to foreign companies). That being said, there’s also the volatile Bitcoin market to look out for. 

Protests followed the move. Demonstrators claimed that there are risks of inflation in El Salvador and Bitcoin’s instability. However, his latest approval rating was 85.7% and it’s been consistently high across a variety of independent polls, so these fears aren’t widespread or at least are not enough to turn people against him.

So, the volcanoes?

El Salvador is using volcanoes to power Bitcoin mining. 

Read that again. 

President Bukele tweeted out this video showing the geothermal energy production, powering the country’s Bitcoin mining. Geothermal energy already makes up nearly a fourth of domestic energy production in El Salvador. Bukele encouraged the state-owned geothermal company to offer facilities to mine Bitcoin with “100% clean, 100% renewable, 0 emissions energy from [El Salvador’s] volcanoes.” 

It appears that he’s followed through on that promise. 

Mining Bitcoin with geothermal energy isn’t new. In countries like Iceland and Norway, Bitcoin miners take advantage of cheap geothermal (and hydroelectric) energy in order to power their computers. This is exciting in El Salvador, dubbed the land of volcanoes, as they can further take advantage of their natural resources in a sustainable way.

What’s next?

Salvadorans will continue to use Bitcoin as currency and volcanoes will continue to power Bitcoin mining as the country tries to increase its Bitcoin portfolio. Bukele has yet to say what direction El Salvador will take next. But, with all of the funding put into this system, it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

This opens up bigger questions:  Why didn’t Iceland make Bitcoin legal tender? Will other countries follow suit or will they follow China’s latest decision to ban cryptocurrency transactions and mining in favor of its own new coin? Is volcano (or a different renewable energy) powered Bitcoin the future of national currency globally? Regardless, this is a major step for both the cryptocurrency market and El Salvador, as both try to establish themselves further in the global market.

Four Things to Know About the November 2nd Ballot on the CMP Corridor

The CMP Corridor is a proposed 145-mile transmission line that would connect hydroelectric dams in Canada with customers in Massachusetts. The $1 billion project will supply enough electricity to power over a million homes and Maine has approved the current plan for 20 years. 

But the power line will cross a small patch of Maine public land. That is the primary reason the Corridor is on November’s ballot.

Will the Project Benefit Mainers? 

The primary point of contention is over whether the project will really benefit Mainers or if Hydro-Quebec (CMP’s parent company) is exploiting Maine’s resources to get their electricity to Massachusetts customers who are willing to pay more for clean energy. 

Proponents of the project claim that the Corridor would provide good jobs for Mainers and boost the state’s economy. Those against it point out that those jobs would end as soon as construction is complete but the damage to large swaths of Maine’s northern woods would remain

Depending on the news source, the destruction in the Northern woods could be devastating to local species and the logging industry or minimal as the corridor goes through areas where trees are already cut regularly. But clear cutting a several-hundred-foot-wide strip, along with the roads made to get equipment there, is much more extreme than logging and forest management. 

The project will yield some benefits for Maine’s electrical grid. The project did not originally include plans to provide Maine with electricity but the governor struck a deal last year that will save each Maine family an average of $116 annually on utilities supplied by CMP. If some cheaper electricity and temporary jobs is enough to offset the losses caused by the clearcutting, the project may make economic sense for Maine. 

Why has it taken so long to come to a vote?

The effort to get the CMP issue on the ballot has been fraught with lawsuits and legislative battles which were further complicated by the change in administration. 

A question on whether or not to stop construction of the powerline was slated to be on last November’s ballot. Three months before the 2020 vote, Maine’s Supreme Court ruled the referendum unconstitutional because it would violate the separation of powers. Because the powerline had already been approved by the governor, a decision by voters to reject it would result in the legislative branch (voters) overturning the decision of the executive branch (the governor). 

A change in governors also complicated getting the question on the ballot. Gov. Mill’s predecessor, Gov. LePage, was very supportive of the CMP Corridor and readily leased the company a key one-mile stretch of public land for the project. Gov. Mills continued the lease but raised the annual fee from $4,000 to $65,000 annually–still a pittance when compared to the total price tag of the project. 

Maine’s constitution gives the Legislature sole power to grant leases that would significantly alter land use. This is at the core of November’s ballot question and, if approved, the referendum would support a Maine Supreme Court decision made last year to require a two-thirds legislative vote for leasing public land. 

How will the issue appear on this November’s ballot?

After a two year delay, the question will finally be on next month’s ballot. 

The question will read: “Do you want to ban the construction of high-impact electric transmission lines in the Upper Kennebec Region and to require the Legislature to approve all other such projects anywhere in Maine, both retroactively to 2020, and to require the Legislature, retroactively to 2014, to approve by a two-thirds vote such projects using public land?”

While the phrasing is confusing, the question can basically be broken down into two parts: Should the Corridor should be stopped and should future projects and public land leasing require enthusiastic approval from the Legislature.

The retroactive portion was added because the public land CMP is using was leased in 2014 for 20 years. A “yes” vote would ditch the lease and only allow it to be reinstated with Legislative approval. 

I’ve seen photos of the powerlines. Has the project already begun?

Yes, it has. This is problematic because even if Mainers vote to stop the corridor, CMP can petition courts to allow it to continue work where it has “invested money in good faith.” Both the current and previous Maine administrations entered negotiation with CMP without consulting the Legislature. Unfortunately, the agreements the state drew up with CMP give the company good ground from which to petition the courts post-referendum. 

While CMP would likely take the issue to court again, with the support of the state’s residents, judges are more likely to be swayed to reject attempts to go around the new laws. 

The decision now lies in the hands of voters. Educate yourselves and make a voting plan! 

Voter Resources:

Registering to vote? https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/voter-info/voterguide.html?ref=voteusa

Requesting an absentee ballot: https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/voter-info/absent.html