Reprinted from its publication in Climate & Capital Media.

“Current agriculture policy is destroying America’s health on every level.”

That’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaking in a campaign video for Donald Trump outside the USDA shortly before the 2024 presidential election.

Trump had just anounced that he would choose Kennedy to run the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the Food and Drug administration (FDA). This appointment would give Kennedy huge influence over agriculture.

Now, as Trump returns to the White House, having won overwhelming support from Midwestern farmers, he and Kennedy have both outlined policies that could profoundly impact US agriculture – but in very different ways.

Trump’s immigration and tariff plans threaten US farmers

Trump promises heavy tariffs and mass deportation of immigrants. Kennedy says he hopes to “Make America Healthy Again” by reforming modern agricultural practices, such as reducing the use of pesticides and corn syrup.

Trump’s deportation plan ignores how deeply US agriculture relies on migrant labor. Some 70% of agricultural workers are immigrants, 41% of whom are undocumented. In an industry already struggling with labor shortages, mass deportation of undocumented workers would worsen the problem.

With fewer people available to harvest crops, it becomes more difficult to harvest everything that is planted, leading to decreasing crop yields. Higher labor and food costs would likely boost inflation. Despite campaigning on a promise of lower grocery prices, Trump has offered no plan to supplement this lost labor force.

Trump hurt farmers in his first term

Trump’s proposed tariffs, meanwhile, would undercut demand for US agricultural products abroad – just as they did last time he was president.

Soon after the 2016 election, Trump initiated a trade war with China by imposing tariffs primarily on technological goods, steel, and aluminum. China responded with tariffs on American soybeans, among other goods.

US soybean exports to China plummeted, as a result, by nearly 75% from $12.3 billion in 2017 to $3.1 billion in 2018. China did not wait for tariffs to be lifted: when US products became more expensive, China turned to Brazil for cheaper soybeans. American soybean farmers faced declining incomes, rising production costs, debts, and business failures. Now, all that could happen again.

Meanwhile, Kennedy announced that he intends to cut pesticide use and make agriculture more sustainable, though he has outlined few specifics. Kennedy asserts that Americans shouldn’t “pollute our bodies the same way we pollute the soil” in that campaign video.

Kennedy targets RoundUp, but offers them no plan to stop using it

Specifically, Kennedy cites glyphosates, the active ingredient in RoundUp, the most common pesticide used by US farmers who don’t use organic or regenerative practices. Monsanto designed Roundup to kill vegetation other than specific crops, which have been genetically modified to withstand pesticides (Aptly, it calls them “RoundupReady” crops).

In recent years, glyphosates have been linked to lasting nervous system damage and increased occurrences of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, resulting in numerous lawsuits. Despite the risk, industrial farmers argue that glyphosates are simple, cheap, and effective and that, without them, costs of pesticides would rise and yields would decline as crops are choked out by weeds.

Kennedy envisions farmers being environmental stewards, prioritizing the health of soil and water to maintain the health of foods, people, and the larger ecosystem. However, he has not yet laid out a plan to protect farmers if they make the transition from industrial to regenerative agriculture, which requires resources and time. Such a transition can take at least three years, and maybe more, as it takes time to restore organic nutrients to depleted soil.

Labor shortages and high tariffs would cut farmer revenue – and hike prices

As Trump’s immigration and tariff policies deny farmers an ample workforce and threaten profits, he and Kennedy have offered farmers no support, infrastructure, or incentives to adjust to Kennedy’s restructuring of farm management strategies and sustainable farming methods and reduced pesticide use.

Adopting Kennedy’s approach will take time and money, which will be in short supply if farmers are facing labor shortages and high tariffs that cut into their productivity and profits.

Combined, Trump and Kennedy are unwittingly crafting a policy nightmare for US farmers. It’s unclear whether farmers will be able to adapt, much less benefit. The health of the US agriculture industry is at risk.

Trump and Kennedy don’t seem to understand or, at this point, even care about how their policies will impact farmers. Some of the very people who voted so reliably for Trump could, as a result, lose everything, just as they did during Trump’s first term. The collapse of the US agriculture industry would be damaging not just for farmers, but for all Americans.

Greece boasts fine beaches with the sun sparkling off the ocean that stretches out further than the eye can see. A typical beach-goer would imagine swimming or surfing on the waters, but residents would say otherwise. For them, it’s water to be consumed. 

Right before this summer’s peak tourist arrivals, multiple Greek islands experienced a water crisis. A deadly combination of record high temperatures and minimal rainfall led to a drought that left taps dry in some areas. 

The solution? Draw water from the ocean. Authorities used desalination units to turn seawater into fresh water supply for houses and hotels. Considering the ocean’s size, it may seem like desalination units are enough to meet water needs. That is not the case. 

The tourism industry consumes a lot of water: swimming pools, gardens, and long vacation showers add up. In 2023, Greece saw almost 333 million international arrivals—that is three times more than residents. That means tourism is a major driver of water usage in many Greek isles.

Desalination units are a good temporary solution, but they are not enough to support those numbers. Residents, especially farmers, do not even have enough water supply to support their livelihoods. Why is this the case? Desalination units have two major flaws: high energy costs and limited infrastructure. 

Desalination units run on electricity. Naxos island alone has four desalination plants that produce 3,600 cubic meters of drinking water (a little over one full Olympic sized pool) per day. According to Sychem, the manufacturer of the systems, an advanced desalination system requires 2.4 kilowatts (KW) per cubic meter of water. Altogether, they would require 8,640KW of energy a day. That is equal to 43 times the average electricity used by a Greek in a year. 

In addition to high energy use, the desalination units have limited accessibility. The current infrastructure of the units can only distribute water to their immediate surrounding areas. Even on the smaller islands, areas more inland are unable to receive the desalinated water supply. This is particularly devastating for islands like Naxos that have a significant agricultural history and culture. 

Naxos is famous for their potatoes—a Naxos potato festival is held annually in the summer. However, repeated water crises have led to significant decreases in potato production. Potato farms are located inland, putting them out of reach of desalination units. This makes them especially vulnerable to water shortages. According to the Union of Agricultural Cooperatives of Naxos, average potato production has dropped by seventy percent. And the same will happen next year, unless water supply increases.

It is not enough to have water supply meet current demands. Total global tourist arrivals for 2024 are still 4% lower than pre-pandemic levels, but the UN Tourism Agency expects that the numbers will grow. In other words, Greece will be seeing even more tourists. 

Desalination units already prove to be unreliable. Authorities had four desalination units prepared on Sifnos island during the summer water crisis to support high tourist arrivals. When one unit broke down, taps immediately ran dry. Even after the unit was repaired, water cuts still persisted as tourist numbers increased. 

Desalination units are a good temporary solution to address water shortages, but not reliable long term. As long as Greece continues to accept large tourist crowds, water demand will only increase. In addition to increasing water supply, the Greek government needs to implement strict policies to limit water use for all. Otherwise, there will be no more fresh water in Greece.

Water, known as wai in the Hawaiian language, Ōlelo Hawaiʻi is life. Waiwai, however, means wealth. Hawaii’s water resources have been exploited by foreign business, starting with  plantations in the 1830s. Although the last large standing plantation shut down in 2016, plantations’ historic claims on water rights have shapeshifted into new commercial real estate and development ventures.

A&B Central Maui exemplifies this trend in the 21st century, as it is one plantation that turned into a real estate development business and has been taking advantage of their water rights at the cost of Native Hawaiians. Even though Hawaii officially considers water a public trust resource currently, plantation water rights from before Hawaii became a state have had a dominant claim on access to West and East Maui’s water supply for over a century. A&B Central Maui is the largest marker of this, as their last approved longstanding permit ending in 1970’s, but they have been extending it for years by changing the company’s name each time they propose a new short term contract, before officially putting the 30 year permit proposal up for debate roughly a year after the Lahaina, Maui wildfires. The 30 year permit to the Board of Land and Natural Resources in collaboration with another large company EMI in September, 2024. 

 This debate over A&B’s water rights is even more sensitive after wildfires destroyed Lahaina, a tourist town in West Maui in 2023. A&B’s ownerships and proposal for another long term permit of water usage had made water rights even more controversial. Despite the devastating wildfires, real estate developers are still trying to use the wildfires to grab more of the water and rights in Lahaina. For example, one day after the Maui wildfires started, A&B Central Maui, attempted to overturn a previous ruling that temporarily reduced their water usage by 9 million gallons. This is referred to as disaster capitalism. Lauren Palakiko, a Native Hawaiian located in Lahaina with her family, explained: “[Developers], if you tap the community dry of all of its resources…eventually, you’re going to exceed the maximum yield of the natural resources.” 

Large corporations’ stranglehold on Hawaii’s  water resources has left  Native Hawaiians fighting for rights to their own water. This also hurts Native Hawaiians ability to practice some of their cultural activities, as Native Hawaiians do not believe people have the right to own water. Water is also essential to  their cultural practices. The industries have also taken control over and overused the water resources that Native Hawaiians relied on and had always kept safe before they were colonized. The heavily developed tourism industry and real estate developments have led to Hawaii having the most expensive housing prices in the United States. Water is diverted to luxury subdivisions (homes/real estate) leaving many Native Hawaiians cut off from water for their basic needs, such as drinking, bathing, and laundry.

While A&B Central Maui took advantage of a tragedy and sought to use this devastation for their own personal gain, the individuals who suffered the most were the Native Hawaiians. This can be seen in the aftermath of the disaster of the Maui wildfire in August 2023 caused by downed power lines that sparked and ignited. The damage is as clear as day. Charred trees, 2,200 homes only recognizable by the skeleton and foundation of the homes, the 102 confirmed deaths of family members lost to thick smoke and a fiery blaze. 

With almost every part of Hawaii that Native Hawaiians hold dear to their culture, identity, and way of life being overused, abused, and spoiled, Native Hawaiians need more protections for their indigenous lands. Reform in water usage rights in Hawaii is needed to protect Native Hawaiians basic human rights to water. 

Hawaii needs to eliminate the loophole in the public trust that allows businesses to control and sell the use of their water diversion systems that control and redirect the flow of water to different locations. Citizens should petition the local, state, or federal government and advocate for change like the Maui Sierra Club and the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action (HAPA) have done to bring attention to the situation on a local scale. Hawaii also needs to have stronger, more enforceable limits of daily usage for businesses to allow Native Hawaiian substantial access to water such as the county of Maui’s Water Conservation bill that would limit irrigation to three days a week for all people and businesses that use the county’s water. 

Additionally, private businesses should not be able to control the distribution of water for communities which would mean that water diversion systems such as A&B’s should not be only subject to the whim of the company, if it is pulling resources away from the people.  Taking action, and advocacy is an effective tool for change. For example, With much pushback from Native Hawaiians and the Maui Sierra Club, A&B Central Maui’s request for a 30 year permit was rejected November 8th, 2024. This is one positive step for Hawaii’s future.

The old saying goes that “the cod were so plentiful that you could walk across the water on their backs”. Nowadays cod populations in New England are nearly gone. Not only is this bad for people who want to eat fish… or walk across their backs, but it’s driving ecosystem loss and climate change.

It’s clear that when mass amounts of fish are removed from the ocean, certain ecosystems are lost. But how does overfishing contribute to climate change? Large boats burn massive amounts of diesel, releasing carbon dioxide; while on land trucks and planes burn fuel to deliver seafood to restaurants and grocery stores. Additionally, trawling (dragging a net along the seafloor) disturbs ocean sediments where carbon is stored. Yearly, trawling releases almost the same amount of carbon as the global aviation industry. Removing fish from the open ocean, particularly large fish, prevents the carbon in those fish from eventually sinking to the ocean floor and becoming sequestered. Instead the fish-based carbon is actually added to the atmosphere as people eat them, convert them to energy in our bodies, and then exhale CO2. 

These are the hidden costs of fishing.  Yet, fish are often considered the “sustainable” option, especially compared to meat like beef which is notorious for contributing approximately 7% of annual carbon emissions. So in addition to eating less fish (and meat overall) more regulations must be put into place and enforced that set clear and ecologically informed limits to fish catches.  

Nowadays, a major method in regulating fisheries is setting limits based on the MSY or Maximum Sustainable Yield. This number estimates the allowable harvest, based on historical catch data that includes the amount and size of the fish being caught. 

MSY is based on what we think are healthy stocks; but people have been fishing the oceans for centuries before catch data and regulations were a thing. That means the starting point for many MSY calculations are wrong: the baseline is not a healthy population, it is a population that has already been fished for centuries. This is called “Shifting Baseline Syndrome”. For example, historical records from the early 1800s show that Dogger Bank, in the North Sea, was a much more productive cod fishery than it is now.  Yet, modern regulations don’t reflect that because MSY calculations are based on data collected after the cod were already overfished. Regulations should prioritize the restoration of fish populations to historic levels which will help restore degraded ecosystems and keep more carbon in the ocean.

Currently, overfishing is evident in almost every major fishery. Each year fish are smaller and less numerous; boats have to go further and fish longer to catch the same amount, requiring more energy and harming fisheries. On Georges Bank off of Cape Cod fisherpeople are catching less than 1/3 the pounds of cod in each net than they were catching just 2 years ago. Cod stocks have crashed many times across fisheries in the northern hemisphere. For example, in 1993 the Northern Cod fishery off the coast of Canada was completely shut down because populations were unthinkably low. 

So, why is this current decline so concerning? Well, unlike in the 1990s when cold water temperatures combined with overfishing were to blame; climate change is now the culprit.  

As ocean temperatures increase, female fish have less babies and those young fish have less of a chance of survival. So now more than ever it’s urgent to decrease catch limits to below MSY to give cod, and all fish a fighting chance to rebound. 

It’s hard to imagine how many fish swam through the ocean before the advent of modern fishing technology just 300 years ago. Enforcing catch limits that prioritize the fish rather than profits might change that.  Not only could that restore the potential of the oceans, in turn it will help in the fight against climate change and create a more resilient planet.

The future of foraging is invasive – species that is. It’s a great way to get into foraging and have a free snack. But it should stay for individuals and not become a regular part of grocery stores. 

Invasive species populations have been an environmental concern for decades. Non-native plants can overtake areas and destroy ecosystems by taking all of the nutrients and water from native plants. Kudzu, Japanese knotweed, garlic mustard, and phragmites are all invasives now found in the United States. 

To combat them, an idea was proposed by Professor Joe Roman: what if we just eat the invasive species? Maryland has been serving up the invasive blue catfish that have been devastating fish and crab populations with their appetites. Recently, a Thai hotel just started doing the same with invasive plants like giant cane and water mimosa.

It seems simple enough. Foraging invasives requires no tact, and it presents an opportunity to interact with the environment while helping it at the same time. But it is not the whole solution. 

Invasives are a great way for foragers who are unsure of how to forage sustainably to still get in touch with nature. Invasive species foraging requires much less finesse than regular sustainable foraging. Kudzu, a plant known for swallowing the South, grows a foot a day once established. It makes a great tea and foragers can take however much they want. They don’t have to worry about overharvesting as it is invasive and resilient. And there are plenty of options, ranging from roots to fruit. 

But foraging our way out of the problem is implausible – there are 2,600 non-native plants in the continental U.S. alone, and most of them grow back viciously. For example- Japanese knotweed is a pervasive problem in much of the American West, smothering out native plants and blocking sunlight. Its roots can cover up to 700 square feet and break through concrete. Leaving as little as an inch behind allows it to regrow. Eating all of the Japanese knotweed in an area while being thorough in removing them is borderline impossible. 

But more importantly, trying to make foraging  a solution to invasive species is antithetical to what foraging is. The scale that would be necessary to actually get rid of all invasive plants would destroy the point of foraging. It would be necessary for corporations to be involved for the scale to be appropriate since there are over 2,000 types. Rather than being about individuals connecting with nature, foraging would become about harvesting as much as possible. 

At its heart, foraging is about connecting with nature and appreciating its bounty. It’s a way to slow down and enjoy the natural world. Some describe it as a religious experience, while for others, it is a fun hobby that gets them outdoors. Trying to eat all of the invasives means stepping away from that and focusing on speed, on quantity over quality. 

And once an invasive species has been harvested on that scale, it would have to be sold in grocery stores. Selling invasive plants on a broad scale would create a market for them. Rather than wanting to see an end to, say, garlic mustard, consumers would want to always have it since they like the way it tastes. Under capitalism, the goal is continuous growth which is in direct conflict with eradication. Corporations would prioritize profit over the planet, as they have done in the past when it comes to pollution and climate change. 

Harvesting invasives on a small scale is a wonderful hobby- but that’s how it should stay. Going large scale would not solve the problem, and might even make it worse. Take as many invasive plants as you want when foraging – but keep invasives out of grocery stores.

In 1969, a young environmentalist named Stephanie Mills stood up at her college graduation to deliver her commencement speech. She told hundreds of her fellow graduates that the most moral thing they could do with their lives was have no children. 

That speech went, as we’d say today, viral. Her story was covered worldwide, sparking already growing conversations on population growth, and the threat  population growth was impacting the state of the environment.

At the time, Mills urged her fellow graduates to think about population growth as a concern for resource degradation and famine in the world. Fast forward to today, and the urge to slow population growth remains, while the motivation for it has changed slightly, in the form of climate change- literally a hot topic. 

As a citizen of the world, especially one of a younger generation, I have been drilled that what I do to fight climate change matters. My personal emissions matter; my carbon footprint matters (on a small scale, I feel guilty when I buy too many stylish clothes online, eat too much red meat, or use too many single-use plastics). I care that brands like Patagonia commit to ethical production practices, and that brands like Canada Goose don’t. And yet, my good intentions don’t begin to approach what Stephanie Mills called for. Her great fear has been realized: humans have still been procreating at an alarming rate for centuries, and— as we’ve seen— it’s caught up to us. 

Granted, most people agree that we have a responsibility to limit our negative contributions to climate change, both on an individual level and a large organizational one. After all, it’s a well-known fact that a growing population is a part of the reason that we’re diminishing the Earth’s resources at a rate as we are. Yet, while much of the world agrees that we make environmentally-positive personal choices— like choosing to buy cars that aren’t emissions monsters or taking hour-long showers — most people don’t want to talk about limiting our choice to procreate and raise children. 

I got a taste of that at MIT this summer. I was speaking at a presentation on procreative ethics, and a man who was there saw my presentation name and took it upon himself to approach me before I had even begun to speak. He walked up to me just to inform me that nothing I could say would change his mind, and proceeded to talk to me about the laws of human nature for the next ten minutes. 

Why is this? Why do we seem to make procreation an exception to our climate duties?

It’s certainly not because the choice to procreate isn’t environmentally significant. In fact, a 2017 study by Lund University found that having one less child in the developed world per family would save about 60 tonnes of CO2 per year (which, the study shows, is about 25 times the amount of CO2 that living with a car produces).

Rather, it seems like the taboo around this topic comes from elsewhere: namely, reproductive freedom. It is hard to put procreation in the same category as something like air travel or eating meat – taking  away someone’s reproductive freedom seems different. It is about  an individual’s right to make choices about their own body.

On reproductive freedom, a.k.a, a person’s right to bodily autonomy, I am in total agreement. I’m not advocating for population regulation (the world has seen what a one child policy can do to a country). I am, however, arguing for a feminist, societal, and cultural shift towards a lens that combats the current norm promoting the toxic pressure to have children. This will  up conversations about environmental, procreative decisions, both on how to raise a child sustainably, and on whether or not a person should have a child at all. 

In tackling these difficult conversations with an open-mind, I hope to listen to the rest of the world better with a focus on intersectionality, and in a way that allows me to better care for the Earth.

Recently I have been looking to and learning from the Queer community, who are much more likely to adopt children. They give  kids a stable  and healthy home and meet the needs for a nuclear family. For those of us who aren’t able to adopt, (because, let’s face it– adoption is an arduous and financially burdensome process) members of the Queer community have advocated for the legislative acceptance of multi-parenting, normalizing families of three to four parents to a child, allowing for more undivided attention to a child’s wellbeing, and relieving the amount of responsibility each parent in a family must take on.

I have also looked to Indigenous communities, who take the phrase, ‘It takes a village.’ literally, fostering a whole community of parents and family— as opposed to just three or four— working together to take care of their children, in a style of parenting that was once a common practice for people globally, and now challenges the norm of a nuclear family in a way that is community based, and outward facing to the world.

These ways of parenting, while unconventional, are changing my perspective on having children, allowing me to help protect the climate without sacrificing the beauty of a parent-child relationship. 

In opening up the conversation around procreation as a form of climate change action, I commit to removing the mental separation ‘the personal’ from ‘the environmental’ in myself. I work to discard the need to have individualized, unshared parent-child, in favor of practices that allow for reduced emissions, or practices that help take care of the children who already exist and need homes. And just like Stephanie Mills did all the way back in 1969, I urge you to follow suit.

Is it too much to say that some things really deserve our attention more than others? Climate change, an unavoidable concern, may be an anxiety inducing subject. But there may be a way you can prevent the worst effects of climate change just with your attention.

Take, for example, a pressing threat of climate change–water access. As climate change increases global temperatures and impacts weather patterns, the 0.5% of water on Earth that is drinkable is already dropping. Meanwhile, as temperatures rise, droughts and heat waves are projected to increase, all while sea-level rise is expected to push salt into freshwater sources. It is already predicted that the demand for water will be greater than the supply available by 40% in the next 7 years. 

Yet, there have been promising developments in water purification. MIT recently improved upon previous desalination technologies to make a device that promises water less expensive than current U.S. tap water. The best part is that it is based on the simple process of evaporation from sunlight, and recaptures the salt-free water. Meanwhile, advances in nanotechnology promise a future where clean water may not be based on chemical additives, and instead, nanofilters can remove harmful contaminants with impressive efficiency. Bacteria might play a role in future water access, as researchers at Robert Gordon’s University have identified toxin-removing cyanobacteria. These technologies should provide a sign of relief to billions across the globe in the coming years.

Despite the promise of these technologies, news coverage remains negligible. But such technology offers protection from the worst of climate change. So why the silence?

Often only a few technologies come to mind when people think of environmental engineering–green cars, better solar panels, and new wind farms–not quite things like desalination devices.

Not only does the potential of environmental innovation seem to be under-appreciated, it also draws little media coverage. News cycles are more inclined to cover the storms, studies, and fires that emphasize future doom and gloom. Those topics don’t often inspire hope. 

That shouldn’t be the case. 

Drawing media coverage to any technology can help the individual success of that progress. When researchers receive attention for their work, it encourages further innovation, supports the individuals working on relevant issues, and promotes further competition and progress in the field. It may even have economy-wide benefits, considering that the design, investment, and production associated with green innovations has demonstrated the ability to boost a country’s GDP anywhere from 1.7% over 5 years to upwards of 6%.

So the question remains: how to draw more attention to innovations in areas that do not always see the limelight–such as water purification technologies–that may just deserve a bit more screen time?

It may just start at your kitchen table this holiday season. Bypass awkward conversations about politics with a note about how impressive it is that MIT’s desalination device may just make water cheaper. Avoid arguments about finances with a compelling fact about how bacteria, often associated with dangerous water conditions, may just be the solution to future clean water. Overall? Celebrate the progress of humanity as you enjoy time with family. It may just save the planet.