The sun rises over Los Angeles, one of the bid cities for the 2024 Olympic Games. Photo: Flickr

The Summer Olympics holds the promise of world-class competition, human achievement, and international prestige – not just for athletes, but for host cities, too. Every four years, the world watches as an Olympic host city spends billions of dollars to prepare for the largest athletic event in the world. Just like the athletes, the host city suffers wins and losses. While host cities can benefit from increased tourism, they are notorious for overspending in their quest for Olympic acclaim, and the economic and social benefits they hope to achieve are often short-lived and unfelt by local residents, as was the case in Rio de Janeiro for the 2016 Games.

But with its 2024 Olympic bid, Los Angeles is reimagining what an Olympic Games could mean for urban development in a modern city. With a strong emphasis on environmental and financial sustainability, a Los Angeles Olympics aims to transform the car-centric, polluted city into a model of sustainability.

Olympic logo for Los Angeles 2024

Los Angeles is tapping into its existing resources to minimize costs and maximize gains. Rather than fully fund a city-wide transformation on its own, the city is heavily utilizing private investors for financial and infrastructural resources. Many of its plans for energy and transportation infrastructural improvements listed in the bid are already underway with funding from the US federal government. As a result, the Los Angeles has been able to keep its proposed budget unprecedentedly low — its $5 billion proposal is a fraction of the $42 billion spent on the 2008 Beijing Games and the $20 billion dollars spent to prepare for Tokyo’s 2020 Games.

A major world city that has hosted the Olympics twice before in 1936 and 1984, Los Angeles already has 98% of the existing arenas and venues – both public and private — that it needs to host the Olympic events. Some sporting arenas will receive permanent renovations and improvements, while others will receive temporary renovations. For example, temporary pools will be installed in USC’s baseball stadium to host the swimming events rather than build a whole new swimming facility that would get little use in the coming years.

In addition to these temporary installations, Los Angeles will also build temporary buildings for certain events, which are a cheaper and less impactful alternative to permanent stadiums. Venues like a beach volleyball stadium on Santa Monica Beach would be constructed in modular materials that can dismantled after the event and reused by the city in the for future. London successfully used temporary structures of steel and concrete in 2012 to supply additional spectator seating and kiosks for food vendors and other spectator services.

Digital rendering of the USC’s Dedeaux Field with a temporary swimming pool installation. Photo: LA Times

Los Angeles is not unique in its focus on sustainability. Since the International Olympic Committee adopted a commitment to environmental sustainability in its Olympic Charter in 1999, Olympic host cities have increasingly featured sustainable goals. In 2008, China took steps to offset the carbon emissions released by construction and promoted energy efficient building construction and renewable energy sources. London took sustainable initiatives further in 2012, promoting the recycling of rainwater and a successful zero-waste campaign.

For 2024, Los Angeles wants to take sustainability to an unprecedented level. Taking its Olympic slogan, “Follow the Sun,” to heart, Los Angeles plans to tap into its iconic sunny weather and expand its solar capacity to host the first energy-positive Games in history.

It’s a huge goal, but it might be possible. Los Angeles currently sources 23% of its energy from renewable sources, and its Department of Water and Power is already working to expand its solar infrastructure so that 50% of its energy comes from renewables by 2030. If it wins the Olympic bid, Los Angeles would expedite its sustainable energy plan to increase energy efficiency and renewable capacity for 2024. Although a large investment, a renewable energy infrastructure would dramatically cut operation costs and the carbon footprint of the Games, and continue being an asset to the city long into the future.

Los Angeles has long desired an overhaul of its transportation system as well. In 2009, the city launched a 30-year plan to dramatically expand its public transit infrastructure. If Los Angeles won the Olympic bid, the city could draw on billions of dollars of federal funds it received for its long-term plan to expedite expansions of its metro, commuter rail, and bus systems in time for 2024. This rapid change would come at a time when citizens are hungry for better transportation access. In fact, this past November, the city voted to increase sales tax to fund such improvements.

Pollution problems have made past Olympic sites controversial, such as Beijing’s air pollution in 2008 and the raw sewage and garbage in Rio’s Guanabara Bay in 2016. While the Los Angeles Olympic bid does not explicitly address how it will tackle its air quality problems, its emphasis on reducing cars on the road will also reduce the amount of harmful emissions in the air. To address its low air quality problem in the short term, Los Angeles could invest more funds in its nascent bike path network to connect the flat cityscape. Not only would it take cars off the road, reducing congestion and providing a fossil-free transit option, but Los Angeles’ mild weather is ideal for encouraging a year-round biking culture.

While the bids other two Olympic city candidates – Paris and Budapest – propose sustainable measures, Los Angeles’ goals are ones that the city has been working towards long before this Olympic bid. This alignment with currently existing initiatives and goals is not just a quality that differentiates Los Angeles from its competitors, but one that radically sets Los Angeles apart from bids in Olympic history.

Los Angeles will continue to revitalize its infrastructure whether or not its bid is successful, but a successful bid and international pressure would push Los Angeles to develop its city more rapidly and on a larger scale that it would on its own. The benefits of such sustainable development measures would spread out to the rest of the country, with Los Angeles showing other American cities that smart, thoughtful, and sustainable development is not only possible, but it is positive and desirable. A 2024 Olympic legacy could stretch beyond US borders, too, providing future Olympic cities with roadmap for how to design an Olympic strategy that will transform a city for good.

On November 20^th a group of 400 peaceful protestors gathered just north of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota. As police in riot gear approached the crowd, a demonstrator’s voice cracked in the stinging air. He shouted into the freezing air, “We’re all unarmed. Put your weapons down!”

Police use water cannons against water protectors in subfreezing weather. Dark Sevier

Seconds later, a powerful jet of water blasted the protestors near the Dakota Access Pipeline. Water cannons were among one form of “defense” against unarmed protestors. Others included rubber bullets, tear gas, concussion grenades, and water hoses. Used in the freezing weather, water canons sent over 26 organizers to the hospital where a number of them were treated for hypothermia.

This scene of police violence is a disturbing reminder of uglier times in U.S. history. In the wake of the 2016 election, many of us feel skeptical of the progress of civil rights in this country. Although this pessimism is warranted, the protests at Standing Rock serve as a model of strength.

These protestors refer to themselves as “water protectors” and strategically have set up camp to block the proposed path of the Dakota Access pipeline. The pipeline runs through four states, carrying crude oil from North Dakota to Iowa, and is about 85 percent complete. The remaining portion was to run under Lake Oahe, a reservoir along the Missouri River located north east of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

At least that was the route until Sunday, December 4^th.

That day the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a government agency responsible for evaluating permit requests for all water crossings, refused to allow further construction. However, this outcome was only made possible by the persistence and strength of the Standing Rock Tribe combined with support from non-native American groups.

Members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe have publicly opposed the Dakota Access pipeline since early April. An online campaign resulted in a petition with over 430,000 signatures, which pleaded for the Army Corps of Engineers to stop construction. This pipeline threatens the Sioux’s ancestral homeland and water resources.

Oil spills and leaks are an inherent risk of any pipeline project. This risk is so great that the Army Corps of Engineers has actually rerouted the pipeline once before. They initially planned for the pipeline to cross the Missouri River 10 miles north of the primarily white populated city of Bismarck. But the Army Corps of Engineers deemed that this route posed a threat to the city’s water supply.

Instead, the Army Corps of Engineers decided that what was risky for Bismarck would be safe for the Sioux.  They approved a permit the route the pipeline just a half-mile upstream of the reservation, calling into question whose water supplies and lives are being valued the most by the government. Later that month, the tribe took legal action. They filed an injunction against construction and sued the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Army Corps of Engineers planned to build the pipeline only a half-mile upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Katie Park 

The petition didn’t work, nor did the lawsuit. The Army Corps of Engineers did not grant the Standing Rock Sioux the attention that they deserved or the consideration that Bismarck received. Fortunately, when the Army Corps of Engineers dismissed the Sioux’s concerns, people around the nation responded.

Thousands of people from across the country flooded to camp on the edge of the Standing Rock reservation near the Dakota Access Pipeline. Large-scale camp occupation began in August and stretched into the subzero temperatures of November. As weeks of resistance have turned into months, more groups joined into one of the longest-running protests in modern history.

The water protectors are an assemblage of Native Americans, environmentalists, social justice activists, and everyday people. They serve as a model of strength and power of people fighting for social justice. In a New York Times opinion piece, David Treuer of the Ojibwe tribe points out that water protectors are novel in the sense that Native Americans and non-native Americans are working together. Groups in solidarity with Standing Rock include Black Lives Matter, environmental groups, and recently U.S. veterans.

The Army Corps decision came to pull the pipeline’s permit to cross Lake Oahe against all odds. The Standing Rock Sioux were up against one of the most powerful industries in the world. It meant halting construction on a $3.7 billion dollar project that was nearly complete.

In this hard time, it is difficult to feel hopeful. But we must look to Standing Rock as a symbol for social justice protest and alliances. One water protector named Marshal Stone said, “We have no weapons or anything, just our voices.” The water protectors’ unified voices stood strong despite police violence and subzero temperatures. Amazingly, the campfires, chants, and songs at the camp maintained spirits in these harsh conditions. Through peaceful collaboration, water protectors demonstrate the power of unity over greed, violence, and discrimination.

Veterans gather hands and form a human shield around the water protectors. Jessica Rinaldi

Source: https://newsroom.montereybayaquarium.org/press/plastic-podcast-series

November 8^th was a bigly historic day. It was a great day. A great law was passed.  California passed Proposition 67, which bans carry-out plastic bags in the state for good. It is the first state bag ban in the U.S. But, Proposition 67 is just a first step.

Our work is far from over if we want to solve our marine plastic pollution problem. Californians throw away about 16 billion plastic bags every year. That is 412 bags per person. Because they are so lightweight, plastic bags easily end up floating off trash pickup trucks and end up in the oceans.

Once in the oceans, plastic bags are deadly. They entangle sea creatures. Sea turtles and birds often choke on the bags when they mistake them for food. California’s statewide ban is a historic step in stopping our flow of plastic into the oceans.

But, it’s not enough. Every year the world adds about 8 million tons of plastic to the ocean, killing at least 100,000 ocean mammals and 1,000,000 sea birds. We need far-reaching efforts and regulations to minimize the plastic that is being produced. We can’t stop at bags. We must ban all single-use plastic.

Single-use plastic includes bags, straws, food packaging, disposable cutlery and plates, and beverage bottles. Single-use plastics make up almost two-thirds of the top ten items found during The Ocean Conservancy’s international beach cleanup.

The Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup Top 10 Items Found. 

France and the US have taken important steps in this direction. Last September, France became the first country to ban all single-use plastic cutlery, plates, and cups. After 2020, all disposable dishes will need to be made from biologically sourced materials that can be composted at home.

In 2015, the US also reduced its contribution to marine plastic pollution. Microbeads, a very small plastic ball used in products like face cleansers and toothpastes, were banned from cosmetics that can be rinsed off beginning in 2017. Toxic chemicals like DDT attach to microbeads, which can then be eaten by marine wildlife. Thus, microbeads become harmful to us when we eat tainted seafood. The congressional bipartisan Microbead Act will free our waterways of about eight trillion plastic beads every day.

More such bans are necessary because of the difficulty in disposing and recycling plastic in sustainable ways. A common misconception is that our plastic consumption is sustainable because it can be recycled. Captain Moore, founder of the marine research and education non-profit, Algalita, says that “plastics recycling is a myth. It’s a feel-good response to the problem and does nothing to help phase out single-use plastics—the real problem.” Indeed, only 6.5% of plastic is recycled in the United States.

Why is plastic so difficult to recycle? When plastic is not recycled with similar types of plastic, it can be contaminated and thrown out. This is difficult to do because of the variety of plastics with different chemical compositions and additives like dyes. And, there is confusion about what plastic can and cannot be recycled. So, plastic that shouldn’t be recycled together can get mixed. Contrary to popular belief, the numbers identifying the type of plastic are not necessarily indicative of whether the plastic can be recycled.

The life of recycled plastic is also short-lived, and thus not sustainable. Some plastic containers, like margarine tubs, cannot be recycled back into food containers because of sanitary restrictions. Plastic then becomes a longer-lasting good like carpeting. Critics of plastic argue that it has two lives, at best. Unlike glass and metal, which can be recycled and reused many times, plastic ends up in the dump or, too often, in the ocean a lot sooner.

In just the past two years, California has banned single-use plastic bags, France has banned single-use dishes and cutlery, and the US has banned microbeads. These are exactly the kind of far-reaching regulations that our oceans need, but they are just the beginning. These regulations have started us on a path towards a sustainable future, but we have a long way to before our oceans are plastic free.

There’s been much discussion about what Trump may do when he gets into office, but I’d like to tell you what he should do. Amid concerns about a hopelessly divided nation, Trump needs to champion a program that both Republicans and Democrats can get behind: Farm to School.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm to School program is a competitive grant program that awards schools money for building school gardens or procuring local food for their cafeterias. While this program may seem relatively insignificant, it has improved both students’ fruit and vegetable consumption and local economies.

A Trump rally in Fresno, California

The election of Trump and the GOP Congress would not have been possible without the support they received from rural voters, and it is important that they do not forget these people once they get into office. Farm-to-school programs generate an average income increase of 5% for local farmers. Such programs also benefit rural workers and the economy more broadly. Each farm-to-school job creates an additional 1.67 jobs and each dollar spent on farm to school generates an additional $2.16 in local economic activity.

But just how likely is Trump to support farm to school? Unfortunately, we know little about Trump’s views on food and agriculture policy in general and even less in relation to school nutrition. While his fast-food diet does not inspire hope, he does seem to at least vaguely grasp some of the budget issues facing school cafeterias today. On the Dr. Oz show in September, he acknowledged that obesity could be linked to what kids are served in schools, saying “a lot of schools aren’t providing proper food because they have budget problems.”

Sid Miller, Texas Agriculture Commissioner and Trump advisor

Trump’s appointments give some sense for his approach to nutritional policy. Sid Miller is already serving as one of Trump’s agricultural advisors and is on the short list for Secretary of Agriculture. Miller, the current Texas Agriculture Commissioner, is perhaps best known for his controversial re-introduction of deep fryers, sodas, and cupcakes into Texas lunchrooms. However, he also started Farm Fresh Fridays in Texas, a farm-to-school program that brings local produce to Texas cafeterias. In addition, he urged schools in urban areas to plant gardens because, “Most kids never experience that. It might spark an interest in somebody becoming an organic gardener.”

Miller seems to embrace a holistic view of nutrition as opposed to the nutrient-based view that dominates our school nutrition policies. He once claimed that a Texas-grown, fried sweet potato was healthier than the school lunches served under the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which he says are “prepared in some industrial kitchen” and laden with “additives, preservatives, and dyes and all other kind of junk.” He has a point. Nutrition policies in the U.S. are so nutrient-based that they actually encourage the use of processed foods over fresh ones. This gives us some reason to believe that Trump could support the Farm to School program and maybe even a more effective child nutrition policy.

Trump will have the opportunity to champion Farm to School as soon as he gets into office. The Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, which determined child nutrition policy, expired in 2015, but both the House and the Senate versions of the bill to reauthorize and amend it remain stalled in Congress.

Fortunately, both versions of the bill would double funding for Farm to School, from the current $5 million annually to $10 million. The increase in funding for Farm to School was one of the few pieces of the bill that received widespread support from both Republicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress. As it will likely remain stalled until the end of the term, this will be one of the first bills tackled by the 115^th Congress when it convenes in January. Trump’s support might just be the push this bill needs to finally make it out of Congress.

If we want to move forward on food policy for the next four years, we need start with issues that we can agree on. Bi-partisan support makes farm to school a logical place to start.

California and Massachusetts lead the country in climate action policies

Trump’s new EPA appointee is a states right champion. Well, California and Massachusetts have a lot to teach him about fighting climate change. These states have demonstrated the power of statewide climate policies in the past decade. Other states should take California and Massachusetts as models for statewide climate action.

California and Massachusetts have both taken action on climate change by passing statewide laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The polices ensure that by 2020 California’s emissions will be 7% lower and Massachusetts’s emissions will be 25% lower, compared to their 1990 emissions. Their bills are effective approaches since they give each state a mandate to reduce greenhouse gases emissions. But at the same time the legislation offer flexibility to address various emitting sectors of the economy, like transportation and electricity production, through a combination of policies and incentives.

To help meet their respective goals, California and Massachusetts have implemented Renewable Portfolio Standards. These require utilities to increasingly source electricity with renewable energy. California’s renewable portfolio standard requires a third of the state’s electricity be sourced from renewable energy by 2020 while Massachusetts requires 15% by 2020. Under these policies, utilities have the flexibility in assembling a portfolio of renewable energy sources. The mandate ensures renewable energy infrastructure investment since the companies have a guaranteed market without having to compete with the potentially cheaper electricity sourced from fossil fuels.

Last year California and Massachusetts generated 26% and 10% of their electricity with renewable energy respectively. This puts both states on track to meet their 2020 renewable portfolio standards. In California, the dominant sources of renewable energy are wind, generating almost 10% of the state’s electricity, and solar, generating almost 6%. Massachusetts is a less populous state, so it uses less total electricity than California. The state also has lower renewable portfolio standards, however, its renewable energy generation is still impressive. The state relies more on hydropower, which comprises 3% of the state’s electricity while wind and solar comprise 4% combined and other renewables make up the remaining 3%.

In order to achieve their emission reduction goals, Massachusetts and California have also created innovative programs to promote energy efficiency and transportation emission reductions. Massachusetts has promoted energy efficiency in the state through building codes, audits for homeowners, and power plant efficiency standards. Massachusetts proudly ranks 1^st in the nation for energy efficiency. These efforts have saved 980 gigawatt hours of electricity, equivalent to the average electricity use of 140,000 Massachusetts homes.

In addition to regulating greenhouse gas emission from automobiles, California has engaged cities in reducing transportation emissions through supplementary strategies. A state law requires the state’s major metropolises achieve their own emission reduction targets. Cities have approached these requirements, creating ridesharing incentives, electric vehicle programs, and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian paths. As individual cities implement these local, innovative programs, they contribute to achieving the state’s broader climate goals.

Some politicians say that renewable energy comes at the expense of jobs and economic growth, but California and Massachusetts serve as counter examples. The solar industry, for example, has grown rapidly in the last decade in both states, providing energy and jobs. California and Massachusetts rank first and second in number of jobs in the solar industry, with 75,000 jobs and15,000 jobs respectively.

In the next four years, states must look at California and Massachusetts as templates for statewide climate action policies. Even though these states differ in many ways, their climate action policies are strikingly similar. Both have mandated greenhouse gas emission reductions with specific timelines. These frameworks allow the states implement a combination of policies in order to achieve emission reductions. Then, renewable portfolio standards force utilities integrate renewable energy into the grid. Lastly, innovative programs target other emitting sectors of the economy.

Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalence) percent change from 1990 emissions for California, Massachusetts, and the United States nationally.

While national greenhouse gas emissions have stabilized, California and Massachusetts have driven their emissions down. Federal policy around climate change may be at a standstill or even regressive, but it is not the only way to enact climate action. Just look at the Golden State and the Bay State.

During Sunday’s Democratic Debate, many organizers and supporters of the environmental movement rejoiced as they heard Bernie Sanders simply say “no” to fracking. Meanwhile, I cringed.

This year, my mother was laid-off two times, struggled to find a job, and took in unemployment compensation until it ran out in February. However, for the first time that I can remember, my mother’s income was above the poverty line this year. Although she just barely earned above the threshold for a single-mother supporting a family of four, it finally feels like she made it. For a short while, she can escape the label of poverty, and for this, I have Chevron to thank.

When I was home for the holidays, my family announced the news to me: 72 members of my mother’s extended family, including my mother, had signed on to sell Chevron the mineral rights to an inherited section of land for gas drilling. The land rests in my rural town in Southwestern Pennsylvania, and like for many others in our region, the economic benefits of hydraulic fracturing outweigh any concerns of environmental risk. During his most recent visit, Chevron’s representative told my family that last month alone, the company paid out 19 million dollars to those who leased land in our neighboring county of Marshall, West Virginia. At the same time, fracking is bringing much-needed, well-paying jobs to a region where there are few ways to make a living.

Yet my family assumed that I wouldn’t support their decision because I’m the “environmentalist”. When I was 17 years old, I sued the state of Pennsylvania for not taking adequate action to address climate change. Later that year, I stood in front of the White House at one of the first protests against the Keystone Pipeline. I have spoken out against hydraulic fracturing at public rallies, international conferences, and even in a short-film which was hand-delivered to President Obama. I am opposed to what the intensive extraction process can do to the environment and to the health of those who live near the drilling. Despite national campaigns and community resistance against hydraulic fracturing, I have seen the industry boom and expand throughout Southwestern Pennsylvania and beyond.

But, I’m not going to oppose my family’s decision to sell their land to Chevron. I’m not going to call upon the “fracktivists” across the nation to join me in a fight against the drilling in my town. Currently, we are part of an economic system which makes it profitable to take extensive measures to extract and burn fossil fuels like natural gas, despite their impacts on our health, environment, and climate. How are we supposed to expect families and communities to reject these industries which many depend upon financially?

Bernie Sanders cannot simply reject fracking without also mentioning the need for alternative energy and economies. If he’s going to ban fracking in Southwestern Pennsylvania and across the US, then he also needs to talk about his plan to build resilient economies in those same communities who depend on the industry.

We cannot confuse creating what we do want with destroying what we don’t want. The climate movement has gotten good at saying “no”– no KXL, no pipelines, no fossil fuels. But, we also have to practice saying “yes” to solutions. Last week, I listened to Naomi Klein give a lecture about The Leap Manifesto, which she created with hundreds of others who are working to transition Canada to a more just and sustainable future. The plan is extensive and calls for investment in housing, public infrastructure, and transportation. It calls for a transition from carbon-intensive jobs to clean energy jobs by providing training to those who currently work in the fossil fuel industries. The plan has justice at its heart by ensuring this transition happens first in low income communities and communities most impacted, and dependent upon, the fossil fuel industries.

While we continue to call out the need to move beyond the fossil fuel economy, let’s also call attention to our need to build and act upon our own Leap Manifesto in the United States. Not only do we need to reinvent our economies and our communities for the climate, but we also need to do it for the thousands of communities across the country who we are failing. These are the places where people can’t drink water from the tap without being poisoned, where basic sewer systems are crumbling, where job opportunities are few and far between, and where lacking transportation resources keep us from coming together. By addressing the need to build a network of resilient communities, we can create an economy where families like mine don’t need to rely on Chevron to pay the bills.

Special rare earth metals inside smartphones allow them to function at high quality. But where do these metals come from, and what are the costs of acquiring them?

Thinking about buying a new smartphone this holiday season? If so, you’re not alone – nearly 65% of all Americans are expected to buy tech gifts for their friends and family, a 2.3% increase from last year. But in the rush to replace 1-year-old smartphones with the newest model, consumers are forgetting the environmental costs of manufacturing such complex gadgets.

Hidden underneath the sleek casing of your smartphone is a metal known as a rare earth element (REE). REEs are a special group of seventeen metals that are crucial to consumer electronics, including the most popular items on Americans’ shopping lists — headphones, tablets, Bluetooth speakers, smartphones, and notebook/laptop computers. These metals increase the functionality and computing power of the electronics, allowing them to become lighter and more compact without sacrificing quality. REEs have few substitutes, meaning that the tech industry is almost entirely dependent upon them.

Unfortunately, the only way to acquire REEs today is through massive open-pit mining operations. REE mines worldwide produce over 10 million tons of wastewater per year, much of which is toxic and radioactive. This has negatively impacted the health of local communities, killed crops and increased cancer rates. For the past 20 years, because they have a monopoly on REE mining, China has borne the majority of the environmental and public health consequences of REE mining. Now, however, the environments of other developing nations are in jeopardy, because industrialized nations are searching for new sources of rare earth elements.

The costs of producing rare earth elements for modern electronics is destructive open-pit mining. This particular mine is over 1 kilometer in diameter, and is similar in size to current REE open-pit operations.

The next potential victim of such environmental destruction is Kazakhstan. North-Central Asia has 30% of the world’s REE deposits, many of which are in Kazakhstan. In the past three years, Japan India, France, and Germany have secured partnership agreements with Kazakhstan for its rare earth mining development. The scale of these agreements is huge – if successful, Kazakhstan could be mining enough REEs to supply 10% of the world’s demand in just a few years. And industrialized nations will be reaping the benefits of REE resource access, without paying the price of pollution.

One of the main reasons why industrialized nations are seeking new sources of REEs is because of the lack of alternatives. With the U.S. consumer electronics industry alone generating over $200 billion dollars a year, a REE shortage could hurt the economy on a global scale. China’s control over 95% of the global REE market means that China could increase REE prices to unreasonable amounts, delivering an economic blow to the tech industry. In 2011 when China reduced REE exports, prices rose 700% within a few months. In response, industrialized nations began racing to find new source of REEs. However, in the process, these countries are not considering the environmental damages associated with new open-pit mining operations that will negatively impact the environments of other countries, such as Kazakhstan.

Even well-regulated REE mines can produce dangerous wastes. For example, in the 1990s, the U.S. shut down its primary REE facility in California because it accidentally spilled thousands of tons of radioactive wastewater into populated areas. In Kazakhstan the risks are even higher, because to meet the demands of its international trade partners Kazakhstan is building multiple REE mining and manufacturing plants. These facilities will jointly produce quantities of radioactive wastewater much greater than California’s single mine.

Instead of outsourcing pollution issues to other countries, the U.S. should consider alternatives to REE mining. One solution may be recycling. In September of this year, scientists successfully recycled REEs for the first time. However, recycling alone cannot supply growing consumer demand for REEs, and commercial-scale recycling is still years away. Alternatively, the U.S. could adopt new legislations that gradually phase out REE use by encouraging companies to develop viable alternatives. Similar phase-out regulations for hazardous materials (including lead and mercury) in electronics waste have been successful in the European Union. The U.S. could also adopt a certification system where companies can attach green labels to their electronics if they acquire REEs from more environmentally responsible sources.

Demand for electronics is increasing so quickly that the global REE market is expected to double by 2020. As consumers, we need to think beyond the next technology trend, and consider the impacts of our purchasing choices upon the environments of other nations. Industrialized nations like the U.S. should take responsibility for their roles in promoting pollution overseas and make a stand for greener REEs, whether by labeling, recycling, or reducing REE use. In the meantime, consider keeping your current smartphone for another year – Kazakhstan’s environment and people will thank you.