One of the easiest and most powerful ways we can make a difference is through our decisions as consumers. What we choose to buy not only says a lot about who we are and what kind of values we have, but also has many cumulative repercussions, from helping to shape corporate and public policy to affecting animal welfare, public health, social justice and the global environment.
An ad for BuyPartisan, an iPhone app that scans bar codes to reveals whether any given product is made by Republicans or Democrats, puts it succinctly: "We vote everyday with our wallets."
And one of the best ways to vote with our wallets is through our grocery shopping. According to a 2014 Gallup poll on consumer spending, Americans are opening up those wallets more for groceries than for other household essentials. Fifty-nine percent of Americans reporting increased spending on food shopping, ahead of spending on gasoline (58 percent), utilities (45 percent), healthcare (42 percent) and rent or mortgage (32 percent).
According to Progressive Grocer Magazine, supermarkets made more than $638 billion in sales in 2014. Clearly, as long as money talks, grocery shopping remains an ideal opportunity to "cast your vote" in numerous ways. Here are seven ways to help transform your grocery list into a ballot for positive change.
1. Buy organic
It's a good instinct to seek out organic products over non-organic ones. Unfortunately, the word "organic" is problematic. If a product has the "100 percent organic" label, it means that is passes the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) definition: meat, eggs and dairy are antibiotic- and hormone-free; animals are raised in living conditions that permit them to engage in natural behaviors (like grazing on pasture); produce is made without fertilizers that are synthetic or have sewage components; and no genetically modified ingredients. But the USDA's certification permits certain pesticides and herbicides, and also allows five percent of the ingredients to be non-organic, meaning that food producers can add some 200 non-organic substances to their products and still get the USDA's organic stamp.
When it comes to imported foods labeled organic, the issue is even thornier. For these products, "an extended bureaucratic chain increases the opportunities for fraud and lax enforcement, especially when food is imported from places rife with corruption, such as Ukraine and Kazakhstan," says Peter Laufer, a journalism professor at the University of Oregon and author of Organic: A Journalist’s Quest to Discover the Truth Behind Food Labeling.
For organic purists, the USDA label isn't enough, and there is no other regulated third party certification. So getting something that is actually "100 percent organic" isn't always possible. But though the term "organic" is conflicted, it is still most often a better choice to go organic over non-organic foods. Your best bet would be to support your local organic farmer at the nearest farmers' market: Not only will you be helping your local economy, which benefits you in the long run, you will be choosing foods that didn't require too much transportation to get to you (and therefore, less carbon emissions) and also supporting local farmers instead of Big Ag corporations and multinational food conglomerates.
As the organic markets mature, hopefully a better certification process will be developed. But a big hurdle remains cost effectiveness: In many cases, organic food is costlier to make, and thus pricier, than their traditional counterparts. Hopefully, the surging consumer demand will inspire more farmers to convert from conventional to organic farming, which could bring organic prices down.
A 2014 Gallup poll found that 45 percent of Americans actively seek out organic foods, 38 percent say they "don't think either way" about organic and 15 percent actively avoid them. For many farmers, food producers and distributors, the organic-seekers represent a potential customer base that too big to ignore. Clearly, there is a huge demand for food that is free from man-made additives like from antibiotics and pesticides, and is produced in a way that is better for the environment. And with younger people more likely than older people to eat organic, that segment of the market will likely grow. (Last year was the first year that Gallup asked about eating organic foods in their annual Consumption Habits survey, so it will be interesting to follow this trend in subsequent surveys.)
2. Buy in bulk
When it comes to product packaging, convenience comes with a hefty environmental price. Much less plastic is used for a gallon jug of water versus 16 eight-ounce bottles. (And anyway, plastic water bottles of any size should be avoided at all costs; refill a steel water bottle with a Brita instead.)
"While it may seem easier to get individually wrapped snacks and beverages, that convenience is adding to the over 60 million tons of paper, plastic and glass packaging thrown away in the U.S. every year," according to Green Home.
Look for products with minimal packaging, choosing paper over plastic as the lesser of two evils. Buy in bulk and then transfer the products into smaller, more convenient reusable containers at home.
3. Stop using plastic bags
Plastic pollution is an increasing nightmare for ecosystems around the globe—just look at the Great Pacific garbage patch. "Until we shut off the flow of plastic to the sea, the newest global threat to our Anthropocene age will only get worse," says Charles J. Moore, a captain in the U.S. merchant marine and founder of the Algalita Marine Research and Education Institute in Long Beach, California.
Plastic bags are particularly troublesome. Lightweight and easily carried by the wind, they easily end up in rivers and oceans, where they wreak havoc on wildlife, killing sea birds, sea turtles, fish and marine mammals. They also clog landfills and leach toxins into the soil and water. A single plastic bag can take 500 years or more to degrade.
Though some cities and states have initiated fees or banned altogether the use of plastic bags, Americans still use and discard 100 billion plastic bags every year, which requires 12 million barrel of oil to produce and cost retailers $4 billion.
Instead of bringing new plastic bags home, reuse old ones or bring some reusable cloth bags with you when you do your shopping.
4. Choose animal welfare
Animals make up a large part of the food system. More than 8 billion land animals and 56 billion sea animals were killed to feed Americans in 2011 alone. And the vast majority of those land animals—cattle, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ducks and rabbits —suffered greatly for their entire lives before they were killed. Of course, the best way to avoid animal cruelty in your diet is to go vegan.
But if you've got to have animal products on your plate—and the many fake meat options just don't cut it—you can help reduce that suffering by choosing products that have animal welfare certification. As a general rule, avoid any processed meat and animal products from factory farms. Choose local and organic; chances are your local farmer's chickens have spent a good amount of their lives actually being chickens, pecking at worms in the the grass and sun, not trapped in dark warehouses with no access to the outdoors and sleeping in their own feces.
5. Choose sustainable fish
The human appetite for fish combined with skyrocketing human population has resulted in overfishing, one of the biggest threats to the world's oceans.
"Today, 90 percent of the world's fisheries are either fully exploited, overexploited or have collapsed," according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. "The global fishing fleet is operating at 2.5 times the sustainable level—there are simply too many boats chasing a dwindling number of fish."
To help consumers make ethical seafood choices, the Monterey Bat Aquarium has created an online Sustainable Seafood Search. Also available as app, it can tell you, for example, which is the best kind of tuna to buy (troll- or pole-caught albacore tuna from the U.S. North Pacific) and which is the worst (longline-caught albacore tuna from the South Atlantic). The nonprofit Marine Stewardship Council has created a similar online resource, the Sustainable Seafood Product Finder, which identifies fisheries that are helping to protect the world's oceans.
6. Eat less red meat
Of all the meats, red meat is the worst for the environment: According to a Bard College study, raising cows requires 28 times more land and 11 times more water than raising pigs or chickens. “The biggest intervention people could make towards reducing their carbon footprints would not be to abandon cars, but to eat significantly less red meat,” said Tim Benton, a professor of population ecology at Leeds University and UK Global Food Security Champion.
Then there's the health benefit of eating less meat. A National Cancer Institute study of 500,000 people found that those who ate the most red meat daily were 30 percent more likely to die of any cause during a 10-year period than were those who ate the least amount of red meat. Those who ate primarily poultry or fish had a lower risk of death. The mounting evidence that people who eat less meat, especially red and processed meats, tend to be more healthy, helped the U.S. 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the nation's top nutritional advisory panel, recently make the recommendation to stop eating so much meat.
7. Shop online
If you normally drive to do you food shopping, consider leaving the car in the garage and doing that shopping online. According to a Carnegie Mellon study, shopping online almost always uses less energy than traveling to a brick-and-mortar store.
"E-commerce is the less energy-consumptive option approximately 80 percent of the time,” according to the report, which cited transporting customers to stores as the single most important factor. Co-author Chris Hendrickson said he was most surprised by how small an impact packaging really has, particularly with the growth of recycling channels for packaging."
Another good option would be to walk or bike to the grocery store. You won't be able to do as much shopping as you would with your car or truck in one trip, but walking and biking have environmental and health benefits that you won't get by sitting behind the wheel.
Shoppers of the world, unite and take over
Dr. John Fleming, chief scientist for Gallup’s Marketplace Consulting and HumanSigma Practices, points out that "consumer spending is the lifeblood of a healthy economy." And because of that, consumers wield a significant amount of influence in steering that economy in terms of which companies and products succeed and which will fail. To be sure, by making responsible, ethical decisions at the cash register we can be the change rather than just getting it.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
90% of Americans Could Be Fed by Food Grown or Raised Within 100 Miles of Their Homes
The Miracle Superfood You’re Not Eating
Avian Flu Epidemic Prompts CDC Warning of ‘Potential for Human Infection’
These longer periods of stratification could have "far-reaching implications" for lake ecosystems, the paper says, and can drive toxic algal blooms, fish die-offs and increased methane emissions.
The study, published in Nature Communications, finds that the average seasonal lake stratification period in the northern hemisphere could last almost two weeks longer by the end of the century, even under a low emission scenario. It finds that stratification could last over a month longer if emissions are extremely high.
If stratification periods continue to lengthen, "we can expect catastrophic changes to some lake ecosystems, which may have irreversible impacts on ecological communities," the lead author of the study tells Carbon Brief.
The study also finds that larger lakes will see more notable changes. For example, the North American Great Lakes, which house "irreplaceable biodiversity" and represent some of the world's largest freshwater ecosystems, are already experiencing "rapid changes" in their stratification periods, according to the study.
'Fatal Consequences'
As temperatures rise in the spring, many lakes begin the process of "stratification." Warm air heats the surface of the lake, heating the top layer of water, which separates out from the cooler layers of water beneath.
The stratified layers do not mix easily and the greater the temperature difference between the layers, the less mixing there is. Lakes generally stratify between spring and autumn, when hot weather maintains the temperature gradient between warm surface water and colder water deeper down.
Dr Richard Woolway from the European Space Agency is the lead author of the paper, which finds that climate change is driving stratification to begin earlier and end later. He tells Carbon Brief that the impacts of stratification are "widespread and extensive," and that longer periods of stratification could have "irreversible impacts" on ecosystems.
For example, Dr Dominic Vachon – a postdoctoral fellow from the Climate Impacts Research Centre at Umea University, who was not involved in the study – explains that stratification can create a "physical barrier" that makes it harder for dissolved gases and particles to move between the layers of water.
This can prevent the oxygen from the surface of the water from sinking deeper into the lake and can lead to "deoxygenation" in the depths of the water, where oxygen levels are lower and respiration becomes more difficult.
Oxygen depletion can have "fatal consequences for living organisms," according to Dr Bertram Boehrer, a researcher at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, who was not involved in the study.
Lead author Woolway tells Carbon Brief that the decrease in oxygen levels at deeper depths traps fish in the warmer surface waters:
"Fish often migrate to deeper waters during the summer to escape warmer conditions at the surface – for example during a lake heatwave. A decrease in oxygen at depth will mean that fish will have no thermal refuge, as they often can't survive when oxygen concentrations are too low."
This can be very harmful for lake life and can even increase "fish die-off events" the study notes.
However, the impacts of stratification are not limited to fish. The study notes that a shift to earlier stratification in spring can also encourage communities of phytoplankton – a type of algae – to grow sooner, and can put them out of sync with the species that rely on them for food. This is called a "trophic mismatch."
Prof Catherine O'Reilly, a professor of geography, geology and the environment at Illinois State University, who was not involved in the study, adds that longer stratified periods could also "increase the likelihood of harmful algae blooms."
The impact of climate change on lakes also extends beyond ecosystems. Low oxygen levels in lakes can enhance the production of methane, which is "produced in and emitted from lakes at globally significant rates," according to the study.
Woolway explains that higher levels of warming could therefore create a positive climate feedback in lakes, where rising temperatures mean larger planet-warming emissions:
"Low oxygen levels at depth also promotes methane production in lake sediments, which can then be released to the surface either via bubbles or by diffusion, resulting in a positive feedback to climate change."
Onset and Breakup
In the study, the authors determine historical changes in lake stratification periods using long-term observational data from some of the "best-monitored lakes in the world" and daily simulations from a collection of lake models.
They also run simulations of future changes in lake stratification period under three different emission scenarios, to determine how the process could change in the future. The study focuses on lakes in the northern hemisphere.
The figure below shows the average change in lake stratification days between 1900 and 2099, compared to the 1970-1999 average. The plot shows historical measurements (black), and the low emission RCP2.6 (blue), mid emissions RCP6.0 (yellow) and extremely high emissions RCP8.5 (red) scenarios.
Change in lake stratification duration compared to the 1970-1999 average, for historical measurements (black), the low emission RCP2.6 (blue) moderate emissions RCP6.0 (yellow) and extremely high emissions RCP8.5 (red). Credit: Woolway et al (2021).
The plot shows that the average lake stratification period has already lengthened. However, the study adds that some lakes are seeing more significant impacts than others.
For example, Blelham Tarn – the most well-monitored lake in the English Lake District – is now stratifying 24 days earlier and maintaining its stratification for an extra 18 days compared to its 1963-1972 averages, the study finds. Woolway tells Carbon Brief that as a result, the lake is already showing signs of oxygen depletion.
Climate change is increasing average stratification duration in lakes, the findings show, by moving the onset of stratification earlier and pushing the stratification "breakup" later. The table below shows projected changes in the onset, breakup and overall length of lake stratification under different emission scenarios, compared to a 1970-1999 baseline.
The table shows that even under the low emission scenario, the lake stratification period is expected to be 13 days longer by the end of the century. However, in the extremely high emissions scenario, it could be 33 days longer.
The table also shows that stratification onset has changed more significantly than stratification breakup. The reasons why are revealed by looking at the drivers of stratification more closely.
Warmer Weather and Weaker Winds
The timing of stratification onset and breakup in lakes is driven by two main factors – temperature and wind speed.
The impact of temperature on lake stratification is based on the fact that warm water is less dense than cool water, Woolway tells Carbon Brief:
"Warming of the water's surface by increasing air temperature causes the density of water to decrease and likewise results in distinct thermal layers within a lake to form – cooler, denser water settles to the bottom of the lake, while warmer, lighter water forms a layer on top."
This means that, as climate change causes temperatures to rise, lakes will begin to stratify earlier and remain stratified for longer. Lakes in higher altitudes are also likely to see greater changes in stratification, Woolway tells Carbon Brief, because "the prolonging of summer is very apparent in high latitude regions."
The figure below shows the expected increase in stratification duration from lakes in the northern hemisphere under the low (left), mid (center), and high (right) emission scenarios. Deeper colors indicate a larger increase in stratification period.
Expected increase in stratification duration in lakes in the northern hemisphere under the low (left), mid (centre) and high (right) emissions scenarios. Credit: Woolway et al (2021).
The figure shows that the expected impact of climate change on stratification duration becomes more pronounced at more northerly high latitudes.
The second factor is wind speed, Woolway explains:
"Wind speed also affects the timing of stratification onset and breakdown, with stronger winds acting to mix the water column, thus acting against the stratifying effect of increasing air temperature."
According to the study, wind speed is expected to decrease slightly as the planet warms. The authors note that the expected changes in near-surface wind speed are "relatively minor" compared to the likely temperature increase, but they add that it may still cause "substantial" changes in stratification.
The study finds that air temperature is the most important factor behind when a lake will begin to stratify. However, when looking at stratification breakup, it finds that wind speed is a more important driver.
Meanwhile, Vachon says that wind speeds also have implications for methane emissions from lakes. He notes that stratification prevents the methane produced on the bottom of the lake from rising and that, when the stratification period ends, methane is allowed to rise to the surface. However, according to Vachon, the speed of stratification breakup will affect how much methane is released into the atmosphere:
"My work has suggested that the amount of accumulated methane in bottom waters that will be finally emitted is related to how quickly the stratification break-up occurs. For example, a slow and progressive stratification break-up will most likely allow water oxygenation and allow the bacteria to oxidise methane into carbon dioxide. However, a stratification break-up that occurs rapidly – for example after storm events with high wind speed – will allow the accumulated methane to be emitted to the atmosphere more efficiently."
Finally, the study finds that large lakes take longer to stratify in spring and typically remain stratified for longer in the autumn – due to their higher volume of water. For example, the authors highlight the North American Great Lakes, which house "irreplaceable biodiversity" and represent some of the world's largest freshwater ecosystems.
These lakes have been stratifying 3.5 days earlier every decade since 1980, the authors find, and their stratification onset can vary by up to 48 days between some extreme years.
O'Reilly tells Carbon Brief that "it's clear that these changes will be moving lakes into uncharted territory" and adds that the paper "provides a framework for thinking about how much lakes will change under future climate scenarios."
Reposted with permission from Carbon Brief.
Currently the U.S. Supreme Court has on its docket a case between Texas, New Mexico and Colorado and another one between Mississippi and Tennessee. The court has already ruled this term on cases pitting Texas against New Mexico and Florida against Georgia.
Climate stresses are raising the stakes. Rising temperatures require farmers to use more water to grow the same amount of crops. Prolonged and severe droughts decrease available supplies. Wildfires are burning hotter and lasting longer. Fires bake the soil, reducing forests' ability to hold water, increasing evaporation from barren land and compromising water supplies.
As a longtime observer of interstate water negotiations, I see a basic problem: In some cases, more water rights exist on paper than as wet water – even before factoring in shortages caused by climate change and other stresses. In my view, states should put at least as much effort into reducing water use as they do into litigation, because there are no guaranteed winners in water lawsuits.
Alabama, pay attention to Supreme Court ruling against Florida in water war #Water #SDG6 https://t.co/wIjdoY6Ccr— Noah J. Sabich (@Noah J. Sabich)1617800452.0
Dry Times in the West
The situation is most urgent in California and the Southwest, which currently face "extreme or exceptional" drought conditions. California's reservoirs are half-empty at the end of the rainy season. The Sierra snowpack sits at 60% of normal. In March 2021, federal and state agencies that oversee California's Central Valley Project and State Water Project – regional water systems that each cover hundreds of miles – issued "remarkably bleak warnings" about cutbacks to farmers' water allocations.
The Colorado River Basin is mired in a drought that began in 2000. Experts disagree as to how long it could last. What's certain is that the "Law of the River" – the body of rules, regulations and laws governing the Colorado River – has allocated more water to the states than the river reliably provides.
The 1922 Colorado River Compact allocated 7.5 million acre-feet (one acre-foot is roughly 325,000 gallons) to California, Nevada and Arizona, and another 7.5 million acre-feet to Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. A treaty with Mexico secured that country 1.5 million acre-feet, for a total of 16.5 million acre-feet. However, estimates based on tree ring analysis have determined that the actual yearly flow of the river over the last 1,200 years is roughly 14.6 million acre-feet.
The inevitable train wreck has not yet happened, for two reasons. First, Lakes Mead and Powell – the two largest reservoirs on the Colorado – can hold a combined 56 million acre-feet, roughly four times the river's annual flow.
But diversions and increased evaporation due to drought are reducing water levels in the reservoirs. As of Dec. 16, 2020, both lakes were less than half full.
Second, the Upper Basin states – Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico – have never used their full allotment. Now, however, they want to use more water. Wyoming has several new dams on the drawing board. So does Colorado, which is also planning a new diversion from the headwaters of the Colorado River to Denver and other cities on the Rocky Mountains' east slope.
Drought conditions in the continental U.S. on April 13, 2021. U.S. Drought Monitor, CC BY-ND
Utah Stakes a Claim
The most controversial proposal comes from one of the nation's fastest-growing areas: St. George, Utah, home to approximately 90,000 residents and lots of golf courses. St. George has very high water consumption rates and very low water prices. The city is proposing to augment its water supply with a 140-mile pipeline from Lake Powell, which would carry 86,000 acre-feet per year.
Truth be told, that's not a lot of water, and it would not exceed Utah's unused allocation from the Colorado River. But the six other Colorado River Basin states have protested as though St. George were asking for their firstborn child.
In a joint letter dated Sept. 8, 2020, the other states implored the Interior Department to refrain from issuing a final environmental review of the pipeline until all seven states could "reach consensus regarding legal and operational concerns." The letter explicitly threatened a high "probability of multi-year litigation."
Utah blinked. Having earlier insisted on an expedited pipeline review, the state asked federal officials on Sept. 24, 2020 to delay a decision. But Utah has not given up: In March 2021, Gov. Spencer Cox signed a bill creating a Colorado River Authority of Utah, armed with a $9 million legal defense fund, to protect Utah's share of Colorado River water. One observer predicted "huge, huge litigation."
How huge could it be? In 1930, Arizona sued California in an epic battle that did not end until 2006. Arizona prevailed by finally securing a fixed allocation from the water apportioned to California, Nevada and Arizona.
Litigation or Conservation
Before Utah takes the precipitous step of appealing to the Supreme Court under the court's original jurisdiction over disputes between states, it might explore other solutions. Water conservation and reuse make obvious sense in St. George, where per-person water consumption is among the nation's highest.
St. George could emulate its neighbor, Las Vegas, which has paid residents up to $3 per square foot to rip out lawns and replace them with native desert landscaping. In April 2021 Las Vegas went further, asking the Nevada Legislature to outlaw ornamental grass.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority estimates that the Las Vegas metropolitan area has eight square miles of "nonfunctional turf" – grass that no one ever walks on except the person who cuts it. Removing it would reduce the region's water consumption by 15%.
Water rights litigation is fraught with uncertainty. Just ask Florida, which thought it had a strong case that Georgia's water diversions from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin were harming its oyster fishery downstream.
That case extended over 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court ended the final chapter in April 2021. The court used a procedural rule that places the burden on plaintiffs to provide "clear and convincing evidence." Florida failed to convince the court, and walked away with nothing.
Robert Glennon is a Regents Professor and Morris K. Udall Professor of Law & Public Policy, University of Arizona.
Disclosure statement: Robert Glennon received funding from the National Science Foundation in the 1990s and 2000s.
Reposted with permission from The Conversation.