Every November, roughly 46 million turkeys are killed in the United States for the sake of “American Tradition.” These are curious, socially intelligent birds capable of recognizing flock mates, forming hierarchies, and communicating with unique vocalizations, yet most are reduced to a dining table centerpiece, living just 14–20 weeks before slaughter despite a natural lifespan of 10–15 years. Their short lives, filled with fear and pain, expose the uncomfortable truth that gratitude and violence are braided together in the modern Thanksgiving ritual.
Talking about turkeys means confronting the systems—colonial, patriarchal, and capitalist—that shape their lives and deaths. Thanksgiving, too, cannot be separated from the mythologies that erase Indigenous histories, stewardship, and struggles for sovereignty. This holiday invites us to rethink what, and who, we actually celebrate, honor, and consume.
Most U.S. turkeys live in industrial sheds holding 6,000–20,000 birds and are genetically engineered to grow unnaturally heavy and fast. Their bodies become so large that many cannot stand without pain, often developing joint damage, leg deformities, and heart failure; because of these proportions, they are bred almost exclusively through forced artificial insemination, with their natural social and reproductive lives erased and relabeled as “efficiency.”
Packed tightly together, birds are subjected to “management” practices like beak trimming, desnooding, and detoeing, which remove sensitive body parts without anesthesia and can cause long-term pain, altered behavior, and difficulty eating or moving.
Most turkeys raised for Thanksgiving live on litter soaked with feces and urine under artificial lighting designed to maximize growth; their rapid weight gain often outpaces skeletal development, and many collapse from heart or lung problems. This is not tradition. It is industrial design masquerading as holiday ceremony, where bodies are treated as commodities and exploited to produce life that exists only to generate profit, encapsulating patriarchal capitalist values.
The harm of industrial turkey production does not exist in a vacuum; it is built on stolen land, exploited labor, and ecological harm —precisely the systems that ecofeminism, antispeciesism, and degrowth aim to dismantle. Barns, slaughterhouses, and feedlots sit on land taken from Indigenous peoples which are converted into monoculture grain fields, while underpaid and often migrant workers shoulder the physical risk and trauma required to keep cheap meat flowing.
Thanksgiving intensifies this logic of overproduction: ever-bigger birds, subsidized grain, and millions of pounds of turkey waste each year. In a staggering display of patriarchal capitalism’s disregard for life, it is estimated that 8 million turkeys will be thrown in the trash this Thanksgiving. In this context refusing turkey becomes more than a dietary preference; it is a small but powerful act of rejecting growth-obsessed holiday consumption in favor of justice and planetary boundaries.
And yet, as animal agriculture continues to threaten ecological stability, this year’s H5N1 bird flu outbreaks expose how fragile the turkey industry really is. Since late summer 2025, between 2 and 2.2 million turkeys have been infected or mass-killed, leaving the U.S. with its smallest turkey flock in ~40 years. Zoonotic outbreaks like H5N1 are not random accidents; they are features of a system that concentrates animals, waste, and workers in the same polluted spaces.
These mass culls—often carried out through ventilation shutdown—are presented as “biosecurity,” but they are predictable fallout of confinement, genetic uniformity, and high-density sheds, as discussed in my last post “What We Do to Nature Makes Us Sick – Literally.”
By hiding the ongoing theft and enclosure of Indigenous territories, the Thanksgiving story obscures how industrial animal agriculture depends on those same lands for feed crops, confinement facilities, and slaughter plants.
Additionally, Indigenous relationships with turkeys stretch back more than 2,000 years and offer a radically different perspective of these animals than what is normalized by Thanksgiving as its celebrated today. Historical records show that Indigenous societies in the Americas valued the birds so highly that they tamed them at least twice for companionship and participation in ceremonies.
This contrast makes clear that the way turkeys are treated today is not natural or inevitable—it is a political and economic choice.
This web of ecological and social harm reveals that struggles for land, animal liberation, and bodily autonomy are never separate. Colonial systems reshape landscapes and species to fit extractive needs, while the same logic reaches into gender and labor. What happens to the land, and what happens to the animals forced onto it, mirrors what happens to the people whose labor and autonomy are also controlled.
Ecofeminism names these shared roots and insists that none of these violences can be confronted in isolation. Instead of systems built on domination, extraction, and sacrifice zones, it asks us to move toward plant-based, low-impact, and degrowth-aligned ways of living that are grounded in care, interdependence, and respect for all beings.
Reimagining Thanksgiving through this lens means refusing to isolate animal suffering from land theft, climate chaos, and labor exploitation.
Supporting Indigenous land defenders, eating plant-based seasonal foods, and telling honest histories become interconnected acts of resistance to a system that treats life as expendable.
In place of a holiday that normalizes mistreatment, these choices move us toward traditions rooted in reciprocity, repair, and the shared right of all beings to live and thrive.
With COVID-19 cases rising again globally and health agencies monitoring potential threats from bird flu (H5N1, H9N2) and yellow fever, global organizations — including the World Health Organization (WHO) — have recognized the ongoing risk. They recently signed a new Pandemic Agreement to improve preparedness, as high-threat infectious hazards continue to increase due to animal agriculture, deforestation, urbanization, and global wildlife trade.
These risks compound: habitat destruction not only accelerates species extinctions but creates more pathways for dangerous viruses to emerge, multiply, and move into human populations.
Root Causes: How Human Activity Drives Spillover
Over 70% of new diseases in people—and nearly all pandemics, like COVID-19—originate from animal microbes also known as “zoonoses”. These spillovers occur when human activities disrupt natural barriers, usually through activities like:
Agricultural expansion. Converting natural habitats like forests and grasslands into farmland is responsible for over 30% of emerging disease events, making it one of the strongest predictors of spillover. Land use change like this causes increased contact between humans, livestock, and wildlife, which makes it easier for diseases to pass from wild animals to people (zoonotic spillover).
Intensive livestock production. Factory farms crowd genetically similar animals together in unsanitary dwellings, creating ideal conditions for pathogens to spread and evolve. Animals in factory farms frequently suffer from a variety of illnesses, and many of these conditions often go unnoticed or untreated due to the sheer number of animals and unmanageable animal-to-worker ratios. These environments substantially increase the probability that a disease will jump from animals to humans.
Deforestation. Clearing forests for agriculture, logging, or settlement destroys wildlife habitats and forces animals into closer proximity with people and livestock. More than 70% of deforestation is driven by agricultural expansion, particularly for grazing and feed crops.
Urbanization. Rapid growth of cities creates densely populated areas where diseases can spread quickly and where expanding development pushes into formerly wild spaces, increasing human contact with wildlife.
Global wildlife trade. The legal and illegal trade of wild animals transports pathogens across borders and brings stressed, diverse species into close quarters with humans, creating ideal spillover conditions.
Together, these activities fragment habitats and expose people and livestock to roughly 1.7 million undiscovered viruses, an estimated 600,000 of which could infect humans.
A World Wildlife Fund (WWF) analysis adds that pandemic risk is best understood as feedback loops: agricultural expansion, luxury wildlife demand, industrialization, and global trade all reinforce each other, making spillover not just a single event but the product of complex, interconnected systems.
Increasingly, scientists and policy leaders advocate for the “One Health” approach—a recognition that human, animal, and ecosystem health are inseparably connected. One Health calls for collaborative action across medicine, veterinary science, agriculture, and environmental protection, aiming to address the root causes of disease outbreaks and ecosystem collapse at their source rather than simply reacting to emergencies.
These root causes mirror the forces behind climate change and global inequality: weak regulation, extractive industries, and profit-driven systems that degrade the very ecosystems acting as our first line of defense.
Animal Agriculture: A Major Driver of Climate Breakdown and Pandemic Risk
Animal agriculture sits at the center of both ecological disruption and disease emergence, making it one of the most significant contributors to pandemic risk.
Livestock farming is responsible for 12–20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, produces 37% of human-caused methane, and drives widespread deforestation, water contamination, and biodiversity loss. As global meat consumption rises, the demand for land and feed crops intensifies, pushing agricultural expansion deeper into natural habitats.
Industrial livestock operations also create ideal conditions for infectious disease evolution. Crowded, genetically similar animals enable viruses to spread rapidly and mutate. Many zoonotic pathogens — including avian and swine influenza and antibiotic-resistant bacteria — originated in high-density livestock systems. Live animal transport and global supply chains further amplify transmission risk, moving pathogens across borders at rapid speed.
The ongoing surge in bird flu outbreaks illustrates these risks: in 2025, millions of chickens and turkeys in North America have been killed to contain infection as H5N1 spreads rapidly in crowded factory farms, which serve as hotspots for viral mutation and transmission. When avian flu is detected in a flock, authorities typically employ mass culling methods—such as gassing or suffocation—which kills every bird in the shed to halt the disease’s spread. This process highlights the normalization of suffering and waste in our food systems.
Research consistently shows that transitioning toward plant-based food systems would reduce emissions, restore ecosystems, and significantly lower the risk of emerging pandemics.
Structural Causes: Capitalism, Inequality, and Rising Risk
Large-scale deforestation, industrial agriculture, and wildlife commodification are often financed and directed by high-consuming nations and powerful multinational corporations like JBS and Walmart. These actors profit from activities that degrade ecosystems, while the resulting disease and environmental risks are displaced onto communities.
In a growth-focused global economy, capital flows into industries such as factory farming, fossil fuel extraction, mining, and wildlife trade — sectors that depend on cheap land, weak environmental regulation, and low-cost labor. As these industries expand into biodiversity-rich regions, they fragment ecosystems, displace wildlife, and intensify opportunities for spillover. Global supply chains built for speed and efficiency further entrench this dynamic by externalizing environmental and health costs onto exploited nations and communities.
The very industries that degrade ecosystems and compromise community health channel their profits to corporations and wealthy nations, widening the gap between those who bear the consequences and those who reap the rewards.
Many of the world’s spillover “hotspots” lie in tropical regions managed or inhabited by Indigenous and rural communities who often lack the political power to resist industrial expansion by dominant nations. As a result, these communities face polluted waterways, degraded land, inadequate health infrastructure, and increased exposure to zoonotic disease. When outbreaks occur, indigenous and rural communities experience disproportionate illness, loss of income, and long-term social disruption. Meanwhile, high-consuming nations continue to benefit from exploitation and the availability of cheap commodities, while displacing the risks elsewhere.
The WWF highlights that protecting Indigenous land rights, supporting community-led resource management, and ensuring equitable participation in conservation are not simply justice issues—they are frontline strategies for pandemic prevention. Indigenous management consistently leads to better conservation outcomes, healthier forests, and—by extension—lower pandemic risk.
Calls for pandemic justice echo those of the climate justice movement: those who benefit most from ecological destruction must bear the greatest responsibility for prevention, restoration, and reparative action.
How U.S. Policy Has Increased Vulnerability
If we learned anything from COVID-19 its that reactionary approaches to pandemics are slow, expensive, and inadequate to the scale of the threat (WHO). Instead, prevention must start with transforming the policies that drive ecosystem disruption.
However, recent U.S. policy decisions under the Trump administration have amplified vulnerability to disease emergence and environmental harm simultaneously.
For example, despite warnings from experts about the risk of foot-and-mouth disease in Argentinian cattle, the Trump administration moved forward with policies to expand beef imports from Argentina, a decision that raises the risk of introducing animal diseases into U.S. herds and exemplifies the prioritization of economic and trade interests over ecological and public health safety.
Additionally, there have been significant cuts and delays to federal research funding for emerging infectious diseases, undermining efforts at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other agencies to develop new diagnostics, vaccines, and treatments, and diminishing the nation’s ability to monitor and respond to public health threats.
Finally, the U.S. withdrawal from the (WHO) disrupted global data sharing and international public health collaboration, creating funding gaps in vital programs, limiting U.S. influence over international health policy, and reducing coordination on pandemic preparedness with global partners..
These decisions mirror broader climate deregulation: short-term economic gains for those in power, long-term social, health and environmental risks for everyone else.
Plant Based Diets as Resistance
When governments prioritize corporate interests over ecological and public health, it is easy to feel powerless. Yet individual choices — especially the ways we eat and where we put our dollars — offer a powerful form of resistance. A plant-based diet directly withdraws support from the industries most responsible for both climate instability and pandemic risk.
A plant-based diet reduces risk across multiple systems:
Lower pandemic risk: Reducing dependence on factory farming — one of the primary incubators of zoonotic disease — lowers the conditions that enable pathogens to spill over into human populations. Studies show that people eating primarily plant-based diets experience lower COVID-19 severity and improved immune outcomes.
Climate mitigation: Plant-based diets reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 50%, while also decreasing water use, pollution, and resource depletion.
Biodiversity protection: Less demand for meat slows deforestation, protects wildlife habitats, and reduces landscape fragmentation — one of the strongest predictors of zoonotic spillover.
Individual dietary choices can activate our collective power. Even small shifts — like choosing plant-based meals a few times per week — reduce pressure on natural habitats and act as a form of climate care.
International health bodies like WHO, IPBES, and the One Health High-Level Expert Panel consistently affirm that addressing pandemic risk requires protecting ecosystems, reducing destructive land use, and prioritizing community well-being over extractive growth.
Conclusion
While plant-based diets strengthen pandemic and climate resilience at an individual level, systemic transformation is needed to address climate and pandemic risk on a global scale.
The most effective pandemic mitigation strategies cited from IPBES to WHO, BMJ, and global One Health networks include:
Nature-first prevention: Restoring forests, ending deforestation, and protecting biodiversity hotspots maintain the ecological stability that prevents spillover. Healthy ecosystems act as protective shields against emerging infectious diseases.
Integrated One Health policies: Aligning human, animal, and environmental health strengthens surveillance, early detection, and coordinated responses across sectors. The One Health model is now widely recognized as essential for global pandemic preparedness.
Community-led conservation: Indigenous and frontline communities consistently achieve stronger conservation outcomes through place-based knowledge, stewardship, and long-term relationships with land. Their leadership protects biodiversity while strengthening social resilience.
Redirecting funding toward prevention: Investing billions annually in early-warning systems, ecological restoration, and public health infrastructure breaks the costly cycle of reactive crisis management. Prevention is more effective, equitable, and sustainable than emergency response.
These solutions reflect the growing alignment between climate justice and pandemic prevention frameworks. Both demand a shift away from extractive, profit-driven models of growth and promote moving toward long-term ecological stability, community well-being, and global solidarity.
Climate care is pandemic prevention. Biodiversity is a protective shield that stabilizes the climate, regulates ecosystems, and buffers humanity from disease. When we dismantle that shield, the consequences cascade through every aspect of life.
The latest evidence, echoed by WWF, makes clear: The solutions that prevent pandemics are the same ones that restore justice and planetary health— restoring ecosystems, reducing reliance on animal agriculture, supporting Indigenous leadership, and enacting policies that prioritize people and the planet.
Soil health is the foundation of thriving ecosystems and food systems. But what happens when our soils are tainted by “forever chemicals”-the notorious PFAS that resist breakdown and threaten food safety? Scientists are turning to plants for answers, exploring whether nature’s green powerhouses can help regenerate soil and tackle PFAS contamination.
PFAS are a large group of human-made chemicals found in everything from Topo Chico to firefighting foam. They’re called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily, accumulating in water, soil, and living organisms-including us. Exposure to PFAS is linked to health problems like high cholesterol, immune suppression, developmental issues, and even cancer.
Can Plants Absorb PFAS from Soil?
Yes-certain plants can absorb PFAS from soil, through a process known as phytoremediation. But the effectiveness depends on the plant species, the type of PFAS, and environmental conditions
Key Findings:
Hemp (Cannabis sativa): Hemp has shown promise in absorbing some PFAS, especially the smaller, more water-soluble types.
Field trials at the former Loring Air Force Base showed that hemp could take up 10 out of 28 PFAS detected in soil. In the most successful plots, hemp removed up to approximately 2% of total PFAS from the soil, primarily accumulating these chemicals in its stems and leaves.
Laboratory and greenhouse experiments confirm that hemp can absorb PFAS like perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) into leaves, stems, and flowers, while larger, less water-soluble PFAS such as PFOS and PFOA tend to remain in the roots.
While hemp phytoremediation is not a comprehensive solution, it offers a promising approach to reducing PFAS levels in contaminated soils.
Switchgrass
Switchgrass has been explored as a candidate for phytoremediation of PFAS-contaminated soils, primarily because of its robust root system and ability to grow in marginal soils. Its extensive root network may help stabilize soil and potentially uptake or immobilize contaminants.
Research indicates that switchgrass can absorb some PFAS compounds, but uptake levels tend to be lower compared to plants like hemp or leafy greens. The majority of PFAS absorbed by switchgrass often remains in the roots rather than translocating to shoots or leaves. This characteristic could be beneficial by limiting PFAS entry into the above-ground biomass, reducing risks if the plant is harvested or grazed.
Leafy Greens (lettuce, kale, celery): These plants tend to accumulate higher levels of PFAS, particularly the short-chain varieties.
Leafy greens are known to accumulate high levels of PFAS, especially short-chain varieties, in their edible leaves. However, this high uptake is considered a food safety concern rather than a remediation advantage, since these crops are meant for human consumption and could introduce PFAS into the food chain.
The Limits of Vegetation Based PFAS Cleanup
While the idea is promising, phytoremediation isn’t a comprehensive solution for PFAS contamination.
Partial Removal: Even the best systems remove only a portion of PFAS-sometimes up to 34% for short-chain types after 90 days, but often much less for long-chain PFAS, which cling tightly to soil.
Slow Process: It can take multiple planting cycles to see meaningful reductions.
Disposal Dilemma: Plants that absorb PFAS become hazardous waste themselves. There’s currently no safe way to compost or naturally degrade these chemicals after harvest.
Not All PFAS Are Equal: Short-chain PFAS are more easily absorbed and moved into plant tissues, while long-chain PFAS mostly stay in the roots or soil.
Are PFAS-Absorbing Plants Safe to Eat?
No. Plants used to clean up PFAS-like hemp and leafy greens grown in contaminated soil-are not safe for human or animal consumption. They can concentrate PFAS in their tissues, posing health risks if eaten.
Even homegrown produce in contaminated areas can add to your PFAS exposure, especially if you eat a lot of leafy greens.
Safety Tips:
Test your soil and water for PFAS before planting edibles.
Use clean soil in raised beds if contamination is a concern.
Limit consumption and distribution of produce from known PFAS-affected areas.
Never consume plantsgrown specifically for PFAS cleanup.
Innovations on the Horizon
Researchers are experimenting with ways to boost plant uptake of PFAS, one method being explored pairs plants with fungi that can break down PFAS. Hybrid approaches utilizing fungi, microbes, and vegetation may one day make phytoremediation more effective and safer.
The Bottom Line
Plants like hemp and leafy greens can help reduce PFAS in soil, but they cannot eliminate all PFAS. Phytoremediation is best used alongside other cleanup methods, like soil washing or containment.
Safe disposal of contaminated plants remains a critical challenge.
Girls’ education and rights-based family planning are critical climate solutions through their dual impact on slowing population growth and accelerating climate action.
Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash
The Climate Impact of Population Growth
Population dynamics directly affect emissions, for example slower population growth reduces demand for energy, transportation, housing, and food which are major contributors to global emissions.
Project Drawdown’s modeling shows that achieving the UN’s medium population projection of 9.7 billion by 2050 (rather than higher-growth scenarios) through expanded family planning and education could reduce CO₂ equivalent emissions by 68.9 gigatons by 2050.
Rights-based family planning strengthens climate resilience by preventing unintended pregnancies, reducing maternal mortality, and keeping girls in school. Scholarships tied to marriage/childbearing could reduce women’s educational attainment as these life events can often alter one’s ability to complete school.
Policies regarding women’s education and reproductive activities must remain rights-based, emphasizing autonomy and access—not coercion. Allowing women equal access to education and expanding family planning services are not just social imperatives but high-leverage climate solutions that address both mitigation and adaptation.
The Clash: Trump’s Pronatalist Agenda vs. Climate Progress
The Trump administration’s proposed pronatalist agenda, which includes baby bonuses, marriage-based educational privileges, and a “National Medal of Motherhood,” signals a return to traditionalist policies that ignore climate realities.
Trumps Core Pronatalist Policies
Financial Incentives
$5,000 “Baby Bonus”: A one-time cash payment to mothers per child
Tax Credits: Expanded child tax credits, though specifics remain unclear
Educational Privileges
Fulbright Scholarships: Reserve 30% of spots for married applicants or parents
Financial incentives such as a $5,000 baby bonus fail to cover the true cost of raising a child, especially in a climate-disrupted economy.
Regressive policies reduce women’s voices and participation in the workforce—particularly in emerging climate sectors like clean energy, where women already make up only 33% of jobs.
Fertility-focused education replaces comprehensive reproductive healthcare, reducing access to contraception and skewing public health priorities.
Cuts to family planning programs, including Title X and CDC maternal health research, further restrict reproductive autonomy.
The proposed policies normalize financial incentive as coercion for sexual acts, stripping women of their humanity and ability to live their lives as they choose. Placing a $5,000 price tag on birth is offensive to the value life and the experience of motherhood, while attracting people who may only be incentivized by the “baby bonus” and are not equipped to raise a child.
Contradiction With Climate Mitigation Strategies
Energy and Emissions:
Emissions Scaling Issue: Even modest population increases have outsized climate impacts. The U.S. already has one of the highest per capita emissions rates (14.44 metric tons CO₂/person). Adding millions more high-consuming Americans (as targeted by “baby boom” policies) would directly counteract emission-reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.
Resource Demand Surge: More people = more:
Energy: U.S. households account for ~20% of national energy use
Transportation: 28% of U.S. emissions come from cars/planes
Food: Animal-based diets (common in U.S.) generate up to 20x more emissions than plant-based options
Women’s Leadership Advances Climate Innovation and Governance
Climate Policy: Countries with greater female representation in parliament not only adopt more stringent climate policies but are also 27% more likely to ratify environmental treaties—highlighting the impact of women’s leadership on accelerating effective climate action.
Change Makers: Women are powerful changemakers in climate technology, policy, and research however they are underrepresented in each of these sectors, which could be further exacerbated by policies that erode reproductive rights and incentivize domestic labor.
Direct Costs: Climate-driven disasters cost the U.S. $165 billion annually (NOAA 2022) – a burden worsened by population growth in vulnerable areas.
Gender Equity Backslide: Cash incentives for mothers ($5k/baby) could pressure women into caregiving roles, reducing workforce participation and climate leadership opportunities
Demographic Myths
The Trump administration’s policies hinge on a misleading narrative: that declining birth rates threaten America’s future. In reality, U.S. population growth is slowing due to rising early adult mortality rates which experienced a sharp rise during the pandemic and remain elevated.
Conclusion: A Crossroads for Climate and Human Rights
As discussed above, educating and empowering women is a net-positive for people and the planet, however the Trump Administration’s framing of “Fertility Education” and incentives for Fulbright Scholarships weaponizes this positive connotation to increase traditionalist patriarchal power.
Coercive and regressive pronatalist policies pose a dual threat—accelerating emissions while exploiting the very people driving climate innovation.
Climate leadership demands a different focus—one rooted in lowering per capita emissions, not expanding the number of high-emitting households. Empowering women’s voices and rights-basedfamily planningnot only promotes gender equity but offers some of the most effective, evidence-based solutions to the climate crisis.
As climate impacts worsen, our policies must elevate—not restrict—human potential. A truly resilient future is one where women are empowered, populations are sustainable, and climate action is just, inclusive, and science-driven.
The rapid growth of the cannabis industry, driven by expanding legalization for both medical and recreational use, presents challenges due to its high energy and water use. As the industry evolves, it is essential to address harms of cannabis criminalization and energy-intensive indoor cultivation to ensure long-term sustainability.
Cannabis is a water intensive crop that is mainly cultivated indoors, leading to significant energy use for lighting, climate control, and ventilation. Indoor cultivation enables growers to standardize their crops, resulting in consistent products with predictable quality and potency, and also reduces the risk of theft, making it the dominant form of legal cannabis production in the US. However, it is also associated with high scope 1 and scope 2 emissions due to the on-site fuel use and electricity consumption required by this method.
HVAC Systems: Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems are essential for controlling temperature and humidity. These systems consume 2,000–3,000 kWh per pound of harvested flower, placing indoor cultivation on par with data centers in terms of energy intensity.
Overall Consumption: Legal cannabis production in the U.S. is estimated to use ~1.1 million MWh annually, enough to power approximately 92,500 homes.
Because emissions from cannabis production are highest in on-site fuel use and electricity consumption, as opposed to the supply chain, operators within the cannabis industry have a significant amount of control over directly reducing emissions at growing centers. There is substantial potential to reduce scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions by implementing on-site renewable generation and procuring clean energy for electricity consumption to make indoor growing practices more sustainable.
Even with the growth in derivative products that are associated with higher levels of embodied carbon due to added processing such as vapes, the major concern over emissions from cannabis production still stems from energy use at indoor cultivation facilities.
Whether grown indoors or outdoors, cannabis cultivation has high water-use. Each plant typically requires between 5 and 6 gallons of water per day, posing considerable challenges in regions already facing water scarcity.
The industry also contributes to pollution from plastic waste as cannabis products are widely distributed in single-use plastic packaging due to child-safety regulations and cost constraints.
While some manufacturers use recyclable plastics (#2 and #5), only 9% of cannabis packaging is recycled. This can be attributed to a lack of consumer awareness about recycling practices as well as a failure of US municipalities as not all of their recycling facilities are equipped to sort #5 plastics. Despite its ability to be recycled, #5 plastic (also known as polypropylene) can mess up your local facility’s machines.
If you live in a municipality that does accept #5 plastic such as Boulder County, CO be sure to rinse your cannabis packaging before adding it to your recycling bin, but removing the label is not necessary!
To address water challenges, some growers build and manually monitor their own irrigation systems, or use water from wells drawing from aquifers, which bypasses the need to tap into streams or municipal water—ensuring water during drought conditions.
Additionally, state-level and private-sector innovation are promoting more energy-efficient lighting systems in indoor facilities. The traditionally used high-intensity discharge lamps such as metal halide and high-pressure sodium (HPS) lights are now being phased out in favor of LED systems. LEDs not only decrease the need for cooling but also reduce overall energy demand as they provide superior light output, significantly lower energy consumption, and reduce heat emissions. Further reductions in energy intensity can be achieved through the use of passive ventilation systems, which lessen reliance on HVAC infrastructure.
On-site renewable generation and procuring renewable electricity through Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) can significantly reduce direct and indirect emissions from business operations. Additionally, on-site solar energy generation can significantly lower cultivator’s energy expenses and in states with net metering programs, cultivators can even earn money on the electricity they don’t use, by exporting it back to the grid for an exchange rate.
On the materials front, policymakers and researchers are increasingly focused on alternatives to plastic packaging. A 2023 Canadian study tested hemp-infused bio-based materials as a biodegradable alternative, and a U.S. House committee has called for further exploration of plant-based packaging solutions.
Emissions: Indoor vs. Outdoor Cultivation
A critical finding in cannabis sustainability research is that indoor grows generate significantly more emissions than outdoor ones.
Mills’ paper notes that cultivation is moving the wrong direction as “large-scale legal indoor cultivation is increasingly concentrated in environmentally overburdened urban areas…as seen in Oakland and Denver, each of which host about 200 sanctioned plant factory operations.”
Similarly, a University of Michigan study concluded that outdoor grows produce 50 times fewer emissions than indoor operations. However, outdoor cultivation also has its own impacts, including use of nitrogen-rich fertilizers which can lead to nutrient runoff, polluting waterways and affecting ecosystems.
Policy and Market Structure: A Barrier to Sustainability
One structural issue is the illegality of interstate cannabis commerce. Without the ability to move product across state lines, regions better suited for outdoor cultivation (e.g., areas with optimal sunlight, lower humidity, and abundant water) are unable to supply other markets. Legalizing interstate trade could enable more outdoor cultivation and efficient resource use—but would likely increase transportation-related emissions.
Social Equity: A Critical Component of Sustainability
Environmental sustainability cannot be achieved in isolation from social justice. Despite legalization in numerous states, tens of thousands of individuals remain incarcerated for cannabis-related offenses—many of whom are from historically marginalized communities. Disparities persist in arrest rates, even in states with legalized cannabis, where Black Americans are still nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis-related charges than white Americans. Collateral consequences of conviction—such as loss of voting rights, employment barriers, housing discrimination, and limited access to education—continue to impact these individuals and their families long after incarceration.
To address these inequities, several policy changes are imperative:
Federal legalization and deschedulingof cannabis: Cannabis remains classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act—on par with heroin and LSD. Descheduling would remove cannabis from the federal list of controlled substances altogether, allowing for comprehensive reform and national equity measures.
Expungement and Retroactive Relief: Automatic expungement of cannabis-related records and the immediate release of individuals incarcerated for cannabis crimes. Some states, like Illinois and New York, have begun implementing automatic expungement procedures, but many others lag behind.
Equity Licensing Programs:Social equity programs such as those launched in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey to provide business licenses, financial support, and technical assistance to individuals directly impacted by prohibition. These programs often face structural limitations, underfunding, and implementation delays, increasing the need to draw attention to this issue.
Organizations like the Last Prisoner Project are working to advance these objectives. Consumers and businesses are encouraged to support advocacy efforts, attend events such as Cannabis Unity Week, and lobby for legislative reform.
This 420 the Last Prisoner Project and Ben & Jerry’s are urging governors across the country to grant clemency to those still incarcerated for cannabis-related offenses.
A truly sustainable cannabis industry requires holistic reform—encompassing cultivation practices, packaging materials, regulatory frameworks, and social justice.
Current and emerging sustainability Initiatives include deployment of on-site renewable energy (e.g., solar power), procurement of renewable electricity, implementation of energy efficiency measures, adoption of water-efficient irrigation and recycling systems, and utilization of regenerative farming.
The cannabis industry stands at a pivotal moment, facing the potential to evolve into a model for sustainable agriculture and ethical enterprise.
But sustainability cannot exist without equity. As we work to reduce the environmental impact of cultivation, we must also demand justice for those still incarcerated under outdated cannabis laws.
Recent data reveals that between June 2024 and February 2025 alone, U.S. beekeepers lost 62% of colonies, totaling 1.1 million hives. This crisis threatens food systems, as 35% of global crops depend on pollinators. As foundational components of food webs and providers of critical ecosystem services, their collapse signals ecological destabilization and threatens to unravel the complex networks that sustain life on Earth.
While scientists grapple with causes, ranging from pesticide exposure to parasitic mites like Varroa destructor, individuals can take meaningful steps to support both honeybees and their underappreciated native counterparts, such as mason bees.
However, their efficiency pales compared to native species like mason bees, which achieve a 95% pollination rate versus honeybees’ 5%. Unlike honeybees (introduced from Europe), mason bees are solitary, sting-resistant, and active in cooler weather, making them vital for early-blooming crops like cherries.
Beyond crop pollination, bees are essential to the overall health of our ecosystems, supporting native plant biodiversity and providing food sources for other wildlife.
Threats to Bee Populations: A Deep Dive
The drastic 2025 decline stems from multiple, interconnected stressors:
Parasites and Pathogens: Varroa destructor mites, tiny but deadly, weaken colonies by feeding on bee fat reserves and transmitting viruses. Similarly, the fungus Nosema ceranae disrupts bees’ digestion, leading to malnutrition and colony collapse. These biological threats are exacerbated by climate change, which weakens bees’ immune systems, making them more susceptible.
Pesticides: Neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, and other agricultural chemicals impair bees’ navigation, learning, and immune function, increasing their vulnerability to other stressors. Systemic pesticides, absorbed into plant tissues, contaminate pollen and nectar, exposing bees throughout the growing season. Studies show that even sublethal doses of pesticides can drastically reduce colony survival rates.
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation: Urbanization, monoculture farming, and deforestation reduce floral diversity and nesting sites, leaving bees with fewer food sources and places to reproduce. Increased land use for animal grazing and agriculture, including crop cultivation, is a main driver of habitat loss and fragmentation. The conversion of diverse landscapes into vast stretches of single crops deprives bees of the varied diet they need for optimal health.
Climate Change: Shifting weather patterns, extreme events (droughts, floods, heat waves), and altered bloom times disrupt bees’ foraging and nesting cycles, impacting their survival and reproductive success. Phenological mismatches—where plants and pollinators are out of sync—can lead to starvation and reduced pollination rates. Rising temperatures also alter bee distribution and behavior, affecting their interactions with other species.
Lack of Genetic Diversity: Modern commercial bee breeding practices have led to a narrowing of the gene pool within bee populations. This lack of diversity can lead to reduced resistance to disease and decreased adaptability to environmental changes.
The Government Isn’t Coming: Why Individual Action Matters
Despite mounting scientific evidence and dire warnings from experts, governmental action to protect bee populations remains insufficient.
Here’s why you can’t wait for the government:
Defunding of Environmental Programs: Environmental agencies face budget cuts and deregulation, limiting their ability to enforce existing protections or implement new ones.
Political Influence: The pesticide industry exerts significant influence on policy decisions, often undermining efforts to restrict harmful chemicals.
Slow Bureaucracy: Even when policies are enacted, bureaucratic delays can render them ineffective. By the time regulations are implemented, bee populations may have already suffered irreversible damage.
Political gridlock, lobbying from powerful agricultural interests, and a general lack of prioritization of environmental issues have hampered meaningful policy changes.
Lobbying organizations spend millions annually downplaying the risks of pesticides, pushing for weaker regulations, and promoting false solutions. For example, Syngenta is the largest seller of pesticides highly toxic to bees, generating $1.3 billion annually from neonicotinoids and other pollinator-harming chemicals. Despite evidence linking neonics to colony collapse, Syngenta lobbied against EU bans, instead promoting “field margins” as a distraction.
Without government support, individual and community action is crucial because it’s immediate, direct, and can create a ripple effect, influencing others to take action and pressuring policymakers to respond.
How Individuals Can Help: A Comprehensive Guide
Support Native Bees:
Install Bee Hotels: Provide nesting sites for solitary bees like mason bees, leafcutter bees, and others. Use cardboard tubes, drilled wood blocks, or pre-made nesting boxes (like those from Crown Bees) to provide shelter. Ensure the hotels are made of natural, untreated materials.
Offer Mud Sources: Mason bees seal nests with mud. A small patch of moist clay soil in your garden aids their reproduction.
Create a Bee Bath: Bees need water, too! Provide a shallow dish of water with pebbles or marbles for them to land on while drinking.
Leave the Leaves: Resist the urge to rake up all your leaves in the fall. Many native bees overwinter in leaf litter.
Plant Bee-Friendly Gardens:
Prioritize Native Blooms: Native plants are adapted to local conditions and provide the most nutritious pollen and nectar for native bees. Goldenrod, milkweed, asters, coneflowers, and sunflowers are excellent choices.
Ensure Seasonal Variety: Plant spring bulbs (crocuses), summer wildflowers (sunflowers), and fall bloomers (sedum) for year-round forage.
Skip Hybrids: Many ornamental plants lack pollen or nectar. Choose single-petal varieties over double-petal ones, as the latter often have reduced pollen production.
Plant in Clumps: Bees find it easier to forage on large patches of the same flower.
Let Your Lawn Grow: Allowing your lawn to grow a little longer provides habitat and food for bees and other pollinators.
Support Sustainable Agriculture:
Buy Organic: Organic farms often use fewer harmful chemicals and maintain hedgerows for pollinators.
Support Local Farmers: Visit farmers’ markets and CSAs that prioritize sustainable farming practices.
Prioritize Plant-based: Plant-based diets benefit bees by reducing the environmental pressures associated with animal agriculture, which is a major driver of habitat destruction, pesticide use, and climate change—all significant threats to pollinator populations.
Grow Your Own Food: Even a small vegetable garden can provide a haven for bees and other pollinators.
Compost: Composting reduces waste and provides nutrient-rich soil for your garden.
Educate and Collaborate:
Knowledge Sharing: Teach neighbors to build bee hotels or plant pollinator gardens.
Support Conservation Science: Donate to groups studying honeybee health or native bee conservation. Organizations like Save The Bees and BeesMAX use crowdfunding to support bee research, habitat restoration, and other initiatives to help bees.
Citizen Science: Report bee sightings via apps like iNaturalist to aid research.
Spread the Word: Use social media to raise awareness about the bee crisis and inspire others to take action. Share my post!
In today’s fast-paced world, fitting these activities into your schedule might feel overwhelming. However, they can be done in groups, making them more manageable—and offering a great way to foster social connection in an increasingly isolated society.
A Future for Pollinators
While honeybee declines dominate headlines, solutions require a shift toward biodiversity. Research shows that orchards with both honeybees and mason bees achieve higher fruit sets, highlighting the synergy between species.
The interconnectedness of climate change, biodiversity loss, and the insect crisis demands integrated strategies. By nurturing native plants and bees, individuals can buffer ecosystems against collapse.
From urban balconies to rural farms, every mud-capped tube and pesticide-free flower matters. The buzz of bees—whether honeybee or mason—is a sound worth saving. The survival of these essential creatures depends on our collective action. It is time to act, not just for the bees, but for our own future.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the 2030 Agenda, were unanimously adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015. There are 17 goals with the overarching ambition of achieving “peace and prosperity for people and the planet” by 2030 with specific focus on ending poverty, attaining gender equality, and taking urgent climate action, thus the SDGs emphasize the links between environmental, social and economic issues.
The SDGs were built upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to create a more comprehensive and universal framework for addressing global challenges. The MDGs were established in 2000 with eight goals aimed at addressing poverty and development issues in developing countries by 2015. These goals were measured through 21 targets and indicators, focusing on basic human development issues such as health, education, and poverty reduction.
Key differences between the SDGs and the MDGs include the fact that the MDGs largely focused on human development while the SDGs expand this scope to include sustainable development. Sustainable development aims to meet present needs without compromising the needs of future generations.
Specific targets within the MDGs as they were developed in 2000 include eliminating poverty, promoting gender equality, achieving primary education, improving maternal health, and ensuring environmental sustainability. The SDGs include all of these human development focused goals and expand upon them with a sharper focus on sustainable development, for example the SDGs include specific targets for affordable clean energy, responsible production and consumption, and climate action. The SDGs are a global agenda that aim to address inequality within and between nations and is aligned with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This announcement was made by Edward Heartney, Counselor for Economic and Social Affrairs (ECOSOC) at the U.S. Mission to the UN, while at the General Assembly. The statement preceded a vote on “creating an International Day of Peaceful Coexistence,” which included a reaffirmation of the Sustainable Development Goals.
In his remarks to the UN General Assembly, Heartney stated:
“We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans.
In the last U.S. election, the mandate from the American people was clear: the government of the United States must refocus on the interests of Americans. We must care first and foremost for our own – that is our moral and civic duty. President Trump also set a clear and overdue course correction on “gender” and climate ideology, which pervade the SDGs.
Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course.”
The SDGs aim to address issues that have been agreed upon as high priority by the UN and its member states for at least 25 years as highlighted by the MDGs. Matters such as gender inequality, maternal mortality, disease, lack of education, and environmental sustainability have been prevalent for decades and unanimously supported by UN member states as so. In the first quarter of Trump’s second term, these issues have all been negatively impacted and set back.
As of March 11th, the U.S. has been added to the Global Human Rights Watchlist which further affirms global perception of the U.S. Government’s disregard for human and environmental rights as it not only refuses to provide support for initiatives that advance society towards human and sustainable development, but actively works against both, resulting in a declining nation.
Although the US federal government will not be supporting the 17 goals outlined in the SDGs, individuals and community lead initiatives can support this agenda through informed economic decisions, collective action, and individual actions.
Buying reused items, making items yourself, supporting sustainable businesses and buying local are all great economic decisions that individuals can make to support SDG 13 on responsible consumption and production. Practicing responsible consumption and production benefits the environment by reducing waste, conserving resources, minimizing pollution, and helps to divert profits away from heavy emitting corporations.
Additionally, as of 2024, 74% of the world’s largest companies voluntarily report on commitments to the SDGs, according to KPMG’s Survey of Sustainability Reporting. However, it is important to note that a survey of 206 companies found that while 83% expressed support for the SDGs, only 40% had put in place measurable commitments and only 20% included evidence to assess their impacts. As of January 2025, 10,000 corporations have committed to the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), and of those 16% have set net-zero targets. In 2024, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) assessed more than 22,000 corporations on their transparency and ability to integrate Earth-positive decisions into their business models. CDP and sustainability reports can often be found as publicly available information through company websites and the CDP website. Therefore, individuals can access information to make educated decisions about products they purchase by researching companies’ commitments to sustainability.
Community led initiatives play a crucial role in supporting the 2030 Agenda. One example is the creation of community gardens, which provide fresh produce, reduce reliance on commercial food systems, and foster local food security—directly supporting SDG 2’s goal of achieving zero hunger.
Additionally, community-based energy cooperatives (CECs) help provide affordable, clean, and reliable energy to communities. CECs are self organizing groups that empower communities to take control of their energy production and consumption.
Energy efficiency initiatives in workplaces, homes, and community spaces help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution, and resource consumption.
Community-led climate mitigation projects, such as planting native plant gardens, help absorb carbon dioxide and enhance biodiversity. Furthermore, encouraging cycling, walking, carpooling and public transportation can significantly reduce GHG emissions and contribute to a sustainable future.
Locally led climate adaptation projects play an essential role in building a sustainable future as well. The difference between climate mitigation projects and climate adaptation projects is that mitigation projects focus on reducing or preventing greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change, while adaptation projects aim to help communities and ecosystems adjust to its effects by enhancing resilience and minimizing risks.
Locally led adaptation efforts include setting up early warning systems for extreme weather events to ensure timely evacuations, educating communities on disaster preparedness and health risks, and supporting displaced or injured individuals through community care funds. By implementing these measures, we can reduce harm and better respond to climate-related disasters. Characteristics of successful locally led climate adaptation projects include flexibility, investments in community leadership and local institutional capacities, and reinforcing adaptation across programs.
There are synergies between the SDGs that can be leveraged for greater impact, for example goal 13 on climate action interconnects with several other SDGs including goal 7 on clean energy, goal 3 on health, and goal 12 on responsible consumption and production. This can empower SDG focused funding and projects to address multiple goals at once as these issues are inherently interconnected.
Despite a challenging political landscape, strong support for a sustainable future remains evident among U.N. member states, nations with national commitments to the SDGs, corporations aligned with these goals, and grassroots community efforts. Now more than ever, it is crucial to leverage local resources and coordinate community initiatives to shape the future we want to live in.
