Tag: decarbonization

  • The Nutrient Deficiency Myth, Debunked: What a Vegan Diet Really Provides

    Have you ever associated going vegan with the fear of missing out on vital nutrients? You’re not alone—this myth has been circulating for years. But science, insights into propaganda used by the meat industry, and my personal journey—tell a very different story.

    Photo by Samuel Girven on Unsplash

    Typical American diets are often heavy in processed meats and low in fiber. In contrast, vegans get significantly more micronutrients like fiber, vitamins C and E, and minerals such as magnesium. These nutrients are vital in supporting heart health, immune function, and overall wellness. Contrary to popular belief, plant-based eaters consistently meet or exceed recommended protein intakes through legumes, tofu, tempeh, nuts, seeds, and whole grains. With variety, all essential amino acids are covered.

    Meanwhile, omnivorous diets can ironically lack many of these key micronutrients, despite providing ample protein and calories.

    Since I began pursuing strength training and body composition goals on a vegan diet—alongside other active hobbies like dancing and hiking—I’ve experienced firsthand how plant-based nutrition fuels athletic performance and aesthetic goals.

    My personal experience reflects what the science shows: a well-planned vegan diet provides all the essential nutrients needed for muscle growth, sustained energy, and recovery.

    What’s the Difference Between Micronutrients and Macronutrients?

    Understanding nutrition is like maintaining a car—you need both fuel and sparts to keep it running.

    Macronutrients are your fuel: carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. Carbs provide quick energy, proteins build and repair tissue, and fats store energy and support vital functions.

    Micronutrients—vitamins and minerals—are like the spark plugs and wiring. You need them in small amounts, but they’re essential for metabolism, immunity, brain function, and bone health. Without them, even the best “fuel” can’t keep the system running smoothly.

    How Vegan Diets Boost Health

    A vegan diet centered around whole foods like fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds is naturally packed with essential micronutrients. These include vitamins C and E, magnesium, potassium, zinc, copper, and antioxidants that help your body run clean and efficiently.

    Collagen Production

    Many of these nutrients support collagen production, which maintains healthy skin, joints, and connective tissue. Vitamin C stabilizes collagen fibers, zinc and copper support its synthesis, and vitamins A and E aid in cell renewal and protect skin structures. This profile not only bolsters heart health and digestion but also helps keep skin strong and youthful.

    Muscle Growth and Function

    Micronutrients play crucial roles in muscle function. Calcium triggers muscle contractions, potassium helps muscles relax and prevents cramps, and magnesium supports energy metabolism.

    Great plant-based sources include:

    • Calcium: fortified plant milks, tofu, kale, bok choy
    • Potassium: bananas, sweet potatoes, spinach, avocados
    • Magnesium: almonds, cashews, pumpkin seeds, whole grains, leafy greens

    Iron and B vitamins (B1, B6, B12, folate) are essential for delivering oxygen and energy to muscles. Iron transports oxygen, while B vitamins convert food into energy. Find these in lentils, chickpeas, quinoa, spinach, pumpkin seeds, whole grains, legumes, nutritional yeast, and dark leafy greens.

    Vitamins C and E and minerals like zinc aid post-exercise recovery and reduce oxidative stress. Sources include citrus fruits, strawberries, bell peppers, broccoli (for C), nuts, seeds, spinach (for E), and beans, lentils, and seeds (for zinc).

    Vitamin D and zinc also support immune health and hormonal balance—key for consistent training and recovery. Vitamin D can be found in fortified plant milks, sun-exposed mushrooms, and supplements as needed.

    In my experience, I’ve had more energy to pursue multiple sports—including weightlifting, dance, and hiking—on a plant-based diet than I did on an omnivorous one. Although I tracked my macronutrients more rigorously on an omnivorous diet, I’ve found it easier to reach my strength, stamina, and aesthetic goals by prioritizing nutrient-dense, plant-based foods. I attribute this to getting adequate macronutrients alongside a significantly higher intake of micronutrients. The boost in vitamins and minerals has also enhanced my focus throughout the day.

    What About B12?

    Contrary to popular belief, meat itself does not naturally contain high levels of B vitamins; rather, it’s produced by microbes and added to animal feed in industrial farming. This means most people consuming meat get B12 that was supplemented earlier in the food chain.

    Fortified foods such as nutritional yeast provide a direct, reliable source for vegans.

    Increased Immunity

    Since going vegan, I rarely get sick and recover quickly when I do. I feel more energized and no longer experience the frequent colds I used to. Whether it’s due to increased vitamin C, zinc, antioxidants, or overall nutrient density, the shift has been profound.

    And the data backs it up: A 2021 study in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health found that people on plant-based diets had a 73% lower risk of moderate-to-severe COVID-19. Researchers attributed this to higher intakes of vitamins, antioxidants, and fiber, which reduce inflammation and boost immune defenses.

    How Meat Industry Propaganda Fuels Nutrient Myths and Greenwashing

    The enduring myth that vegan diets are nutritionally insufficient is not merely a misunderstanding—it is actively propagated and reinforced by coordinated marketing and lobbying campaigns funded by the meat industry.

    This industry exploits a fundamental human instinct: the desire to protect our health and well-being.

    By weaponizing legitimate health concerns, the meat sector promotes the narrative that meat is essential for strength, vitality, and overall wellness.

    Each year, the meat industry deploys powerful advertisements that positions meat as the primary or exclusive source of vital nutrients such as protein and B vitamins. These campaigns use cultural symbols, linking meat consumption with masculinity, patriotism, tradition, and cultural identity.

    Ironically, many nutrients long attributed to meat actually come from supplements administered to animals before slaughter, rather than naturally occurring in the meat itself—as noted above regarding vitamin B12.

    Marketing tactics target young demographics and schools by funding educational materials that vilify plant-based alternatives as unnatural or overly processed.

    Simultaneously, the industry promotes “net zero” sustainability pledges that omit critical emissions sources like deforestation linked to feed crop production, misleading the public regarding meat’s true environmental costs.

    Beyond traditional advertisements, the meat industry has invested tens of millions of dollars into orchestrated misinformation and disinformation campaigns designed to obstruct transitions toward plant-based diets and challenge studies advocating for reduced meat consumption for human and planetary health. This includes providing funding to scholars, research centers, and public relations firms that produce and disseminate messaging aimed at undermining scientific consensus on the environmental and health impacts of meat consumption. For instance, the University of California Davis’s CLEAR Center has received nearly $12.5 million in meat industry funding to challenge studies advocating for reduced meat consumption and to lead campaigns such as #yes2meat.

    In 2023 alone, the U.S. meat industry spent over $10 million on political contributions and lobbying. For example, Tyson Foods spent about $1.67 million on federal lobbying in the 2023-2024 cycle; WH Group spent $1.04 million; JBS, $440,000; and the North American Meat Institute, $186,767.

    This intensified financial clout coincides with rising scrutiny of meat’s environmental and health impacts, as well as a cultural surge in traditional norms linking meat and dairy consumption to masculinity.

    These campaigns create confusion. Many people wrongly believe beef is sustainable through inaccurate sustainability pledges and that plant-based diets are nutritionally lacking. Such misinformation is used to protect industry profits and delay the urgently needed policy reforms to reduce emissions and safeguard public health.

    Recognizing this complex propaganda ecosystem is essential to understanding why nutrient deficiency myths persist and empowers people to make informed, health-conscious, and sustainable choices.

    Vegan Diets Are Better for the Planet—And That Supports Our Health

    Eating plant-based doesn’t just benefit your body—it helps regenerate the systems that sustain all life on Earth. Compared to animal-heavy diets, plant-based eating uses far less land, water, and energy while slashing greenhouse gas emissions.

    Studies from  Oxford and Harvard show that shifting to plant-based diets can reduce environmental impact by up to 75%, while also lowering risks for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.

    This shift reduces environmental pressures and restores ecosystems, which in turn provide cleaner air, purer water, and greater climate stability—directly benefiting human health.

    It’s a powerful feedback loop: eating plants helps protect ecosystems, and thriving ecosystems support human health in return.

    How Plant-Based Diets Restore Natural Systems

    • Water Cycle Support: Switching to plant-based diets could significantly decrease water use on a global scale. When less water is needed for crops, and less pollution enters rivers, this allows aquifers to recharge, rivers to flow, and ecosystems to recover.
    • Carbon Cycle and Climate Regulation: Vegan diets could reduce food-related emissions by up to 86% by retiring grazing land and monoculture feed crops to make space for forests and grasslands to regrow. This helps to improve air quality and restore carbon sinks.
    • Healthy Ecosystems = Healthy Humans: Intact ecosystems filter air and water, regulate temperature, prevent erosion, pollinate crops, and buffer natural disasters. These services reduce disease, support food security, and strengthen community resilience.

    Fuel Your Body and the Planet with Plants

    Vegan diets deliver both the robust fuel (macronutrients) and essential parts (micronutrients) your body needs—while caring for the Earth. They bust the nutrient deficiency myth by offering a rich spectrum of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants to support muscle performance, collagen production, immunity, and vitality.

    By choosing plants, you’re efficiently fueling your body, fine-tuning your health, and creating a better world for everyone. I’ve felt this transformation in my own energy, immunity, and strength—and science backs it up.

  • The Illusion of Green Growth: Why Degrowth is a Necessary Path to Sustainability

    Many climate scientists, environmental activists, and researchers, including myself, now reject green growth models, not because of an opposition to progress or innovation, but because the promises of “green growth” in already high-income countries are fundamentally incompatible with the scale of ecological and social challenges present across the globe.

    This preference toward degrowth is rooted in mounting scientific evidence, supported by a recent groundbreaking review published in Lancet Planetary Health titled “Post-growth: the science of wellbeing within planetary boundaries,” which challenges the assumption that economic growth is necessary or even desirable for societal progress.

    Photo by Shelley Johnson on Unsplash

    A central argument made by the authors is that the dominant narrative, which claims technological innovation and efficiency will allow for continued economic growth while reducing environmental harm, is not supported by the data. Efficiency improvements are consistently outpaced by the scale and speed of economic expansion, leading to increased resource consumption, pollution, and waste—a phenomenon known as the “rebound effect.” This effect directly undermines the idea that growth can be decoupled from environmental harm.

    The belief that technological solutions alone can address today’s ecological crises exposes the use of binary thinking to address a multifaceted problem. This technological optimism can distract from the deeper, systemic changes needed to address how societies produce, consume, and define prosperity. Overreliance on technological solutions risks obscuring the fundamental drivers of climate change and social inequality. While technological shifts and innovation will play a role, it cannot substitute for the deeper structural changes needed to address how societies produce, consume, and define prosperity.

    Research shows that market-driven approaches and the current economic system delay effective climate action by hindering the deployment of transformative technologies. Many promising climate innovations struggle to secure funding or scale because profit-driven systems tend to prioritize short-term returns over long-term societal and environmental benefits. Ironically, green growth models also rely on rapid technological deployment as a climate solution, while many proposed solutions are either unproven at scale or insufficient to address the magnitude of the problems.

    Moreover, renewable energy and other sustainable technologies are not without environmental and social costs. The extraction of minerals essential for batteries and electronics, such as cobalt and lithium, is frequently linked to environmental degradation and human rights violations. This is not to suggest that clean energy should be dismissed, but rather that its deployment must be accompanied by systemic reforms. Without broader economic and policy changes, such technologies risk perpetuating existing patterns of overconsumption, social inequalities and human rights violations.

    Crucially, the pursuit of endless economic growth is fundamentally incompatible with the Earth’s ecological boundaries. Humanity has already exceeded six of nine planetary boundaries, threatening the stability of Earth’s life-support systems. The drive for economic expansion, especially in high-income countries, is largely responsible for this overshoot, often achieved at the expense of labor and resources in lower-income nations. High-income countries, in particular, have a disproportionate impact on global emissions and resource use, and their current levels of consumption are unsustainable. If these consumption patterns persist, they are likely to precipitate ecosystem collapse and irreversible climate impacts across the globe. To avert ecological catastrophe and biodiversity loss, high-income countries must significantly reduce their material and energy use.

    Green growth strategies tend to prioritize harm reduction through technological innovation and decarbonization, while neglecting the restorative practices needed to regenerate ecosystems.Even when labeled as “green,” economic growth models frequently fail to deliver meaningful social or ecological outcomes due to the fact that market-driven interventions often neglect ecosystem restoration that is viewed as “non-profitable”. A shift in priorities is needed—from GDP growth to enhancing human well-being, equity, and ecological regeneration.

    True sustainability requires a deliberate reduction in material throughput, regeneration of depleted ecosystems, and advancement of social equity.  It is not enough to simply shift to “greener” forms of production and consumption if they still enable the exploitation and oppression of nature and non-dominant groups.

    As highlighted in recent research published in The Lancet Planetary Health, degrowth offers a scientifically grounded pathway to remain within planetary boundaries while improving health and well-being (Beyer et al., 2024). By intentionally reducing overall consumption and production—particularly in high-income countries—and reorienting economies toward equity, social cohesion, and ecological restoration, we can address the root causes of environmental degradation and social inequality.

    The Lancet article emphasizes that degrowth is not about austerity or deprivation, but about prioritizing human flourishing, reducing unnecessary work and consumption, and ensuring that everyone’s basic needs are met. This approach has the potential to lower pollution, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and restore ecosystems, while also improving life satisfaction, reducing stress, and strengthening community ties.

    These findings point the way toward a healthier planet, fairer societies, and a higher quality of life for all—achieved not through endless economic expansion, but through a fundamental transformation of our values, priorities, and systems. It’s time to embrace a new vision of progress—one rooted in ecological balance, equity, and genuine well-being.

  • Systemic Risk, Financial Instability, and the Cost of Climate Policy Rollbacks in the U.S.

    As of 2025, the World Economic Forum ranks misinformation and disinformation as the most urgent short-term global threats. While over the next decade, environmental risks dominate, with extreme weather, biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, critical shifts in Earth systems, and resource shortages leading the list of long-term risks.

    With disinformation regarding the cost of extreme weather events increasing under the Trump Administration, paired with egregious efforts to reverse the expansion of clean energy and climate action, unaddressed climate risks pose systemic threats to financial stability.

    Photo by Anne Nygård on Unsplash

    Climate Risks as Drivers of Systemic Financial Threats

    Climate related risks can result in microeconomic and macroeconomic threats, this article largely focuses on the macroeconomic impacts.

    Climate risks are divided into two categories: physical risks and transition risks.

    Physical risks: Physical risks can be characterized as acute or chronic, and stem from the direct effects of climate change. Acute physical risks can range from floods, wildfires and storms while chronic physical risks include rising temperatures, sea level rise, and precipitation patterns that can impact crop yields and water scarcity. These events can destroy infrastructure, disrupt supply chains, and lead to large-scale asset losses.

    Transition risks: There are four kinds of transition risks: regulatory, technological, market, and reputational. These arise from the economic, technological and regulatory adjustments required to align with global emissions targets and the shift to a low-carbon economy. Policy changes, technological disruption, and changes in market preferences can lead to stranded assets, sudden changes in asset valuations, and increased legal liabilities for firms exposed to fossil fuels.

    The financial effects of climate risks can be forecasted in various warming scenarios as well as policy and socioeconomic scenarios using scenario analysis. It is best practice to use Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to explore climate impacts in various plausible futures.

    In high warming scenarios, physicals risks present the highest financial risks due to the fact that increased warming will lead to a higher number of costly natural disasters that disrupt supply chains and damage infrastructure. Whereas, in low warming scenarios, transition risks are higher as there will be a more rapid and distinct shift towards renewable energy and more sustainable practices.

    Physical risks differ from transition risks because of tipping points—critical thresholds in natural systems that, once crossed, can trigger irreversible change. While the timing of such tipping points is debated, scientists warn of potentially catastrophic impacts if emissions remain unchecked, with some predicting a point of no return by 2035.

    Both risk types can destabilize the financial system via several channels:

    • Credit risk: Rising defaults as firms and households struggle with climate damages or the declining value of fossil fuel assets.
    • Liquidity risk: Market freezes as uncertainty spikes and asset values become volatile. For example, after hurricanes or floods, households and businesses rapidly withdraw deposits to fund recovery, straining banks’ liquidity buffers.
    • Underwriting risk: Insurance losses mount as more regions become uninsurable, undermining the business model of insurers and their ability to absorb shocks.
    • Market risk: Rapid repricing of assets and increased volatility as investors reassess climate exposures.

    Systemic climate risks are magnified by the interconnectedness of banks, insurers, and investment funds. Losses in one sector can quickly transmit through the financial system, triggering broader instability. For example, insurers retreating from high-risk regions can spark credit crunches, reduce lending, and depress property values, while banks exposed to fossil fuel assets may face sudden losses and liquidity strains.

    These financial risks do not operate in isolation. Instead, they are amplified by political decisions, institutional structures, and the retreat of state-sponsored data collection and oversight.

    Amplification Through Financial and Political Networks

    With the recent announcement that The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has ceased tracking the financial impact of weather events linked to climate change, including floods, wildfires, heat waves and hurricanes, it will become increasingly more difficult to assess current and future costs related to extreme weather events. This change is a result of decisions made by the Trump Administration, supporting their efforts to remove references to climate change from federal documents and resources.

    Financial risks are traditionally incorporated into the financial system as a core element which influences investment decisions, market pricing and the general allocation of capital.

    Currently, climate related risks are in the early developments of being appropriately tracked, measured, and managed within the global financial system as an increasing number of financial regulators recognize that climate change poses significant economic and financial risks.

    For example, the European Union requiring companies to assess, report on, and track management of climate-related risks and their financial effects over a phased in timeline as part of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

    As climate-related risk measurement, reporting and management is an emerging field itself with financial institutions highlighting that investors are underappreciating and underpricing climate-related risks, this decrease in reliable data is likely to exacerbate the underpricing of climate risks, leading to sudden, disruptive repricing in the future that could threaten financial stability.

    Capitalism’s Structural Conflict with Climate Action as Evidenced by Transition Risks

    Capitalism’s core feature of prioritizing short-term profit maximization directly conflicts with the long-term planning required for climate stability.

    Transition risks emerge precisely because companies are incentivized to resist changes that threaten immediate returns, even when such changes are essential for long-term environmental and financial sustainability.

    This creates what economists call “emergent contradictions,” where short-term economic gains lead to long-term environmental costs. The fossil fuel industry exemplifies this contradiction-remaining economically profitable while significantly driving carbon emissions that threaten planetary stability.

    In a stark display of capitalism’s self-destructive nature, transition risks have fueled organized opposition to climate policy through political channels. For example, industry lobby groups have repeatedly succeeded in blocking regulations or carbon taxes, significantly delaying necessary climate action. This represents not just individual companies protecting their interests but a systemic feature of capitalism where concentrated economic interests can mobilize against policies that serve broader social needs.

    Regulatory transition risks often stem from the introduction of carbon pricing or emissions regulations, which can lead to “a large decline in the value of fossil capital” and the phenomenon of “stranded assets.” These stranded assets reveal one of the clearest ways in which capitalism structurally resists climate action: rather than embracing transformation, industries have powerful financial incentives to delay, weaken, or derail climate policy in order to protect existing investments.

    Although Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks, corporate sustainability, and stakeholder capitalism have emerged to align business with sustainability, their voluntary nature and inconsistent implementation have largely failed to produce systemic change.

    This failure is particularly evident in the U.S., where the political landscape increasingly favors climate denial, fossil fuel expansion, and deregulation. In this context, many corporations are pulling back from ESG reporting, citing reputational risks, regulatory uncertainty, and rising costs, which highlights the limitations of voluntary compliance in a disinformation-driven, privatization-heavy system.

    ESG reporting requires both effort and resources, compounded by the challenge of sourcing reliable climate data, these challenges are only intensifying in a political environment hostile to transparency and science.

    In the corporate sustainability space, investments in climate action typically require a compelling business case that demonstrates either cost savings or a positive return on investment (ROI). These business cases must be socialized and approved internally, often facing resistance due to competing financial priorities.

    However, a core problem remains: financial modeling in capitalist firms typically uses timeframes far shorter than those used in climate models. This misalignment leads companies to prioritize short-term profitability, often opting for inaction—even when the long-term risks of inaction are catastrophic.

    The reality is this: the long-term cost of inaction far exceeds the upfront investment in mitigation or adaptation. Without decisive climate action:

    • The natural resources essential for production will become too scarce or degraded to use.
    • Transportation and distribution networks will be damaged or destroyed by extreme weather.
    • Consumer markets will collapse as people are displaced—or, in some cases, cease to exist.

    Policy Uncertainty and Investment Retraction

    With a patriarchal capitalist leading the country, in the first quarter of 2025 alone, nearly $8 billion in clean energy projects were canceled, closed, or downsized, as manufacturers and investors responded to the rollback of tax credits and regulatory support. This marks a dramatic reversal from the surge in clean energy investment following the Inflation Reduction Act, and signals a broader hesitation to commit capital amid uncertain policy signals.

    Economic Consequences:

    • Stalled clean energy growth: The cancellation of large-scale projects in wind, solar, and battery manufacturing has slowed industry expansion and job creation.
    • Increased exposure to fossil fuel risks: Delayed transition raises the risk that banks and insurers will be left holding stranded fossil fuel assets, amplifying credit and market risks.
    • Reduced resilience to physical climate impacts: Without robust investment in mitigation and adaptation, uninsured losses from extreme weather events are expected to rise, straining public finances and deepening economic inequality.
    • Systemic instability: Allianz and other major insurers warn that, as climate risks become uninsurable, the financial system faces the prospect of cascading failures in housing, credit, and investment markets-potentially threatening the foundations of capitalism itself.

    The Self-Defeating Nature of Capitalism

    Ironically, capitalism’s resistance to climate action threatens the system itself. As financial experts warn, continued failure to address climate change means “no more mortgages, no new real estate development, no long-term investment, no financial stability. The financial sector as we know it ceases to function. And with it, capitalism as we know it ceases to be viable.”

    This demonstrates how transition risks represent not just evidence of capitalism’s resistance to climate action but also its potential self-destruction through that very resistance.

    The intersection of environmental collapse, financial instability, and political resistance reveals a system on the brink. Without structural reform, both ecological and economic breakdowns are not only likely—they are mutually reinforcing.

  • How the White House’s Proposed Pronatalist Policies Threaten to Escalate Climate Change

    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

    1. 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
    2. Educational Privileges
    3. Symbolic Recognition

    Key Concerns:

    • Incentivizing education through the act of childbirth puts women students at a disadvantage as data shows that women contribute 20.4 hours per week to childcare while fathers spend only 3.9 hours
    • Period tracking programs can be weaponized by the government to criminalize women who have received reproductive care
    • Maternal and child mortality rates rise as a result of increased child birth paired with decreased access to reproductive care
    • 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

    Working Against Proven Climate Solutions

    Economic and Equity Concerns

    • 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.

  • High Impact: Why the Cannabis Industry Needs a Green (and Just) Transition

    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.

    Photo by Diyahna Lewis on Unsplash

    Environmental Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation

    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.

    Key Drivers of Emissions:

    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!

    State-Level Response: California’s Sustainability Initiatives

    In 2022, California launched the Sustainable California Grown Cannabis Pilot Program, aimed at developing best practices for environmentally responsible outdoor cannabis cultivation.

    The program focuses on:

    • Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
    • Enhancing soil health and ecological function
    • Improving water-use efficiency
    • Limiting pesticide use

    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.

    Lifecycle Emissions Analysis

    A lifecycle assessment by researcher Evan Mills determined that approximately 90% of cannabis-related emissions stem from indoor cultivation. According to his model, transitioning to outdoor cultivation could reduce emissions by up to 76%.  Additionally, regenerative practices that thrive in outdoor environments such as no-till farming, and cover cropping can drastically improve soil health and carbon sequestration.

    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

    Despite the environmental benefits of outdoor cultivation, policy and regulatory constraints continue to push the industry toward indoor production. Mills notes that indoor cultivation is increasingly concentrated in environmentally overburdened urban areas, such as Oakland and Denver, each of which hosts over 200 licensed grow facilities.

    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 descheduling of 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.

    Click here to send a letter to your governor!

    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.