On the Ballot: Climate Change

Graphic by Anjali Rao-Herel ‘22

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

In the 2020 election, the issue of climate change often divides along party lines. Democrats tend to support policies that limit greenhouse gas emissions while Republicans generally take a more hands-off approach. Environmental policies also differ within the major political parties, specifically within the Democratic Party, as there are various moderate and left-leaning views. Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s responses to climate change have been split along party lines. 

Biden’s climate plan is regarded as one of the most progressive ever listed on the U.S. ticket. His proposal promises to make a $1.7 trillion federal investment in environmental justice and clean energy over the next 10 years. Biden has been seen as an opponent of the Green New Deal, the congressional resolution put forth by progressive members of the Democratic Party to fight climate change.  “I don’t support the Green New Deal,” Biden said during the first presidential debate. However, the plan that Biden’s campaign has released is similarly modeled after the Green New Deal in that it connects protection of the environment to the revitalization of the economy.

Biden’s plan has five key aspects. He promises the United States will use 100 percent green energy and have net-zero emissions by no later than 2050. He will invest in the nation’s infrastructure, which may improve climate resilience. The Biden campaign also pledges to rally the rest of the world to join in the United States’ efforts to combat climate change by urging other nations to abstain from actions that harm the environment, such as arctic drilling. By serving as a leader in the fight against climate change, Biden hopes to lead the world in creating green technologies and environmentally safe industry standards. Biden advocates for environmental justice and promises to stand up to the large polluters who, as the plan highlights, disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities. According to his plan, Biden will secure benefits for and invest in workers in the coal and power plant industries as the economy shifts toward clean energy.

Many conservatives have rallied against the progressive Green New Deal since it was proposed in Congress by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey in February 2019. Trump has accused Biden of supporting the Green New Deal, and Biden in turn denounced the congressional resolution. While Biden says he endorses the framework of the Green New Deal seen in his own climate plan, their formats are fundamentally different.

 The Green New Deal is a congressional resolution. It’s a broad framework that outlines the goals of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 while providing improved infrastructure and secure jobs for all Americans. Biden’s climate plan offers specific details about how the climate and economic goals would be achieved.

On the other hand, Trump has yet to release a cohesive plan of what he would do if granted a second term in office, but rather has provided a list of individual steps that he has already taken to benefit the environment as well as the economy. For example, he created a Superfund task force to streamline the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, signed an executive order to protect and restore one trillion trees by 2030 and invested in clean water infrastructure. When it comes to burning fossil fuels, Trump has rescinded the Obama administration’s clean power plan — along with a number of other environmental regulations that would limit greenhouse gas emissions — and worked to improve infrastructure and resources needed to increase gas and oil production in the U.S.

From immense detail to a more laissez-faire approach, there are several partisan ways to address environmental issues, such as climate change. Both candidates have taken steps to address the environment in a way that will please their core bases.

Antarctica Undergoes Warming Temperature of Deep Oceans and Melting Ice Shelves

Pictured above: Antartica. Photo courtesy of WikiMedia.

By Siona Ahuja ’24

Staff Writer

Recent studies have confirmed that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting at irreversible rates. Industrial emissions from thousands of miles away have caused the depths of the Antarctic Weddell Sea to heat up five times faster than the rest of the ocean. 

Warming trends in Antarctica have been mixed, with western parts of the continent steadily warming while the eastern region has remained relatively unscathed. Unlike the Arctic, which is known for having heated up exponentially within the past few decades, Antarctica’s behavior has proven to be more difficult to map out. Natural fluctuations of warm and cool ocean currents (which cause the El Nino and La Nina currents) over a long period have pushed warm winds over to the South Pole. This natural phenomenon is not the only driving force behind the Antarctic’s heating, as indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels has also been a significant factor in melting ice shelves.  

Oceans consume more than 90 percent of excess heat generated by greenhouse gas emissions. These oceans also absorb large amounts of atmospheric shock. As a result, southern oceans have absorbed over half the heat generated from 2005 through 2017. 

The mixing of warm southern oceanic currents, especially those enveloping Antarctica, means that deeper waters are heating faster than surface waters. The melting of Antarctic land ice into the sea also causes the ocean’s topmost layer to remain considerably cooler. This will eventually lead to what scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies call a “heat flux,” where increased warming rates would cause the accelerated melting of ice shelves and a greater rise in sea levels, causing unmitigated disasters. 

Climate scientists remain skeptical about the world’s ability to stop or decelerate the warming of the continent. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States, formally exited from the Paris Climate Agreement on Nov. 4, 2020. Even if other countries fulfill the targets they set in this treaty, Antarctica’s fate remains sealed. Researchers believe that it will be difficult to counteract these changes if temperatures rise 2 C above pre-industrial levels. 

 Dr. Richard Jones and Dr. Ross Whitmore of the Monash University School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment, are lead authors of the Oct. 21 study. They state that the study implies ice loss unfolding in Antarctica is “likely to continue unabated for a long time — even if climate change is brought under control.” 

This change holds significant implications for the icy continent. The native animal population is decreasing. While some species are adapting to the heat, other populations are declining. Krill, small shrimp-like crustaceans crucial to Antarctica’s ecosystem, have also declined around 80 percent since the 1970s because of excessive commercial fishing, depleting ice and the recovery of whales. 

Warming has also caused new kinds of algae to bloom, shading swathes of snow tints of green, red and pink. This alga is so vivid that it can be seen from space. Moreover, ocean warming exacerbates the thawing of sea ice. Darker sea ice has lower surface reflectivity. This causes more solar radiation absorption, furthering melt and creating a “feedback loop.” Land in Antarctica is also growing greener. Rising temperatures have led to the growth of plants, mosses and lichens, which might pave the way for a whole new ecosystem. 

Expansion of the oceans gives way to numerous coastal disasters like floods and ice melting, which can endanger 40 percent of the world’s population that lives on coastlines. Scientists are certain this phenomenon will affect people living inland as well. 

Antarctica is facing the consequences of human activity despite being secluded thousands of miles away from civilization. Just as the whole Earth has impacted Antarctica, the changes it sustains are felt globally. Researchers hope their findings ignite conversations and policy changes that can prevent any future major disasters. 

The Best Movies for Environmental education

Pictured above: Seed: the untold story. Image courtesy of Cstpdx.com

By Catelyn Fitzgerald  ’23

Staff Writer

With online learning and quarantine, a break after a long day of classes likely consists of a movie or a few episodes of a show on Netflix. While students may want to spend those short moments of peace from an endless flow of assignments and tests watching a fun movie, it is still imperative to educate ourselves on the crisis that is climate change. Environmental education comes in many forms, and as we strive to be informed about the changes happening in the world around us, education can be incorporated into our daily lives by replacing one TV binge a week with an environmental documentary. Whether you are starting to learn about the environment and do not know where to begin or are an avid environmentalist looking to dive deeper into subjects of interest, there is a movie out there to teach and inspire you. Below are seven films that approach environmental issues in a (relatively) unbiased and compelling way.

“David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet”

Where to watch: Netflix

Whether or not you are an environmental enthusiast, there is a chance you have watched a film by Sir David Attenborough at least once in your lifetime. With a voice that has become instantly recognizable across decades and around the world, Attenborough has written and narrated dozens of films showcasing the Earth’s natural wonders. 

In “A Life on Our Planet,” Attenborough returns to the screen to urge action against climate change. He reflects on his own travels as a film writer, which began when little was known about climate change, to show the major environmental changes that he has witnessed. With amazing footage of wildlife and an urgency that makes it impossible to look away from the screen, this film offers a broad view of the threat of climate change that is a must-watch for anyone, regardless of their level of background knowledge.

“Seed: The Untold Story”

Where to watch: Kanopy

“Seed: The Untold Story” teaches the importance of preserving seed biodiversity, along with the history and future of how the world’s food is grown. The film explores the influence of industrial agriculture on the biodiversity of the world’s seeds — which is currently at only 6 percent of past levels — and shows the work of seed banks around the world to preserve what little diversity remains. 

The film travels across the world to various seed banks, which cultivate the remaining diversity of seeds in order to preserve their cultural and ecological importance, and then provide them free of charge to local farmers who would otherwise have to rely on large seed corporations. The film looks at the flaws of industrial farming from an unexpected angle, making it a must-watch for anyone interested in food and agriculture.

“Years of Living Dangerously”

Where to watch: Youtube

“Years of Living Dangerously” is a Youtube series that takes celebrities on a journey to learn more about an aspect of climate change. For example, in the first episode, actor Harrison Ford explores palm oil production in Indonesia’s national parks and discovers that this illegal activity thrives with the help of government corruption in the forestry sector. At the same time, New York Times writer Thomas Friedman travels to Syria to explore connections between the country’s devastating drought and the civil war that it faces ravages today. Meanwhile, actor Don Cheadle attempts to answer the question of whether religion and belief in climate change can coexist in a small Texas town. 

The series feels much like a TV drama, with vastly different narratives intermingling in each episode and leaving the audience on a cliffhanger every few minutes. While the 60-minute runtime of each episode is not enough to dive deeply into the issues it explores, the series provides an introduction to facets of climate change that are new to most viewers. If you want to see your childhood “Star Wars” crush get into a heated argument with Indonesia’s minister of environment and forestry over deforestation, this is the series for you.

“Chasing Coral”

Where to watch: Netflix

“Chasing Coral” follows a group of scientists as they attempt to capture an environmental phenomenon known as coral bleaching through the use of underwater time-lapse photography. By following the trials faced by the researchers as they try to comprehensively document coral bleaching, the film tells as much of a story about the lives of field researchers as it educates the audience about the threats to coral posed by climate change. One member of the research team, Zackery Rago, becomes a central part of the film as his passion for coral shows the emotional level of witnessing environmental degradation. Rago’s presence in the film adds a layer of storytelling that is compelling to any viewer, regardless of their specific interest in coral, and is a source of inspiration for other young scientists. 

“The Harvest”/”La Cosecha”

Where to watch: Youtube

Child labor has been the subject of global attention for years, but “The Harvest,” also known as “La Cosecha,” captures the lives of child farmworkers in a way so personal that it casts a new light on farming and food production. The film follows three young farmworkers who travel across the U.S. to find work each season while also trying to go to school and carve out a different future for themselves. Seeing children and teenagers who had such relatable dreams, feelings and angst at that age while leading such different lives is heartbreaking. I found myself scouring the internet for evidence on how the stars of the film are doing today and felt a temporary wave of relief to see them able to continue their education thanks to the film’s success. However, many children in the same situation will continue to grow the food that we eat without structural changes to U.S. labor policy. If you are interested in the people behind your breakfast, lunch and dinner, you should watch this movie.

“Switch: Discover the Future of Energy”

Where to watch: Youtube

“Switch: Discover the Future of Energy” follows energy scientist Scott Tinker as he travels the world to learn where our energy comes from and what it may look like in the future. The film explores the benefits and drawbacks of major sources of the world’s energy, such as coal and oil, and evaluates the viability of potential alternatives to these energy sources. The film takes an unbiased, explore-all-of-the-options approach and is a great starting point for anyone new to the world of renewable energy. The film reveals how entrenched we are in unsustainable energy sources, but provides a source of hope in the ever-growing number of innovations that may power the world in the future.

“Cowspiracy”

Where to watch: Netflix

I remember watching “Cowspiracy” in my AP Environmental Science class during my junior year of high school. Shockingly, by the time finals came around in the spring, I was a full-fledged vegetarian, cursing the livestock industry for its use of huge amounts of water and its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. To anyone with no previous knowledge of the environmental impacts of meat production, this film is shocking.  It has faced controversy for both its interpretations of data on livestock methane emissions and its attack on environmental nonprofits who the movie claims are just one part of a conspiracy to cover up the impact of the meat industry. Despite this, the film is still successful in shaking up audience views on food and climate change, driving home that reducing meat consumption is one of the single best ways an individual can reduce their environmental impact. I would encourage meat-eaters to watch this movie but to take it with a grain of salt.

Experimental Coral Reef Preservation Strategies Are Underway

Pictured above: Coral reefs.

By Dnyaneshwari Haware ’23

Staff Writer

Despite being out of the eye of the general population, the destruction of reefs is impacting the livelihoods of approximately 1 billion people globally.  These effects are seen through reduced biodiversity, lower fish stocks and a higher rate of coastal erosion. In the past 20 years, 50 percent of coral reefs have been lost, and by 2050, more than 90 percent are expected to die. The causes of this erosion include overfishing, the bleaching of coastlands, an increase in ocean temperature and other exploitative factors that further intensify the damage. In areas of destruction, scientists are attempting new methods of preserving the reefs, such as the relocation of more resilient corals and the new implementation of 3D-printed corals. 

The impacts of global warming have caused increasing challenges for reefs and coral. A large number of reefs are temperature sensitive and struggle to survive 1 degree Celsius above the summer maximum of the region. Additionally, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide also increases the acidity of oceans, further producing challenging living environments. 

In efforts to revive coral communities, one solution is moving heat resilient corals, which can cope with temperatures between 6 and 7 degrees Celsius hotter and can survive in acidic waters, to struggling reefs elsewhere. However, there are significant obstacles, such as the need to save the thermally resilient species from extinction due to factors other than global warming like physical damage from construction, development and overfishing. Another concern is the introduction of a new species of corals into an ecosystem, which may significantly change its equilibrium. 

Efforts also include more experimental methods, such as integrating 3D printing technology. In 2018, the largest 3D printed coral reef was deployed at a site in Maldives using a technology called the Modular Artificial Reef Structures. These not only substitute real corals for coral farming, which is the cultivation of corals for commercial purposes, but can also create new reef habitats in degraded areas or new locations. However, using artificial structures as restoration tools is expensive and cannot act as a replacement for conservation strategies. 

In environmental conservation, finding local organic solutions that could result in long-lasting positive effects on the community is essential for sustainability. One example is a coral reef restoration project off of a 4.3-mile-long island in Kenya led by the women of the community. According to the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Institute, between  60 and 90 percent of coral reefs were destroyed in some surveyed areas. 

Local communities that largely depend on fishing and ecotourism have suffered from the loss of these reefs, as the reefs provide breeding grounds for hundreds of species of marine life. In response, the women of Wasini Island have been restoring fish populations by cultivating seagrass, which plays a key role in the overall coral reef ecosystem. The seagrass provides shelter to juvenile fish who then mature and move into the reefs. The project also involves building artificial coral reefs using locally found materials such as rock boulders held together with hydraulic cement. Corals grown in nurseries are then planted on these artificial reefs and have a survival rate of 75 percent after transplant.

All these methods involve constant experimentation, and results vary depending on the ecosystems. Law enforcement, the involvement of government and independent agencies, financial support and the cooperation of local communities have been necessary for the largest movements toward the conservation of coral reefs.

Flood and Fire Risks Are Frequently Undisclosed

Photo courtesy of Freephotos.com.

By  Helen Gloege ’23
Staff Writer

Since 2016, over 1 million natural disaster displacements have occurred each year in the U.S. It is predicted that the number of people who will be displaced by natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires will increase. By 2100, 6 feet of sea-level rise could force 13.1 million Americans to relocate. Climate change will soon factor into homebuyers’ and renters’ choices of where to live, but most are not warned about flood or wildfire risk in their new homes. They often pay for the resulting damages financially and beyond, in lives lost and the toll on physical and mental health that can last for years to come. The annual number of floods and wildfires that exceed $1 billion in damage has increased in recent years. Between 2015 and September 2020, there have been 28 of these disasters in the United States.

Fire prevention is on the minds of those who live in Western states, and there is political division on how best to prevent fires. The governors of California, Oregon and Washington have all indicated that climate change is the reason for the fires. President Donald Trump, however, has argued that the fires resulted from how the states manage their forests. 

Scientists have pointed toward forest thinning and controlled burns as solutions. However, complicating this is the influx of people moving into rural areas or building vacation cabins in the woods, leading to populated small acreages. This means that, if controlled burns were to escape, they would most likely move onto someone’s property.

Millions of people living in the West have moved into fire-prone landscapes with little warning of risk from government, real estate agents or sellers. Between 1992 and 2015, about 60 million homes were within less than a mile of a wildfire, and that number has since increased. 

Only Oregon and California require wildfire risk to be disclosed to residents. Frequently, this disclosure amounts to a few lines buried in hundreds of pages of text. In Oregon, homebuyers didn’t see the word “wildfire” mentioned in a disclosure statement recorded during a sale, only a line that said the property was in the “forestland-urban interface.” In California, there is a special form for disclosing natural hazards that states risk level, but these rules are only enforced in some parts of the state. If this applies, homeowners are responsible for clearing flammable brush and dry vegetation that would create a defensible space between the house and the fire. 

California lawmakers passed a bill in 2019 that increases wildfire disclosure. This law includes that, starting in 2021, sellers must inform the buyer if they are following flammable brush rules and provide a list of potential ways their house may be susceptible to fires. Starting in 2025, sellers must say if they have completed retrofits to make the house more fire-resistant. 

Even if states did want to disclose wildfire risk, the information isn’t always available. Wildfire risk mapping involves detailed modeling because fire behavior fluctuates greatly. In 2020, the U.S. Forest Service released new maps showing community risk nationwide, but the maps aren’t scaled to use for individual properties. According to NPR, “Insurance companies have done the most detailed risk analysis but most homeowners won’t find out unless the insurance rates go up or their policy is canceled.” Additionally, most existing wildfire maps don’t reflect the added risk from climate change.

The decision made to build in these fire-prone areas is usually made by developers and local officials. They are frequently guided by large-scale zoning plans that don’t take wildfire risks into account. These local governments are financially incentivized to allow new development in risky areas. Homeowners need to know wildfire risks to allow them to make informed decisions. Homebuyers will also be more likely to have evacuation plans and take fireproofing steps. They will understand that preparing for wildfires isn’t a one-time job. 

Wildfire risk is not the only natural disaster with a lack of transparency. Growing research has suggested that flood risk also falls under this category, despite the growing risk due to climate change. There are an estimated 15 million properties that have a significant risk of flooding. Between 1980 and 2017, about 80 percent of presidential disaster declarations were for events that involved flooding; however, only 29 states require flood disclosure laws. The 21 states that don’t require information include some of the most vulnerable, like Florida, Virginia and Massachusetts. 

Residents of states that do require flood risk disclosure frequently don’t know they live in harm’s way until it is too late. In 27 of the 29 states that require disclosure, potential buyers receive information about flood risk after they make an offer on the house. The information often isn’t clear as most states’ requirements involve a single check box if the property is on an official flood plain. This may not be an accurate indicator of flood potential, as official flood maps have hard lines between areas with high flood risk and little to no flood risk. 

In addition, nearly one-third of all flood damage occurs outside of official flood plains. After Hurricane Harvey hit Texas in 2017, a law was passed requiring sellers to tell buyers if the house is in a flood zone and if they had flood insurance. Similar attempts in other states have stalled due to a fear of driving down property values. Indeed, research has suggested that disclosing flood risk may cause a decrease in property values by about 4 percent.

Future and current homebuyers may not listen to maps or data. However, the clear dissemination of information regarding fire and flood risk would allow the increasing number of homeowners moving into high-risk areas to understand the possible dangers and take precautions by purchasing flood insurance or making a house more fire-resistant.

Climate Clock in NYC: The Next Seven Years Could Decide Our Future

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

by Dnyaneshwari Haware ’23

Staff Writer

“The Earth has a deadline” followed by the numeric “7:103:15:40:07” can now be seen flashing a rhythmic countdown on the glass exterior of One Union Square South on 14th Street in New York City. The clock currently reads that there are seven years, 103 days, 15 hours, 40 minutes and seven seconds left to prevent irreversible damage to the environment. 

The idea of the end of the world is not restricted to sci-fi books and films anymore, but many refuse to accept this reality. The Metronome, a public art project that has been in existence for more than 20 years, has now been turned into the Climate Clock, a graphic displaying the amount of time remaining for us to take significant action toward saving our planet. The transformation of the 62-foot-wide 15-digit electronic clock into a climate clock was done by artists Andrew Boyd and Gan Golan and commissioned by the Related Companies in collaboration with the Public Art Fund and the Municipal Art Society. The clock shows we only have seven years whereas many corporations, governments and international organizations such as the U.N. have pledged to adapt sustainability and development goals to alter their environment-degrading activities by 2030. y 

On a YouTube talk show hosted by comedian Ted Alexandro, Boyd said, “It’s a very harsh timeline to reckon with. There’s different ways to slice the numbers and if we can get to net zero carbon in that amount of time, that gives us a 67 percent chance of staying under the red line that scientists are telling us we really shouldn’t cross of 1.5 degrees centigrade warmer.” 

The artists reject the idea that this is a doomsday clock. “It is showing our time window for action,” Goland said. “This is the best period of time we have to really make a difference.”

The installation has been praised but also criticized for its focus on individuals rather than the corporations that are responsible for the majority of environmental degradation causing climate change. Either way, the Metronome clock has been given a new life, one that dismisses any arguments against the existence of climate change and its importance. It is now viewed not only by passersby but people around the world.

Weekly Climate News

October 1, 2020

• Land grabbers in the Amazon’s Indigenous territories advanced after encouragement from Bolsonaro. 

• Eight new projects have been funded by NASA that explore the connections between the environment and COVID-19. 

• Over one-third of food in the U.S. is either lost or wasted, which equates to about $161 billion annually, and this problem has been exacerbated by the global pandemic. Read this article about how to reduce food waste. 

• The Trump administration released a plan to open the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, the largest U.S. national forest, to logging. 

• Gavin Newsom (CA-D), California’s governor, issued a ban on all gasoline powered cars after 2035. Legal challenges are expected. 

• As summers in the Arctic are warming due to climate change, northernmost landscapes are changing, becoming greener with increased plant growth.

• Recent research papers claim that a new compact nuclear fusion reactor is “very likely to work.” This suggests that producing energy in the same way the sun does might be achievable.

• A digital clock in Manhattan now shows the time left for critical action to be taken before the effects of global warming become irreversible.

• Under the COVID-19 lockdown, India experienced its longest recorded period of clean air. This came to an end in September resulting primarily from New Delhi, as the burning of crop waste by farmers caused a deterioration in air quality. 

Shining a Light on the Plastic Industry

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

Plastic is both a central part of our society and a suffocating pollutant to the earth. Almost anything we buy comes wrapped in plastic, we bag our food in plastic and we wear variations of plastic. Not only does plastic end up littering our oceans and neighborhoods, but over 99 percent of it is made from chemicals derived from harmful fossil fuels. By 2015, over 8.3 billion tons of plastic had been produced, roughly equivalent to the weight of one billion elephants or 80 million blue whales. While this commodity has widespread use, there is little public knowledge about where our plastic goes when we toss it. 

We have all been taught the environmentalist slogan “reduce, reuse, recycle.” This slogan is often accompanied by the calming implication that by throwing your plastic water bottle in a recycling bin, you are helping save Mother Earth. However, in 2014, at the peak of annual recycling in the U.S., only 9.5 percent of plastic was actually recycled. Recent investigations by NPR and the PBS series “Frontline” reported that America’s largest oil and gas companies have known all along that recycling plastic would never be a viable alternative to dumping it in landfills. NPR and “Frontline” detailed that, in a 1974 speech, an unnamed industry insider wrote, “There is serious doubt that [recycling plastic] can ever be made viable on an economic basis.” 

While big oil and gas executives learned of the improbability of recycling on a large scale, commercials still aired across the country that, according to NPR, carried the message of “Plastic is special, and the consumer should recycle it.” These commercials were paid for by the same oil and gas companies that knew the industry was doomed to fail, such as Exxon, Chevron, Dow and DuPont. 

For a while, the U.S. was able to hide its growing plastic problem and ineffective recycling programs by dumping plastic waste in other countries, primarily China. But in 2017, China announced a national policy called National Sword to halt the import of recyclable waste from other countries. The U.S. was then forced to reckon with its own plastic addiction. According to The Intercept, after the implementation of National Sword, the U.S. started burning “six times the amount of plastic it’s recycling,” which, in turn, emits toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, including black carbon, which contributes to climate change.  

Other countries, such as Kenya, have implemented groundbreaking plastic bans, looking to limit the polluter. However, the U.S. oil and gas companies have tried to sully these efforts as well. According to a New York Times report, U.S. fossil fuel companies are attempting to lobby Kenya to reverse its plastic ban and continue importing foreign plastic waste. The battle is now between environmentalists in Kenya, the U.S. and abroad and the fossil fuel lobbyists who are backed by the hundred billion dollar industry.

While it is important to limit personal plastic use and continue to recycle plastics when possible, the issue of plastics extends beyond that. The towering oil and gas industry has held environmentalism hostage for decades with the goal of producing plastic, profits and waste.