by Jazzy Kerber, '20
“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Donald Trump declared in his speech, announcing that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. In reality, Pittsburgh went blue in the presidential election and quickly responded that their city government does, in fact, support the Paris agreement. Aside from these facts, however, the above statement ignores the 195 countries that adopted the accord. In December 2015, representatives of 196 nations met in Paris to negotiate and adopt the agreement by consensus. Before President Trump’s recent announcement, Syria and Nicaragua were the only two countries in the world that did not sign on.
Both Trump’s decision and his announcement of it are more story than substance. “Donald Trump versus almost all other world leaders” is a difficult position to support, but “Pittsburg versus Paris” is an easier pill to swallow (it’s even an alliteration!). President Trump uses narratives like this one to justify choices that make little logical or economic sense. By withdrawing from the global climate agreement, Trump proposes that the United States is immune to the consequences of climate change. Unfortunately, “America first” doesn’t make sense in relation to atmospheric science. We cannot force droughts and storms to the other side of the globe, after all. Nevertheless, President Trump attempts to show that he values America’s economy above all else.
But does withdrawing actually make economic sense? The key goal outlined in the Paris Agreement is “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels,” but participating nations determine their own mechanisms for decreasing emissions. The agreement was designed to be flexible in order to accommodate individual countries’ needs. (In fact, a relatively common criticism says the agreement is too flexible.)
What about jobs? To echo a position many economists have already taken, coal is a declining industry, while clean energy production is on the rise. Natural gas has displaced a fair amount of coal demand in recent years. (To clarify, natural gas is not clean energy, but I mention it because Trump often focuses specifically on coal jobs.) Moreover, recent publications show that solar and wind energies are now less expensive than coal power. I would argue that the best way to both preserve jobs and lower emissions might be a plan, similar to the one Germany successfully implemented starting about a decade ago, that retrains large numbers of coal miners for jobs in growing industries. Of course, Donald Trump would probably disapprove of this strategy since it would require a government program.
It is difficult to predict what changes we’ll actually see as a result of President Trump’s decision. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is a three-year process, plus we face one year of delays, so the United States won’t officially be out until the end of this presidential term. If at that point Donald Trump is not re-elected, his successor could reverse course and immediately add the U.S. back to the agreement. Additionally, Trump so far has not withdrawn from UN climate agreements like the UNFCCC, and individual states and corporations can choose to continue abiding by emissions standards that align with the Paris Agreement. So far, eleven states as well as Washington, DC and Puerto Rico have declared they will uphold commitments to the Paris Agreement.
Perhaps Trump’s recent action is most harmful to environmental initiatives in a symbolic sense. His executive orders and changes to the EPA have already dialed back the United States’ work against climate change, and by pulling out of the Paris Agreement, he clarifies this intent to the world.
 Hal Harvey, “Economics are Transitioning America From Coal To Clean,” Forbes, March 2, 2017.
 Joshua Zaffos, “Can we learn from Europe’s approach to laid-off coal miners?” High Country News, April 27, 2016.
 Leanna Garfield and Skye Gould, “This map shows which states are vowing to defy Trump and uphold the US’ Paris Agreement goals,” Business Insider, June 9, 2017.
by Miranda Vogt '19
There are two types of people in this world, those that make conscious decisions to alter their diets for the benefit of the environment, and those that say “Screw it, I just want my God-damn burger”. This is the way it has been for a long time, and the way it still is now, but some people argue that by the year 2050, these two groups will not be mutually exclusive. I am extremely interested in researching this intersection of the carnivore and the environmentalist as it occurs in lab grown meat, a promising but somewhat problematic new technology.
But why do we have to change the way we eat? A 2006 report from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization estimated that 18 percent of Greenhouse Gas Emissions comes from the meat and dairy industry, compared to the 13 percent emitted by the entire transportation sector. Recent reports, however, show that the true percentage could be higher still. Through a scientific lens, we’re taking a really inefficient route to get the energy and nutrients we need to live. We’re putting vegetable protein into a biochemical reactor called a cow (or chicken, duck, whatever) and then it puts off a lot of heat and methane and finally the reaction is done and we eat our hamburger. Added on to the greenhouse gas emissions and wastefulness of meat is the space that it takes to grow it. 30% of non-ice covered land is dedicated to raising livestock and the food that we feed it. Every day huge portions of land get cleared to make room for our gigantic appetite for meat. And every day, our population grows and our situation becomes more and more dire.
Even with all the facts, I have struggled with how to eat ethically. I’ve looked in to various ways to reduce my carbon footprint at the dinner table, including veganism and entomophogy (eating insects), but always end up coming back to omnivory. It’s just easier to get protein, and easier overall. You don’t have to ask for substitutions at restaurants or be difficult at family dinners. And unless you’re cooking for yourself, it is usually a lot more expensive to only get the healthy, veggie things (places catering to vegans are often organic and pricey). Plus, I like meat.
But now there’s an intriguing new voice in this conversation—the cultured meat side, promising to end all our problems with animal stem cells and a petri dish. Ideally, the process goes as follows: animal stem cells are taken from a living organism (without killing it) and allowed to divide for months in a bioreactor with plant-based growth culture. Then the cells are made to differentiate into muscle cells and begin the process of “bulking up”, through electronic stimulation.
In studies about the environmental impact of cultured meat (also referred to as “lab-grown meat” and “clean meat”), it was estimated that it would involve approximately 35 to 60 percent lower energy use, 80 to 95 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions and 98 percent lower land use compared to conventionally produced meat products in Europe. Not only that, but ideally, meat produced in a lab setting could be enjoyed guilt-free, as the animal who so willingly donated the cells could still be alive and kicking.
Where’s the catch, then? If lab-grown meat is environmentally in the green and guilt-free, why is it we don’t see these products in our stores already? One reason is the astronomical price-tag on cultured meat. A lab in the Netherlands was able to produce the first completely lab-grown burger, but it cost approximately $330,000—a little out of budget for our average supermarket shopper. Not only that, but when served without condiments to a board of taste-testers that were chosen for their willingness to embrace the technology, the lab-grown burger fetched such rave reviews as “edible, but not delectable”.
Here’s the crux of the issue. Yes, prices are dropping. Cultured meat producers like Memphis Meats here in the Bay Area say that it will be on our shelves and price competitive with conventionally produced meat in as few as 5-10 years. But will we ever be able to accept cultured meat into our lives and refrigerators when we raise such a big stink over harmless GMOs? Is lab-grown meat our silver bullet or our Frankenstein’s monster?
“Are Livestock Responsible for 51% of Greenhouse Gas Emissions?” TerraPass. N.p., 10 Nov. 2009. Web. 24 Jan. 2017.
Bartholet, Jeffrey. “Inside the Meat Lab.” Scientific American 304.6 (2011): 64–69. www.nature.com. Web.
“FAO - News Article: Key Facts and Findings.” N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2017.
“Food: A Taste of Things to Come? : Nature News.” N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2017.
“Livestock a Major Threat to Environment.” N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2017.
“Long Awaited Lab-Grown Burger Is Unveiled In London.” NPR.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2017.
McLaren, Mallory E., "Cultured Meat: A Beneficial, Crucial, and Inevitable Nutrition Technology" (2014). Law School Student Scholarship. Paper 527.
“The High Price Of What We Eat.” NPR.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2017.
Thornton, Philip K. “Livestock Production: Recent Trends, Future Prospects.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365.1554 (2010): 2853–2867. PubMed Central. Web.
Welcome to our blog!
This is a forum for students to share their writing on intersectional environmental topics, curated by Students for a Sustainable Stanford. Writers of all backgrounds, abilities, and perspectives are welcome.