Environmental decisions aren’t always straight forward. Like, is it worth cutting down a forest to build a solar farm? This week on Possibly we take a look.

This episode is a rerun. It originally aired on August 1, 2023.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

In this episode, we’re going to be looking at what it really means for something to be “better” for the environment. To find out, we’re going to talk about an instance where it’s not so clear.

We had Shira Wolpowitz and Malia Honda from our Possibly Team look into this.

Shira Wolpowitz: Hi, Megan!

Malia Honda: Hi!

Megan Hall: So, when thinking about environmental issues, how can we decide what makes something “better” for the environment?

Shira Wolpowitz: Well, that’s a pretty broad question, so let’s think it through with an example — one that’s been a hot topic recently in Rhode Island.

Malia Honda:  Rhode Island’s goal to commit to 100 percent renewable energy by 2033 has caused an increase in solar development across the state.

Shira Wolpowitz: But, to build many of those solar fields, developers have had to cut down some forests. This hasn’t made the neighbors, or even some environmental activists, very happy.

Malia Honda: To help us understand the situation, we spoke with Professor Dawn King — she works on a lot of these tough sustainability issues here at Brown.

Dawn King: I am a senior lecturer at the Institute for Environment and Society at Brown University and I’m also the director of undergraduate studies for Environmental Studies and Sciences.

Shira Wolpowitz: According to Dawn, one of the reasons that forests are being cleared for solar development is simply because Rhode Island is so tiny. Many convenient places — like parking lots or old landfills — already have solar panels.

Dawn King: We just don’t have a lot of land to put solar, we have some of the most expensive dirt in the entire nation. It’s usually between us and New Jersey, just for dirt.

Megan Hall: Ok, but cutting down forests doesn’t sound like the best way to reverse climate change! Don’t trees absorb carbon dioxide?

Shira Wolpowitz: They do! And that’s not all — they help with water filtration, cool down temperatures, create animal habitats… a lot of things that solar panels do not.

Megan Hall: So, what are we supposed to do? What’s better for the environment?

Malia Honda: It’s not an easy choice!

Stephen Porder: There’s not one that is inherently better than the other from the environment’s perspective, but there’s definitely one that’s better from the human perspective.

Shira Wolpowitz: That’s our founder, Stephen Porder.

Malia Honda: He thinks the question we should really be asking is what aspects of the environment are most important to us, and why?

Stephen Porder:  There are definitely things that are good for the environment from a human perspective. I want to make it clear that you know, there isn’t one answer to that.

Megan Hall: Ok, what if we’re just focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Which one does more? The new solar farms or the forests they’re replacing?

Shira Wolpowitz: Well, we did some calculations to figure that out, comparing how much carbon an average acre of Rhode Island forest would keep out of the atmosphere each year versus an acre of solar panels.

Megan Hall: And what did you find out?

Malia Honda: Solar panels are nearly 100 times more efficient at keeping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Shira Wolpowitz: So from a human perspective, the solar panels are the obvious choice, but if you asked the rabbits or the birds, they’d probably have a different opinion.

Megan Hall: Well, I don’t really like the idea either. Even if the solar panels are more efficient.

Shira Wolpowitz: No one does. Dawn says it’s going to be hard for the state to face these challenges.

Dawn King: They’re gonna grapple with it, quite honestly… I think a lot of folks are really hoping on the growth of renewable offshore wind.

Megan Hall: But can’t wind farms hurt birds and sea life?

Malia Honda: There’s a topic for another episode! And it’s complicated, but yes, there are always trade-offs.

Megan Hall: So, I guess what you’re saying is—in many cases, there really is no one solution that is “better for the environment.” Something could be better or worse in certain ways, but not necessarily better overall.

Malia Honda: Exactly. But for our listeners looking to make conscious environmental choices, Stephen has a suggestion.

Stephen Porder: Don’t allow yourself to be lulled by “I did something good for the environment therefore I can do this other thing that’s bad for the environment” because they’re usually not equivalent.

Shira Wolpowitz: And that’s what Possibly is here for! Hopefully, our show offers a little perspective when you’re making tough decisions.

Megan Hall: Thanks Shira, and Malia!

That’s it for today. For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet at askpossibly.org. You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on social media at “ask possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Ocean State Media and WBRU.

The post What Makes Something ‘Better’ for the Environment? appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post What Makes Something ‘Better’ for the Environment? appeared first on Possibly.

One librarian told us she has to bring a hat and gloves to work in the summer. The Possibly team breaks down the science behind freezing cold libraries.

This episode is a rerun. It originally aired on October 8th, 2024.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

Today we have a question from my friend Jen Kennedy. She’s a librarian at one of Brown University’s libraries, known casually as “The Rock.” And Jen has been struggling with a confusing problem ever since she started working there-

Jen Kennedy: It’s freezing in the Rock. All the time, but especially in the summer when it’s hot outside. I have extra socks, I have gloves to wear in July and August, and sometimes I even wear a hat. We all want to know, why is it so cold?

Megan Hall: So we turned to Nat Hardy and Will Malloy from our Possibly Team to look into this.

Nat Hardy: Hi, Megan!

Will Malloy: Hello!

Megan Hall: Okay so what’s going on here? Why would a library be colder in the summer when it’s hot outside? That seems like a waste of energy right?

Nat Hardy: It’s a great question, and Jen is not alone on this! The internet is filled with people complaining that their local library is too cold in the summer.

Will Malloy: And the answer is a little counterintuitive. It all has to do with humidity and energy efficiency!

Megan Hall: Are you about to tell me that blasting the AC is actually an energy efficient solution?

Nat Hardy: Believe it or not… yes! Heating and cooling libraries is tricky because the humidity inside really matters.

Will Malloy: Books need to be kept in pretty dry conditions, or else water in the air can damage them.

Nat Hardy: The same thing is true for anywhere that holds sensitive objects, like art museums, or science laboratories.

Will Malloy: To understand how these buildings manage that humidity, we talked to someone who thinks about heating and cooling buildings efficiently, every single day.

Dave Larson: Hi, I’m Dave Larson. I’m the energy engineer in the Office of Sustainability and Resiliency at Brown University.

Nat Hardy: To understand this problem, let’s go back to some of the stuff you probably learned in high school about how humidity works.

Will Malloy: You may remember that the hotter air is, the more water it can hold.

Dave Larson: So if it’s 100 degrees out, you can put quite a bit of moisture in that air, and it’ll be fine. Problem is, if you cool that air down, as the temperature drops, its ability to hold that water goes down.

Megan Hall: So the space to hold water is shrinking, but the water isn’t going away?

Will Malloy: Yeah exactly.

Megan Hall: And what happens if the air can’t hold any more of that water?

Will Malloy: It has to go somewhere! So you get precipitation!

Dave Larson: So it’s going to rain, or you’re going to have fog or snow or something like that.

Nat Hardy: Okay, so now picture this, libraries, like all buildings, have ventilation, which means air from outside gets brought into the building.

Will Malloy: And on a humid summer day, that air from the outside brings a ton of water into the building – way more than is safe for the books.

Nat Hardy: So to deal with this, libraries need to remove that moisture from the air.

Dave Larson: So the best way to do that is really to get the air so cold, that the moisture precipitates out of it.

Will Malloy: To do this they use a big system that’s basically an industrial air conditioner.

Nat Hardy: It takes in the humid air from outside and makes it really cold.

Will Malloy: So cold that the air runs out of room to hold water, and the water condenses into a liquid.

Nat Hardy: Have you ever seen a drip of water coming out of your air conditioner? That’s the condensation coming out of the air!

Megan Hall: Cool! So they’ve pulled that humidity out of the air – and now it’s safe for the books?

Nat Hardy: Yeah! Now they have much drier air, but it’s really cold.

Dave Larson: The temperature might be 52, 54 degrees, because you’re trying to wring out the moisture.

Will Malloy: Which is why Jen has to wear gloves in July. The hotter and more humid the summer air is, the colder they have to make it to dry it out.

Nat Hardy: In theory, you could heat the air back up, now that the moisture is gone. And some buildings that want to be really precise about their temperature might do that.

Will Malloy: But that’s expensive, and not very efficient. Think about how high your utility bill would be if you ran your AC and your heater at the same time!

Nat Hardy: So if you go to a library or an art museum in the summer, especially on a humid day… you might want to bring a sweater.

Megan Hall: Got it! Thanks Nat and Will.

For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to askpossibly.org You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on social media at “ask possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Ocean State Media, and WBRU.

The post Why is it so cold in libraries? appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post Why is it so cold in libraries? appeared first on Possibly.

The Rhode Island General Assembly considered a law this year to charge fossil fuel emitters for the costs of climate change. Possibly spoke with a co-sponsor of the bill about what comes next.

 Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall. 

This year, the Rhode Island General Assembly considered a type of bill that’s been popping up across the country: it aims to make fossil fuel emitters pay for the impacts of climate change. 

Rhode Island didn’t end up passing the legislation this year, but Nat Hardy from our Possibly Team spoke with one of the bill’s sponsors about what comes next in Rhode Island.

Nat Hardy: Hi, Megan! Thanks for having me.

Megan Hall: So tell us about this bill. 

Nat Hardy: Yeah, it’s called a climate super fund bill. It’s a pretty new idea to address the impacts of climate change. 

Jennifer Boylan: The concept is to make the polluters pay for the damages that they caused.

Nat Hardy: That’s Representative Jennifer Boylan, the lead sponsor in the House, for the Rhode Island Climate Superfund Act of 2026. She’s introduced this bill two years in a row with her colleague, Senator Linda Ujifusa, 

Megan Hall: So what was in the bill?

Nat Hardy: The bill would have made major fossil fuel emitters pay for the cost of responding to climate change in Rhode Island. It would cover projects at both the state and local level.

Megan Hall: Like what?

 Nat Hardy: All sorts of things: repairs after storms caused by climate change, responses to extreme heat, plans to respond to rising waters…There’s a long list. 

Megan Hall: Who would pay these costs? 

Nat Hardy: The bill specifically targets the biggest polluters: companies responsible for more than one billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions. So we’re talking companies like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, B.P., Shell. And the companies would be charged proportionally, based on their emissions over the past few decades.

Megan Hall: Interesting! I didn’t realize states could do something like that.

Nat Hardy: Yeah, so this legislation is a new interpretation of an old concept. It’s based on the 1980 federal “Superfund” law, designed to help the government clean up sites contaminated with hazardous waste. 

Jennifer Boylan: And it also forces the parties responsible for that contamination to either perform the cleanup themselves or reimburse the government for any work done by EPA to clean up the site. 

Nat Hardy: So climate superfund bills are trying to do the same thing. If you caused the damage, you pay to fix it. And the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel companies are causing the more powerful storms, heatwaves, and other impacts we’re seeing from climate change. 

Megan Hall:  Has any state successfully passed one of these bills? 

Nat Hardy: Yeah, Vermont was the first state to pass a law like this in 2024 and New York passed one pretty soon after. There are also 11 other states considering these bills.

Megan Hall: Got it. But the Rhode Island bill didn’t pass this year. What happened?

Nat Hardy: So reaction to the bill was split. We saw testimony from residents and environmental groups in favor of the law. 

But we also saw testimony against the law- both from local groups, and from some national groups who represent the interests of oil and gas companies: the American Petroleum Institute and the confusingly named Consumer Energy Alliance. 

Representative Boylan isn’t surprised. 

Jennifer Boylan: I mean, of course these companies aren’t gonna roll over and say, “Okay, you got me. Sure. Where, where do I write the check?” Right? They’re gonna fight it, and that is to be expected.

Nat Hardy: But there was another concern about the bill– like, will it hold up in court?

The two states that have passed climate superfund laws, New York and Vermont, have already been sued, by the Justice Department, and 22 other states. 

Megan Hall: How did those lawsuits affect the Rhode Island bill? 

Nat Hardy: So because of those challenges, the director of Rhode Island’s Department of Environmental Management, and others, have asked Rhode Island’s legislators to wait for the legal process to play out before they pass a similar law. 

Megan Hall: So where do things go from here? 

Nat Hardy: The lawsuits are making their way through the courts, so it’ll be a while before they’re resolved. But Representative Boylan says the bill will be back next session:

Jennifer Boylan: I’m not going anywhere with this bill. As long as I’m up at the General Assembly as my district sends me back, I will be filing this bill, as long as I think it has some sort of viable path forward, and I do. 

Nat Hardy: So we’ll have to keep an eye on those lawsuits and Rhode Island’s next legislative session to see how things turn out. 

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks, Nat. 

That’s it for today. You can find more information, or ask a question about the ways your choices affect our planet, at ask possibly dot org. You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on social media at  “ask possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Ocean State Media and WBRU.

The post What if polluters had to pay for the effects of climate change? appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post What if polluters had to pay for the effects of climate change? appeared first on Possibly.

Regenerative cattle grazing gained momentum as a way to make beef production more climate-friendly. But on the ground, the actual results get complicated.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet. And break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

On Possibly, we talk a lot about how cutting beef out of your diet is one of the easiest ways to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions.

But, we’ve also heard about this thing called regenerative cattle grazing that claims to make eating beef more sustainable. Is that true?

We’ve got Nat Hardy and Leo Nachamie to walk us through the answer.

Nat Hardy: Hey Megan!

Leo Nachamie: Hi!

Megan Hall: Remind me—why is beef such a big climate problem?

Nat Hardy: For one, cows burp out methane, which is a really powerful greenhouse gas.

Leo Nachamie: And because of how much beef we eat, there are a lot of cows on this planet. Their bodies take up more physical space than any other mammal on earth—including humans.

Megan: That’s… a lot of burps.

Nat Hardy Yeah… And if you add in the land and fossil fuels used to grow their food, you get a massive impact on our climate, just from cows.

Leo: Every pound of beef creates roughly the same amount of CO2 as driving a gas-powered car for about 100 miles.

Megan: Yikes. So is there any way to cut down on those emissions?

Leo Nachamie: That’s what some advocates of regenerative grazing have been hoping.

Megan: Okay, so what exactly is regenerative grazing?

Leo Nachamie: The idea is to raise cattle in a way that has a lower impact on the environment.

Megan: And how do you do that?

Nat: One way is to mimic the way wild animals feed on America’s grasslands. Like Bison.

Dan Kane: Think of a pre-colonial bison herd moving across the landscape, right? Huge numbers, they’ll come through, graze really hard for a short period of time, and then migrate on, and they won’t return for the rest of the year.

Leo Nachamie: That’s Dan Kane. He’s a soil scientist at Mad Agriculture, which is a non-profit that helps farmers and ranchers transition to regenerative practices.

Nat Hardy: He says that most traditional cattle operations will let their herd loose onto a big swath of land, and kind of just let them munch away.

Leo Nachamie: Which means the grasses can’t catch a break—they get eaten and trampled over constantly.

Nat Hardy: It’s the opposite of what bison do: eat a lot, but don’t return for a year.

Leo Nachamie: With regenerative grazing, ranchers try to mimic the bison by dividing their land into smaller segments, and moving their herd every day or so.

Megan Hall: And that gives the grass a chance to fully recover and grow back?

Leo Nachamie: Exactly.

Nat Hardy: And here’s the crux of it: Some farmers claim that this approach can actually put more carbon into the soil than it takes out.

Megan: Woah. How would that work?

Nat Hardy: We needed some help figuring that out. So we talked to our show’s founder, professor Stephen Porder. He says:

Stephen Porder: The idea there is that, if the animals graze in a way that promotes a lot of plant growth and the plant growth is healthy and has a lot of roots and is robust, that that might actually start to pull some carbon out of the air and store it in the soil.

Leo Nachamie: Plants capture carbon dioxide from the air. When those plants die, most of that goes back to the atmosphere. But some carbon dioxide gets stuck in the soil.

Nat Hardy: So if we can figure out how to get more of that carbon into the soil, by letting the grass grow back, we could lower the carbon hoofprint of beef.

Megan Hall: Okay, that makes sense! So… climate problem solved?

Leo Nachamie: Unfortunately, not quite.

Nat Hardy: Both Stephen and Dan, the soil scientist, have spent their careers knee-deep in the latest research around regenerative grazing. And both of them say the data is just not there. At least not yet. Here’s Dan:

Dan Kane: We’ve got like a set of papers that say, okay. Hey, this looks promising. But when we then shift over to the small number of experiments, where people really tried to kind of control for all these things and really try and are a nice experimental setup, the evidence just is kind of weak.

Leo Nachamie: Basically, we’re a long way from knowing that changing grazing practices has any effect on soil carbon.

Megan: So what’s the takeaway here?

Leo Nachamie: Regenerative grazing can have all sorts of benefits – it can help slow soil erosion, and support more biodiverse grasslands.

Nat Hardy: But when it comes to the carbon question, we shouldn’t count on it to really help with climate change.

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks, Nat and Leo!

That’s it for today. Special thanks to Cameron Leo, who did the reporting for this episode.

For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go at ask possibly dot org. You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on social media at “ask possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Ocean State Media, and WBRU.

The post Can regenerative grazing make meat more sustainable? appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post Can regenerative grazing make meat more sustainable? appeared first on Possibly.

Advocates are calling for an unorthodox method to fight invasive species like the European green crab: just cook them up and eat them!

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

On our show we’ve talked a lot about invasive species, how they can reshape the environment around them, but also how nuanced this issue is. You might have heard of people removing, burning, or trapping invasive species… But what about eating them?

Alice Xie and Ava Gell from our Possibly Team have more on this culinary solution.

Alice Xie: Hi, Megan!

Ava Gell: Hey!

Megan Hall: So, what kind of invasive species are we talking about eating?

Alice Xie: There’s lots of different options. People have made cookbooks with recipes for everything from garlic mustard herbs, to pigeons. But today we’re focusing on green crabs.

Megan Hall: Why are some people worried about green crabs?

Ava Gell: To learn more, we talked to Mary Parks, Executive Director of GreenCrab.org, a nonprofit dedicated to spreading awareness about the impact of green crabs.

Mary Parks: Green crabs are one of the most destructive invasive species that were introduced to New England about 200 years ago.

Ava Gell: She says they came here from Europe when they hitched a ride on a merchant ship.

Megan Hall: Two hundred years is a long time— they’ve been creating problems ever since?

Alice Xie: Not exactly. In the past, cold winters would kill off enough green crabs that they wouldn’t overwhelm all of the other creatures in the area. But then…

Mary Parks: Around the end of the 20th century, green crab populations really started to take off. and researchers believe that that is partially because of climate change.

Megan Hall: Because it’s gotten so warm in the water, more of them survive through the winter?

Alice Xie: Exactly.

Megan Hall: So, why are too many green crabs a problem?

Ava Gell: Well, green crabs don’t have a lot of predators in New England, and they eat anything in their way, including other crabs and wildlife.

Alice Xie: Green crabs also destroy the homes of other species by eating seagrass. Which means native species run out of resources.

Megan Hall: And so people are looking for ways to reduce the green crab population?

Ava Gell: Well, one way is to eat them.

Mary Parks: Looking at the reality that green crabs are likely here to stay, that is part of the reason that we embrace them as a seafood.

Megan Hall: Do they taste good?

Alice Xie: Mary says, yes.

Mary Parks: They’re sweet, they’re rich, they’re fatty, they’re flavorful.

Ava Gell: And they’re already used in dishes all over the world.

Mary Parks: In Spain, Portugal, France and parts of Scandinavia they’re used in stocks and soups and sauces.

Megan Hall: Are they similar to the kinds of crabs we eat here in the US?

Ava Gell: Green crabs don’t have as much meat as blue crabs or jonah crabs, but flavor wise, they’re pretty similar.

Mary Parks: Whether you’re looking at stocks or sauces or gravies, they have a lot of culinary potential.

Alice Xie: But there’s more to it than just the harvesting and cooking.

Ava Gell: Currently, most of the green crabs sold in the U.S. are used as bait. According to Mary, the movement to eat green crabs helps to,

Mary Parks: Challenge public perceptions, especially because a lot of people still consider green crabs to be a quote, unquote “trash fish.”

Alice Xie: And the green crab market doesn’t just involve consumers and restaurants. Harvesters, wholesalers, and chefs work together to make it easier to eat green crabs.

Ava Gell: Through this collaboration, the green crab market can begin to move away from bait and towards your plate.

Megan Hall: Cool! So, how can I eat a green crab?

Ava Gell: Well, they’re available at many local restaurants, especially during Greencrab.org’s Green Crab week. Also, check out the many green crab cookbooks out there to help guide your eating experience.

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks, Alice and Ava!

That’s it for today. You can find more information, or ask a question about the ways your choices affect our planet, at ask possibly dot org. You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on social media at “ask possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Ocean State Media, and WBRU.

The post If we can’t beat invasive species, should we eat them?  appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post If we can’t beat invasive species, should we eat them?  appeared first on Possibly.

In part two of Possibly’s series on the dairy industry, we’re turning our attention to an age-old method used to efficiently store cheese.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

This episode, we’re taking a closer look at how we store dairy, from modern refrigeration to cheese caves.

We had Samantha Zhang and Nat Hardy from our Possibly Team look into this.

Samantha Zhang: Hi, Megan!

Nat Hardy: Hello!

Megan Hall: In our last episode, we talked about the environmental impacts of dairy production, but how about storing all that dairy?

Samantha Zhang: Yeah, It doesn’t matter if it’s cheese, butter, or even dry milk, when we have extra dairy we need more cold storage.

Megan Hall: I’m assuming that uses a lot of energy, right?

Nat Hardy: It can, but there’s actually a way to store dairy efficiently— using the earth! At one point in time, there were government-sanctioned cheese caves!

Samantha Zhang: To explain, we’re going to have to start with a little history lesson. It all goes back to a 1949 program when the government decided to buy lots and lots of storable dairy products.

Megan Hall: Why would they do that?

Nat Hardy: At the time, they wanted to protect dairy farmers and keep milk prices stable. So, the government became a very predictable customer.

Samantha Zhang: In the 70s, the program expanded, and the government was buying large quantities of cheese— so much cheese that they had to store it in caves!

Megan Hall: So there are caves somewhere in the United States that are just full of government cheese?

Nat Hardy: Well, the US government doesn’t really do that anymore.

Samantha Zhang: But there are still plenty of private groups that store their cheese in caves….

Nat Hardy: To figure out why, we talked to Doug Hales, a Professor of Operations & Supply Chain Management at the University of Rhode Island.

Samantha Zhang: He says, once you cool down a storage location, you want to minimize the energy you need to keep it cold.…

Dr. Hales: The key to efficient refrigeration, is the insulation of the facilities that are being cooled.

Samantha Zhang: Guess what’s great at maintaining cold temperatures?

Dr. Hales: The earth soil is one of the best insulators out there.

Nat Hardy: Companies like Kraft use spaces like Springfield Underground, an old limestone quarry and cave complex in Missouri, for cheese storage.

Samantha Zhang: And that’s not the only one.

Dr. Hales: Clemson University, they actually had an ice cream and cheese and mushroom growing facility inside caves in the area, for that very reason.

Megan Hall: So storing stuff in caves is a climate-friendly solution! Why don’t we do this with everything that needs to stay cold?

Nat Hardy: Well,

Dr. Hales: Earthen areas are difficult to be found close enough to the large cities.

Samantha Zhang: And this lack of natural spaces means we tend to turn toward modern refrigerated facilities.

Nat Hardy: But, some people have figured out a way to use the cooling power of the earth in places without natural caves.

Samantha Zhang: To find out more, we talked to Laura Haverland, the owner behind Sweet and Salty Farms right here, in Little Compton, Rhode Island.

Laura Haverland: Our cheese cave is an above ground space, because if you dig down in Little Compton, you very quickly hit the water table.

Nat Hardy: So instead of digging an entirely underground space—

Laura Haverland: We worked with our builder, and they thought they were going to have a lot of fill anyway, from creating the building space.

Samantha Zhang: They took that fill, the excavated dirt from digging the foundation, and piled it up on the sides of the building.

Nat Hardy: This eco-friendly building saves energy with its very own earthen insulation. And… there is another upside to this design.

[Cows grazing/mooing]

Samantha Zhang: For the cows!

Laura Haverland: The cows come and graze on top of the cheese cave. Because it’s grass, and that’s easier for us than cutting it or weed whacking it. And so the surrounding dirt is actually creating food for our animals as well.

Nat Hardy: So perhaps we can consider more green refrigeration solutions like the one from Sweet and Salty Farms.

Samantha Zhang: Who knew storing government cheese in caves wasn’t so absurd afterall…

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks, Samantha and Nat!

That’s it for today. You can find more information, or ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, at ask possibly dot org. You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on social media at “Ask Possibly.”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Ocean State Media, and WBRU.

The post What’s a more sustainable way to store our cheese? appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post What’s a more sustainable way to store our cheese? appeared first on Possibly.

We talk a lot about the carbon pollution that comes along with eating beef, but this week on Possibly we’re asking: what about eating dairy? How do they compare?

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

We’ve talked a lot about the carbon pollution that comes along with eating beef, but what about eating dairy? And how do they compare?

We had Samantha Zhang and Nat Hardy from our Possibly Team look into this.

Samantha Zhang: Hi, Megan!

Nat Hardy: Hello!

Megan Hall: So, what creates more carbon emissions? Beef or dairy?

Nat Hardy: Let’s start with the obvious overlap between the two… cows. We know that cows use a lot of resources.

Samantha Zhang: They need land to graze, and lots of feed.

Megan Hall: But what does feed have to do with carbon pollution?

Nat Hardy: Well, it takes a lot of energy to make feed– from fertilizers to grow it, tractors to plant and harvest it, and trucks to deliver it.

Samantha Zhang: Not only that, because of the way cows’ stomachs process food, they belch out methane —a greenhouse gas that’s much more potent at warming the planet than carbon dioxide.

Nat Hardy: And of course, we can’t forget that their manure also creates methane.

Samantha Zhang: But one major difference between beef cows and dairy cows is how long they live. Dairy cows stay on the farm for about 5 years, while beef cows get slaughtered after about a year and a half.

Megan Hall: What kind of difference does that make when it comes to pollution?

Nat Hardy: For starters, cows that live longer have more to offer. It takes about two years for a cow to start making milk.

Samantha Zhang: So really, during those early years you have to feed them, they burp out methane, but they aren’t making anything.

Nat Hardy: When a dairy cow sticks around for five years or more, you’re getting at least three years of milk in exchange for all of the things they do that create carbon pollution.

Megan Hall: So, letting dairy cows get a bit older is more efficient?

Samantha Zhang: Exactly. But there’s more. With dairy cows, you’re kind of getting a 2 for 1.

Nat Hardy: To find out more, we talked to Dr. Matthew Hayek, an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies at NYU.

Matthew Hayek: The dairy cow is producing multiple products for human consumption. First of all, a lot of milk. And second, she is probably going to be slaughtered and rendered into beef that is used in hamburger meat. Then also, she will have offspring.

Nat Hardy: Compare that to a beef cow that is used for only one thing— beef— and suddenly dairy cows are looking way more efficient.

Megan Hall: So dairy cows create less emissions overall, because those emissions are being divided up in between amounts of milk and cheese and beef.

Samantha Zhang: Exactly! So if we take a look at the numbers, the emissions for around two pounds of beef from a cow that’s JUST used for beef is about 60 kilograms of CO2.

Nat Hardy: But, beef from a dairy cow comes in at about 20 kilograms of CO2. So only a third as much.

Megan Hall: So, less emissions, for the same thing! What about milk?

Samantha Zhang: Well, 2 pounds of milk produces way less emissions—about 20 times less than beef from a dairy cow.

Megan Hall: Where does cheese rank in terms of greenhouse gases?

Nat Hardy: Well the surprising thing is, cheese creates a ton of emissions per pound. It’s up there, with the emissions from beef that came from a dairy cow, though it depends on the type of cheese.

Megan Hall: Why is cheese so similar to beef?

Nat Hardy: Well, consider how much milk goes into a kilogram of cheese.

Samantha Zhang: That’s the thing to keep in mind about these metrics: they can really change depending on the measurement. Since…

Matthew Hayek: Different types of food have different quantities of water, protein, fat, calories in them, depending on which you choose to report by, you’re going to have very different answers in that comparison.

Nat Hardy: So, say we weren’t looking at the emissions by weight, but instead we were looking at it based on the amount of protein.

Samantha Zhang: Then you’d get more emissions for milk, once you took out all the water weight. Going back to cheese, it…

Matthew Hayek: Might look like very high emissions by comparison, because you’ve removed most of the water in order to perform that fermentation.

Nat Hardy: The numbers might change based on how you measure it, and beef is definitely worse than dairy, but in the end food that comes from a cow is always going to make a lot of emissions.

Megan Hall: Got it! Thanks, Samantha and Nat!

That’s it for today. You can find more information, or ask a question about the ways your choices affect our planet, at ask possibly dot org. You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on social media at “ask possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Ocean State Media, and WBRU.

The post What creates more carbon pollution: beef or dairy? appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post What creates more carbon pollution: beef or dairy? appeared first on Possibly.

These rare mushrooms are famous for their intense flavor, and their expensive price. But climate change may be driving those prices even higher.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

Today, we’re looking at a luxury ingredient that’s at risk of dropping off the menu: the truffle.

These pungent subterranean mushrooms are famous for their intense flavor, and they’re so rare they can fetch thousands of dollars a pound. But those prices might start getting even higher… because of climate change.

To help us understand more about this mystery mushroom and the dangers they face, we had James Chafouleas and Shane Toomey from our Possibly team look into it…

James Chafouleas: Hi, Megan!

Shane Toomey: Hey, Megan.

Megan Hall: So truffles, they’re the epitome of luxury. Some have sold for over $15,000 a pound. But what is it about that specific scent that makes them so desirable, and so worth protecting?

Rowan Jacobsen:  It really grabs your brain in a way, it’s intense and pungent and garlicy, but also like funky, like an aged prosciutto or something.

James Chafouleas: That’s Rowan Jacobsen. He’s a James Beard award-winning food writer and the author of the book “Truffle Hound.”

Rowan Jacobsen: As soon as somebody holds a truffle up to their nose, their eyes get big every time. It’s like the ‘truffle face.’

Shane Toomey: But Rowan says that this “truffle face” might become a lot harder to find in the future, because these mushrooms are incredibly sensitive to our changing environment.

Rowan Jacobsen: “Drought is a big threat to the truffle business. Just like mushrooms they like water a lot, right? They don’t like soil to be too dry. You have to have summer rains if you’re gonna have those truffles form in the fall.

Shane Toomey: And that’s the problem. Research shows that as the climate changes, summer droughts in the Mediterranean are becoming more frequent and more intense.

Shane Toomey: Scientific studies of decades of harvest data confirm that the truffle harvest is dependent on summer precipitation.

Megan Hall: Can’t we just farm truffles and use irrigation?

James Chafouleas: Rowan says, that depends:

Rowan Jacobsen:  The winter blacks not a problem because they are farmed very successfully, most black truffles today are farmed. But white truffles Appalachians, the Oregon truffles, those are all dependent on wild forests and on, semi-normal conditions. So they all could disappear via climate change.

James Chafouleas: And even the land truffles have is under pressure. In regions like Italy, forests are being cleared to expand vineyards, and that wipes out the truffle habitat entirely.

Rowan Jacobsen:  So there’s this tension in Italy and other wine-growing regions that also have truffles where, the more they clear forests, the fewer truffles they have.

Shane Toomey: This is a huge issue for local communities where truffle hunting defines their cultural identity and drives tourism.

Megan Hall: So what can we do to protect them?

Rowan Jacobsen:  So there definitely is movement across Europe, to recognize the importance of these forests and protect them. Wild travel hunting is great because it gives the forest a value and, a sense of purpose, a sense of meaning to all the people who live there. And it just makes them very appreciative and very protective of those forests.

James Chafouleas: If you’ve had truffle products and don’t get the hype, you may be in for a surprise.

Rowan Jacobsen: If you’ve had truffle popcorn and said I don’t understand that stuff sucks you haven’t had a real truffle yet. It’s often made with fake truffle scent. But most people, that’s the only truffle they’ve ever smelled. So they think that’s what a truffle is.

Shane Toomey: If you want the real truffle smell experience, you have to go to the source.

Rowan Jacobsen:  That smells destroyed by heat and processing. So it’s gotta be fresh. I think it’s really important to go experience a real truffle.

James Chafouleas: And if the conservation movement isn’t successful, the “truffle face” disappears right along with the forests.

Megan Hall: Got it! Thanks, James and Shane!

That’s it for today. You can find more information, or ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, at askpossibly.org. You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on social media at “ask possibly” Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Ocean State Media, and WBRU.

The post How is climate change altering the truffle industry? appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post How is climate change altering the truffle industry? appeared first on Possibly.

With colorful windsocks and a gazebo, Providence artist Eli Nixon developed an art installation to bring attention to the air quality around the Port of Providence. This week on Possibly, we take a closer look.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

This episode, we are taking a trip to the Port of Providence, to learn about an art installation that is helping to raise awareness about air quality.

Isha Thakkar and Leo Nachamie from our Possibly Team are here to tell us more.

Isha Thakkar: Hi, Megan!

Leo Nachamie: Hello!

Megan Hall: So can art help us understand our air quality?

Isha Thakkar: Great question! To find out, we talked to Eli Nixon, an artist that specializes in collaborative public art projects.

Leo Nachamie: Last summer Eli and a team of artists set up a windsock art installation at the end of Public Street in South Providence.

Isha Thakkar: The installation involved flying different colored windsocks at a small water access point near the Port of Providence.

Leo Nachamie: Each color represented a different level on the air quality index, which measures how polluted the air is at any given moment.

Isha Thakkar: Yellow is for moderate air quality, orange shows that the air is unhealthy for sensitive groups, and red is for when the air is so polluted that anyone may experience health effects.

Megan Hall: What is this installation trying to accomplish?

Leo Nachamie: Eli wanted to bring outside attention to the quality of our air. They hope this project will bring a sense of urgency for the neighborhoods around the port:

Eli Nixon: What I was trying to do was amplify their concerns to be seen by a larger providence that has yet to invest in protecting this public right of way.

Isha Thakkar: Rhode Island has one of the highest asthma rates in the country. And the neighborhood around the Port of Providence is particularly vulnerable because of all of the nearby industries that pump pollution into the air.

Eli Nixon: And yet our politicians are not treating it with that kind of emergency level.

Leo Nachamie: Eli wants their work to serve a purpose in the community, to serve as a bridge between art and public health.

Eli Nixon: I’m trying to make a useful tool for local residents that actually speaks to their concerns about their own well being in their own neighborhood in real time.

Isha Thakkar: With that goal in mind, Eli also built a temporary gazebo at the community access point, so people could sit near the water.

Leo Nachamie: The installation turned a pretty un-kept area into a beautiful gathering place– it’s one of the few places where people in the area can access the river.

Eli Nixon: So my project was like, Ooh, how can I lift up what is beautiful about this place, and what many neighborhood residents have been yelling for and organizing around for decades is safe, pedestrian-centered public access to the bay.

Leo Nachamie: Eli says that protecting public spaces to gather and enjoy nature safely, can lead to domino effects:

Eli Nixon: If we don’t take care of the one spot that is for the public, where our needs are supposed to be prioritized, they’re supposed to be held at the center of what this tiny strip is, because they’re not being held at the center of any of these other spots. So it’s a strategic foothold to yell so hard about this tiny thing, because it’s our one place to have any impact on what’s happening all around it.

Isha Thakkar: So not only are these windsocks being used to bring attention to poor air quality by the port, they’re also being used as a call to action to protect free, safe, public spaces.

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks, Isha and Leo!

If you are interested in a windsocks project in your own community, you can get in touch with the People’s Port Authority and Eli Nixon.

That’s it for today. You can find more information, or ask a question about the ways your choices affect our planet, at ask possibly dot org. You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on social media at “ask possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Ocean State Media, and WBRU.

The post How is art bringing attention to air quality?  appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post How is art bringing attention to air quality?  appeared first on Possibly.

This week on Possibly we’re taking a look at the ships that carry our goods around the world. What would it look like to take fossil fuels out of the equation?

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

If you live near a large port, you’ve probably seen cargo ships—they’re these massive boats that

carry everything from cars to bananas, all over the world.

Right now, these ships all run on fossil fuel. We wanted to know – is there a cleaner way to transport our stuff around the world?

We had Sedi-Anne Blachford and Samantha Zhang from our Possibly team look into this.

 Sedi-Anne Blachford: Hi, Megan!

Samantha Zhang: Hello!

Megan Hall: So, is there a cleaner way to run these massive ships?

Sedi-Anne Blachford: Well, to be fair,  moving things around by cargo ships is already way more efficient than using airplanes or trucks.

Samantha Zhang: But still, we ship so much stuff around the world that these cargo ships do create a lot of carbon pollution— somewhere around 3% of all of our emissions.

Megan Hall: So, what can we do to reduce that pollution?

 Sedi-Anne Blachford: The shipping industry has been looking into all sorts of solutions, from fueling the ships with hydrogen or ammonia to even using nuclear power.

Stephen Porder: I teach about this stuff, and even from my lectures in the fall, I’m having to replace all my slides for my lectures in early March, because the technology is changing. It’s a whirlwind.

Sedi-Anne Blachford: That’s Stephen Porder. Professor of Environment and Society at Brown University.

Stephen Porder: But I’m also the co-founder of Possibly.

Samantha Zhang: And Stephen says the latest innovation is using batteries!

Megan Hall: Batteries to run a cargo ship? How is that possible? You must need some pretty giant batteries.

 Sedi-Anne Blachford: Yeah, they are big! In fact, a lot of them are the size of shipping containers.

Samantha Zhang: But that’s actually pretty convenient. Batteries used for electricity storage for the grid already come in shipping containers, and of course:

Stephen Porder: Ports are made to lift those big, heavy shipping containers in and out really quickly.

Megan Hall: So instead of having to plug in and wait to charge the ship, like I do with my car, they could just put in a whole new battery?

 Sedi-Anne Blachford: Exactly. No long wait to recharge.

Stephen Porder: They just swap out the batteries and they’re ready to go again.

Megan Hall: So, you put a massive battery on a cargo ship, and that’s enough to get it across the ocean?

Samantha Zhang: Right now, the ships that are using these batteries can only travel about 620 miles, but the technology is improving all the time.

Sedi-Anne Blachford: China is testing its first all electric cargo ship, a 10,000 ton vessel, near Shanghai this spring.

Samantha Zhang: Plus, with fuel prices the way they are these days, switching to electricity might start to make the most economic sense for companies that ship goods across the ocean.

 Sedi-Anne Blachford: And there’s one more twist to this story…

Stephen Porder: Over 40% of what we’re shipping around the world is fossil fuels.

Samantha Zhang: Which means that if we switch to clean energy to power the rest of our economy, we’ll reduce the need for shipping altogether.

Megan Hall: And shipping less stuff means less carbon pollution?

 Sedi-Anne Blachford: You got it. It turns out reducing emissions in the shipping industry is pretty interconnected with reducing emissions everywhere else.

Samantha Zhang: And for Stephen, that’s an exciting connection.

Stephen Porder: It’s those kinds of synergies that I think really give people like me optimism for a better, more efficient and less polluting world without sacrifice. Like we don’t need to ship fossil fuels around if we’re not using them.

Sedi-Anne Blachford: That being said, completely electrifying cargo ships isn’t going to be easy. It will probably take 10 or even 20 years.

Stephen Porder: We’re very much on the learning curve. We’ve been running ships off oil for well over a century. We’ve been running anything off these kinds of batteries for like, a couple of years.

Samantha Zhang: But Stephen says, five years ago, nobody was talking about electric ships and now they’re here, and so who knows what five years will bring.

Megan Hall: Got it! Thanks Samantha and Sedi-Anne.

That’s it for today. You can find more information, or ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, at askpossibly.org. You can also subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts or follow us on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, or Bluesky at  “askpossibly”

Possibly is a co-production of Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society, Ocean State Media and WBRU.

The post Can you run a cargo ship on batteries? appeared first on TPR: The Public’s Radio.

The post Can you run a cargo ship on batteries? appeared first on Possibly.