EarthTalk®
by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss
Dear EarthTalk: What was the point of eco-activists throwing soup at the Mona Lisa? Is defacing art and other great works of culture now some kind of tactic? -- Ben Miller, Austin, TX
On Sunday, January 28, 2024 two women walked into the Louvre, went up to what may be the most famous painting in the world, and hurled pumpkin soup at the enticing smile of the Mona Lisa. On the women’s t-shirts the words “FOOD RIPOSTE” could be read written in thick black marker. Da Vinci’s iconic painting was protected behind safety glass and was unharmed, but many are confused on why the women would target the Mona Lisa.
The two women were a part of the French activist group the Riposte Alimentaire, or Food Retaliation group. The group is described as an organization advocating for government action on climate change and sustainable agriculture. As the women stood in front of the Mona Lisa they shouted, “What’s the most important thing? Art, or the right to healthy and sustainable food?”
In the days preceding the attack, the French capital had seen widespread protests by farmers. They had used their tractors to set up road blockades and deter traffic across France. The protests were a call for the end to rising fuel costs, better pay for their produce, protection against cheap imports, and simplified government regulations. The Riposte Alimentaire’s supported this goal and their website called for France’s government to give people better access to food while providing farmers a sustainable income.
The big question is how does targeting the Mona Lisa help the Riposte Alimentaire achieve their goal of sustainable agriculture? Activists attacking art is not uncommon. In October 2022, Johannes Vermeer’s “Girl with a Pearl Earring” was attacked when two climate activists glued themselves to the painting while another threw a red substance into the artwork. Also in 2022, Vincent van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” was splashed with tomato soup by environmental activists. Claude Monet’s “Les Meules” was targeted by activists from the Last Generation group and spattered with mashed potatoes.
What makes targeting famous artwork such a common tactic of activist groups? The main appeal of this strategy is that it is attention grabbing. When people hear that a well-known artwork was attacked the first instinct is to be scandalized. The second instinct is curiosity. They want to know why, who would possibly do such a thing. This allows activist groups to get substantial news coverage and attention for their organization. It is important to note that because of museum safety glass and other protection measures, no famous artwork has actually been damaged by activist actions. The attacks have been purely performative, meant to intrigue and enrage.
Radical civil disobedience and disruptive politics can also help make less aggressive activism tactics more welcome and even more successful in some cases. While attacking artwork may seem senseless, there is a strategy at hand. The end goal isn’t necessarily public reaction, but to influence the big decision-makers in government.
CONTACTS: Climate activists hurl soup at the Mona Lisa at the Louvre Museum in Paris, https://www.france24.com/en/france/20240128-activists-hurl-soup-on-glass-protected-mona-lisa-at-paris-s-louvre-museum; The ‘Mona Lisa’ Soup Protest, Explained, https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2024/01/28/the-mona-lisa-soup-splatter-stunt-explained/; How throwing soup at the Mona Lisa can help fight climate change, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-02-01/climate-change-activism-mona-lisa-artwork.
Dear EarthTalk: What was the point of eco-activists throwing soup at the Mona Lisa? Is defacing art and other great works of culture now some kind of tactic? -- Ben Miller, Austin, TX
On Sunday, January 28, 2024 two women walked into the Louvre, went up to what may be the most famous painting in the world, and hurled pumpkin soup at the enticing smile of the Mona Lisa. On the women’s t-shirts the words “FOOD RIPOSTE” could be read written in thick black marker. Da Vinci’s iconic painting was protected behind safety glass and was unharmed, but many are confused on why the women would target the Mona Lisa.
The two women were a part of the French activist group the Riposte Alimentaire, or Food Retaliation group. The group is described as an organization advocating for government action on climate change and sustainable agriculture. As the women stood in front of the Mona Lisa they shouted, “What’s the most important thing? Art, or the right to healthy and sustainable food?”
In the days preceding the attack, the French capital had seen widespread protests by farmers. They had used their tractors to set up road blockades and deter traffic across France. The protests were a call for the end to rising fuel costs, better pay for their produce, protection against cheap imports, and simplified government regulations. The Riposte Alimentaire’s supported this goal and their website called for France’s government to give people better access to food while providing farmers a sustainable income.
The big question is how does targeting the Mona Lisa help the Riposte Alimentaire achieve their goal of sustainable agriculture? Activists attacking art is not uncommon. In October 2022, Johannes Vermeer’s “Girl with a Pearl Earring” was attacked when two climate activists glued themselves to the painting while another threw a red substance into the artwork. Also in 2022, Vincent van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” was splashed with tomato soup by environmental activists. Claude Monet’s “Les Meules” was targeted by activists from the Last Generation group and spattered with mashed potatoes.
What makes targeting famous artwork such a common tactic of activist groups? The main appeal of this strategy is that it is attention grabbing. When people hear that a well-known artwork was attacked the first instinct is to be scandalized. The second instinct is curiosity. They want to know why, who would possibly do such a thing. This allows activist groups to get substantial news coverage and attention for their organization. It is important to note that because of museum safety glass and other protection measures, no famous artwork has actually been damaged by activist actions. The attacks have been purely performative, meant to intrigue and enrage.
Radical civil disobedience and disruptive politics can also help make less aggressive activism tactics more welcome and even more successful in some cases. While attacking artwork may seem senseless, there is a strategy at hand. The end goal isn’t necessarily public reaction, but to influence the big decision-makers in government.
CONTACTS: Climate activists hurl soup at the Mona Lisa at the Louvre Museum in Paris, https://www.france24.com/en/france/20240128-activists-hurl-soup-on-glass-protected-mona-lisa-at-paris-s-louvre-museum; The ‘Mona Lisa’ Soup Protest, Explained, https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2024/01/28/the-mona-lisa-soup-splatter-stunt-explained/; How throwing soup at the Mona Lisa can help fight climate change, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-02-01/climate-change-activism-mona-lisa-artwork.
Dear EarthTalk: Which are the greenest toilet paper varieties? – Sam Atkins, Poughkeepsie, NY
When thinking of ways to live a greener lifestyle, toilet paper isn’t usually the first thing people think of, but the average American uses more than 50 pounds of tissue paper per year. Like other paper products, toilet paper is typically made from trees. As consumer demand grows, trees continue to be cut down at alarming rates. Between 1996 and 2015, loggers cut down around 28 million acres of woodland, an area roughly the size of the state of Ohio. Finding alternatives, or ways to cut down on paper use, is a great way to limit your impact on the environment.
As new companies emerge and come out with new toilet paper options, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has come up with a system to grade how sustainable certain toilet and tissue paper brands are. The grades rank from A+ to F and account for a variety of factors like the percentage of recycled material used in the toilet paper. A grade of A+ means that the toilet paper was made entirely of recycled materials, used a chlorine-free bleaching process, and had the highest percentage of post-consumer recycled paper. Post-consumer recycled means that the recycled materials came from products that had reached the end of their life cycle and would have otherwise ended up in landfills. When going green it’s also smart to look for “processed chlorine free” papers over bleached and “elemental chlorine free” papers, because the latter can emit cancer causing dioxins into the air and water when they are processed. Toilet paper brands that were awarded an A+ grade by the NRDC include 365 by Whole Foods Market, Green Forest, Natural Value and Trader Joe’s.
A grade of A means that the paper brands contain 100% recycled material, but a lower percentage of post-consumer recycled paper. Some good A rated toilet papers include Seventh Generation Extra Soft & Strong, Who Gives a Crap, and Everspring. The B and B+ grade is typically reserved for the emerging market of bamboo-based paper brands. While bamboo is less environmentally friendly than recycled material, it is still greener than using pure forest fibers. The other catch is that the largest bamboo producers are in China, which does not have the best track record when it comes to environmental and labor rights. Amazon Aware and Caboo are both B rated bamboo toilet paper brands.
Paper brands with a grade of D or F rely entirely, or almost entirely, on forest fiber for their toilet paper. There is no recycled material used in their product. Most of the well-known toilet paper brands are rated D or F, including Charmin, Cottonelle, Angel Soft and Scott 1000.
More sustainable toilet paper is typically more expensive than the lower rated brands and not everyone can afford to change their lifestyle and buy more expensive products. However, there are other ways to live greener. One option is to simply reduce the use of toilet paper, paper towels and facial tissues. Use what you need, but avoid being excessive. It’s not like paper just grows on trees!
CONTACTS: The Best and Worst Toilet Paper, Paper Towel, and Facial Tissue Brands, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/best-worst-tissue-brands; What's the Most Eco-Friendly Toilet Paper?, https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/ask-ms-green/whats-most-eco-friendly-toilet-paper; 9 Eco-Friendly Toilet Paper Brands For A Planet-Friendly Potty, https://www.sustainablejungle.com/sustainable-living/eco-friendly-toilet-paper/.
Dear EarthTalk: What is so-called “embodied carbon” and what percent of our greenhouse gas emissions does it make up? And more important, how can we reduce it? – Mike O., Durham, NC
As the process of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continues to grow in importance, the building operations industry has been working hard on limiting theirs. The problem is that this industry typically targets operational carbon rather than embodied carbon. Operational carbon is the sum of the carbon produced over the lifetime of a building and includes things like lighting, heating, ventilation and general power usage throughout the building. On the other hand, embodied carbon is all of the emissions that are created during the process of constructing a building. Embodied carbon is associated with the harvesting, manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and disposal of building materials.
Buildings in general tend to account for at least 39 percent of annual global carbon emissions. At least a quarter of these emissions are the result of embodied carbon. Cement alone is responsible for around eight percent of the world’s CO2 emissions. The production of iron and steel emits roughly the same number of emissions. These carbon-intensive materials are large contributors of embodied carbon.
There are some measures that have already been taken in efforts to reduce embodied carbon. The Inflation Reduction Act, which was passed by Congress in 2022, includes six sections that address the embodied carbon of construction materials. For example, section 60112 gave $250 million to the EPA to develop a program to help support enhanced standardization, measurement, reporting and verification of embodied carbon of construction materials and products. Overall, these sections of the Inflation Reduction Act gave money to various government organizations to help transition to lower carbon materials.
To reduce embodied carbon, the building industry will have to make operational changes. One key way to do that is to design buildings in a way that minimizes the number of materials needed. Companies can also replace carbon-intensive materials like concrete and steel with greener options like sustainably grown wood. Repurposing existing buildings instead of building new ones can also reduce embodied carbon.
Another way to limit embodied carbon is to use greener construction equipment. The traditional diesel-powered equipment so commonly used in construction accounts for roughly three percent of embodied carbon in new construction projects. There are some equipment manufacturers that are developing zero-emission construction equipment. Liebherr, the German-Swiss equipment manufacturer, has developed an electric crane that releases no emissions and still performs on par with the traditional diesel equipment.
Limiting operational carbon is important, but it’s also important to remember all of the carbon that comes from the processes prior to buildings being operational. The processes behind the scenes still emit CO2. Limiting embodied carbon needs to be prioritized on par with the emissions that come from typical building operations.
CONTACTS: Reducing Embodied Carbon of Construction Materials through the Inflation Reduction Act, https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/reducing-embodied-carbon-construction-materials-through-inflation-reduction-act; Reducing embodied carbon in new construction, https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/global-infrastructure-initiative/voices/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-new-construction.
Dear EarthTalk: Why is protecting the greater sage grouse such a hot button issue across the American West? -- P.L., Salt Lake City, UT
The greater sage grouse, best known for its unusual mating dance and bulky, turkey-like appearance, has long been an emblem of the American West. However, researchers have found that this iconic bird species is in jeopardy. The effects of climate change and habitat destruction have caused greater sage grouse populations to decline by 80 percent since 1965 and by 40 percent since 2002—and they will likely continue to decline if proactive conservation practices are not implemented to protect their habitats within the bioregion often referred to as the “sagebrush sea.”
But this issue extends well beyond protecting the greater sage grouse, as the health of sage grouse populations is a direct indication of their habitat’s health. The sagebrush sea is a critical bioregion that used to cover the vast majority of the American West, but millions of acres of sagebrush have become inaccessible to the greater sage grouse and hundreds of other native wildlife species. Large areas of sagebrush have been destroyed or fragmented for the sake of continued oil drilling, mining and other human development. The habitat has also been harmed by wildfires and invasive grasses such as cheatgrass, which can overgrow sagebrush. The decline of these habitats has dire consequences for cattle farmers and ranchers across the region as well, since they need healthy land for their livestock.
The best way to help sage grouse and their habitats is to put more restrictive policies on what can be done in those areas, and to replace previously destroyed or fragmented habitats whenever possible. A federal plan designed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to accomplish these goals has been in the works since 2015, but it was delayed due to the Trump administration’s heavy emphasis on energy development. Although the plan has finally been completed and approved by the Biden administration, many conservationists and scientists still feel that it needs work before being implemented.
A group of scientists recently stated in a public letter that the plan would likely “have severe consequences for sage grouse” in its current form. Specifically, they are concerned that the BLM’s proposal would still allow for mining and some forms of energy development within sage grouse habitat, and would not plan to restore any destroyed land. As a result, many feel that the current plan will not do enough to save the greater sage grouse or their habitat, and may serve to harm some landowners as well.
Western citizens and land stewards have a lot to gain if the greater sage grouse is protected. However, the government is still aiming for a proposal that can serve as a compromise between these citizens and the corporate and federal groups who want to prioritize energy development in these areas. The resulting friction between these two groups is practically unavoidable. If you would like to speak out on this issue, the BLM’s current proposal is available online and open to public comment until June 13th, 2024.
CONTACTS: BLM releases long-awaited sage grouse protections, https://www.eenews.net/articles/blm-sage-grouse-plan-aims-to-preserve-way-of-life-in-the-west/; Sage Grouse Protections and Livestock, https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2024/03/15/blm-proposes-new-public-land-limits; Biden administration proposes protections for US West sage-grouse, to divided response from conservationists, https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4532643-sage-grouse-protections-proposed-biden-administration-conservationists-divided-response/; Reworked BLM plan still fails to protect sage grouse, https://wyofile.com/scientists-reworked-blm-plan-still-fails-to-protect-sage-grouse/.
Dear EarthTalk: I’m alarmed that a cement plant plans expansion behind our home. What are the potential health and environmental impacts of such a facility? — Caren K, via e-mail
Cement is a component of concrete, mortar and other materials. It has many uses as a binding product—roads, sidewalks and patios would be very different without it. Cement production does have health and environmental risks. Manufacturing plants release sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide. Also, particulate matter, lead and mercury are produced from heating limestone, which is linked to worsening asthma, heart attacks and premature death in those with heart or lung disease
While those living near cement plants have complained for decades about health and environmental effects, complaints carry more weight with data to back them up. A scientific review published in Chemosphere in 2019 suggests an increased risk of respiratory tract cancers for those living in proximity to cement plants. Higher levels of heavy metals and indications of kidney toxicity were found in people living in areas near cement plants. The review, however, found that many scientific studies had a risk of bias, leading the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study air, water and soil quality in a cluster of industrial sites where cement is produced in Dallas, Texas. “There haven't been a lot of studies on [cumulative impact],” says the EPA’s Aimee Wilson. “So, we want to see what's there because we don't know.” The study concludes in July 2024, and results will be available to the public.
The environment is suffering from cement manufacturing, too. The EPA reports that NOx released from the plants contributes to ground-level ozone, acid rain, poor water quality and global warming. And heavy metals carried on the wind or washed into lakes or streams when it rains can have ripple effects through the ecosystem. Another source of environmental contamination is washout containers that have flooded. These large plastic or fiberboard containers temporarily hold water and slurry washed from concrete trucks, pumps and chutes after concrete is poured. When it rains heavily, they are prone to overflow and contaminate groundwater. If you live on a property with a well, you are responsible for ensuring the safety of your own drinking water—all the more reason to be mindful of cement plants in the area.
To ensure health and environmental compliance, these facilities need to be subject to tighter regulations, including more inspections and air quality monitoring. There is also the matter of proximity—right now, a required buffer zone of 440 yards is established between homes, schools and churches. Ongoing studies like the EPA’s Dallas research will better inform guidance and policies moving forward.
If you don’t want to live near a cement plant, organize your community to fight against it. Contact your representatives to educate them on the health risks. Monitor the air quality if you cannot move or avoid a cement plant. Stay indoors and change HEPA filters on your home filtration system when air quality is poor—especially if you have health conditions like asthma or cardiac disease. If you rely on a private water well, ask local health officials about your eligibility for help paying for testing and possible repairs or filters. Get your water tested every year, at a minimum, to make sure it has not become contaminated.
CONTACTS: Pollutants emitted by a cement plant: health risks for the population living in the neighborhood, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935103001725; Cut Carbon and Toxic Pollution, Make Cement Clean and Green, https://www.nrdc.org/bio/veena-singla/cut-carbon-and-toxic-pollution-make-cement-clean-and-green
Dear EarthTalk: Why are Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, among others, so bullish on developing nuclear fusion as a power source? -- Mark P. Newton, MA
While nuclear fission is commonly used in nuclear power plants across the globe, nuclear fusion is a lesser-known process. Whereas fission is the process of releasing energy by splitting atoms apart, fusion is the opposite. During nuclear fusion light nuclei collide with each other to form heavier nuclei, a process that releases large amounts of energy. To produce fusion, it requires a combination of the hydrogen gasses deuterium and tritium, which are heated to over 100 million degrees celsius. The end result is a helium nucleus and a neutron, formed from the collision of light nuclei.
Fusion power offers so many advantages that many have heralded it the “Holy Grail” of clean energy. The most enticing advantage is that nuclear fusion produces no carbon emissions. The only by-products of the reaction are small amounts of helium. There are also abundant resources to produce fusion. Deuterium can be extracted from water and tritium can be produced from lithium. Nuclear fusion offers a safer alternative to nuclear fission, as a large-scale nuclear accident is not possible in a fusion reactor. And unlike fission, there is no radioactive waste as a result. The energy efficiency of fusion is another major advantage. One kilogram of fusion fuels could theoretically provide the same amount of energy as 10 million kilograms of fossil fuel.
Many billionaires and tech moguls have recognized the potential of nuclear fusion and have invested in its future, Bill Gates being the most well-known. Founded by Gates in 2015, Breakthrough Energy Ventures is a fund set up to invest in clean energy transition innovations. Breakthrough Energy is supported and funded by other well-known billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson. In an interview with ABC News in 2023, Gates said, “Nuclear energy, if we do it right, will help us solve our climate goals.” It is easy to see why scientific minds want to invest in nuclear fusion.
So why isn’t nuclear fusion already implemented across the states? Nuclear fusion has proven difficult to implement and other energy sources often provide more reliable and consistent energy gains. It wasn’t until December 2022 that the National Ignition Facility announced a breakthrough in that it was the first time a nuclear fusion reaction created a net gain of energy. There is still much work to be done to make fusion a reliable source of energy. Other clean energy sources have considerable head starts on fusion. The first nuclear fusion reactor was started up in 1951, while the first windmills and solar panels were built in the 1880s. Other energy sources have had much more time to be perfected and improved upon. They also achieve much higher net energy gains than fusion.
CONTACTS: Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos-backed fusion energy pioneer claims 'pivotal moment', https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/bill-gates-and-jeff-bezos-backed-fusion-energy-pioneer-claims-pivotal-moment/2-1-1607295; Why nuclear fusion is so exciting, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/12/why-nuclear-fusion-is-so-exciting/; Fusion in brief, https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/fusion-energy/fusion-in-brief/; Nuclear Fusion Is Not the "Holy Grail" of Clean Energy, https://www.pbs.org/wnet/peril-and-promise/2023/04/nuclear-fusion-is-not-the-holy-grail-of-clean-energy/.
Dear EarthTalk: What is “pre-bunking” when it comes to climate change? -- J.D., Albany, NY
The act of pre-bunking has grown in popularity, especially since the 2020 election. It is a way to combat misinformation by warning people about it before they encounter it online or in real life. It attempts to anticipate false claims and provide accurate information to counter them. The strategy comes from a branch of social psychology research called inoculation theory. The theory is similar to that of countering vaccination conspiracies. If you can learn more about a certain topic, you will be more prepared in the future to think critically about any information regarding said topic.
Despite increasing physical and scientific evidence proving climate change, misinformation still spreads like wildfire. Politicians and conspiracy theorists consistently spread false information online and offline. While debunking misinformation is a commonly used tool it often doesn’t work well enough to fully combat the issue. You also run the risk of giving misinformation credibility when you have to debunk it.
Pre-bunking focuses on targeting broader concepts rather than specific claims. When specific claims are targeted, it is hard to avoid triggering partisan or emotional reactions. In order to successfully utilize pre-bunking, you must first choose which lie to pre-bunk. Some misinformation is more dangerous than others, so it is important to choose the lie that will be most impactful to dispel. One of the most effective techniques is to then create a “truth sandwich.” Lead with the facts of the matter, then introduce the lie and why someone would lie about it. Lastly, end the sandwich with another fact.
Here’s an example of a common claim and how to pre-bunk it: One claim is that the government was using wildfires as an excuse to increase climate regulations. To pre-bunk this claim first it must be explained that this theory is likely to circulate. Second, point out how conspiracy theorists used the same idea to claim that COVID-19 lockdowns were a government scheme to prepare people for climate lockdowns, an event that never happened. Last, show how government agencies often communicate openly about the reasoning behind climate regulations and how they are utilized to avoid the maximum damage.
How effective is pre-bunking really? Enough evidence supports the use of pre-bunking that Twitter and Google are both embracing the strategy on their platforms. At Google a team of academic psychologists have conducted experiments using 90-second videos explaining common misinformation tactics. The study found that showing people the videos made them better at spotting misinformation tactics, and less likely to circulate posts containing these tactics. Giving people the tools to spot and critique content online is crucial to fighting misinformation. Like anything else, pre-bunking isn’t a guaranteed solution.
Misinformation isn’t going to just disappear, but unless attempts are made to combat it, misinformation will only grow stronger.
CONTACTS: What is ‘prebunking’—and how to do it to help advance EVs, https://www.edf.org/what-prebunking-and-how-do-it-help-advance-evs; False information is everywhere. 'Pre-bunking' tries to head it off early, https://www.npr.org/2022/10/28/1132021770/false-information-is-everywhere-pre-bunking-tries-to-head-it-off-early; Can we be inoculated against climate misinformation? Yes – if we prebunk rather than debunk, https://theconversation.com/can-we-be-inoculated-against-climate-misinformation-yes-if-we-prebunk-rather-than-debunk-215815.
Dear EarthTalk: Woe the pancakes! Is maple syrup really at risk due to global warming?
-- B. Simmons, Middlebury. VT
Maple syrup, that staple of the American breakfast table, is not only a cherished product across North America, but also plays a significant role in the economies of Quebec and Vermont. This industry generates hundreds of millions of dollars yearly and supports thousands of livelihoods. But its very foundation is under threat from global warming. The disruption in the switch between cold nights and warm days of early spring, crucial for sap flow, poses a severe challenge to the industry's future.
The organization, Audubon Vermont tells how “a warming climate also presents challenges in shortening the length of the sugaring season”—a critical period for syrup production. This shift not only affects the timing but also threatens to make annual production levels unpredictable. For one, studies project that by the end of the century, the sugaring season could start up to a month earlier, with significant variability in production especially affecting regions at the southern and northern limits of maple tree ranges.
The warming climate is not just affecting the timing of sap flow, but also its quality. As maple trees undergo warmer temperatures and extended growing seasons, they consume more sugar for growth, potentially reducing the sap’s sugar content. This necessitates more sap to produce the same amount of syrup, thus increasing effort and resources needed for production?. Also, the changing climate may pave the way for invasive species that threaten maple trees, further complicating the challenges.
The impacts of climate change on maple syrup production are not uniform across North America. “Folks who retrieve sap from maple trees in the far Northeastern region will get a longer sap flow season while those in the Southeastern regions will see a reduction,” says David Cleaves, Climate Change Advisor for the U.S. Forest Service. This geographic shift underscores the need for flexible and adaptive management strategies to sustain the industry with the changing climate conditions.
Despite these prevalent challenges, there is hope through adaptation and innovation. Ensuring the health of maple forests and maintaining tree diversity are pivotal strategies. Innovations in sap collection technology, for example, are allowing for sap gathering at less-than-optimal temperatures, showcasing the industry's resilience and adaptability.
Beyond the challenges posed by climate change, the industry also faces threats from environmental degradation and economic factors that could further jeopardize its sustainability. Economically, the industry must contend with fluctuating market demands and the risk of cheaper, synthetic alternatives undermining traditional maple syrup. Additionally, the labor-intensive nature of sap collection and syrup production may face challenges in attracting and retaining the necessary workforce. These multifaceted threats require an innovative approach to safeguard the industry, emphasizing not only climate adaptation but also environmental conservation and economic resilience.
CONTACTS: The End of Maple? Maple Sugaring Amid a Changing Climate, https://vt.audubon.org/news/end-maple-maple-sugaring-amid-changing-climate; Changing climate may substantially alter maple syrup production, https://www.fs.usda.gov/features/changing-climate-may-substantially-alter-maple-syrup-production.
EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. See more at https://emagazine.com. To donate, visit https://earthtalk.org. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.
Add Comment