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 old landfills — already have solar panels.
Dawn King: We just don’t have a lot of land to put solar panels, we have some of the most expensive dirt in the entire nation. It’s usually between us and New Jersey, just for dirt, right?
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, who’s also Brown University’s Provost for Sustainability.
Malia Honda: He thinks the question we should really be asking is what aspects of the environment are more important to us, and why?
Stephen Porder: There are definitely things that are good for the environment from a human perspective, but 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 a certain way, 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, go to the public’s radio dot org slash possibly.
Possibly is a co-production of The Public’s Radio and Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society and Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative.
The post What makes something ‘better’ for the environment? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.