Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

The Climate Apocalypse Will Be Google Mapped

News Feed
Monday, February 13, 2023

A weird paradox of modern life is that, although humans struggle to address big problems like climate change, we’re great at making our lives easier. While the planet has warmed steadily every year since 2000, it’s become exponentially simpler, in the twenty-first century, to get somewhere you’ve never been before, find information on any topic, or order lunch. Some malcontents may gripe that environmental breakdown is itself a huge hassle, but guess what? There’s an app for that too. Silicon Valley can’t fix the climate crisis, but having solved problems like food shopping, these captains of industry now seek to help us avoid the manifold inconveniences of the apocalypse.Now when you open Google Maps to plan your travels, the app warns you about bad air quality hot spots, as well as floods, wildfires, and hurricanes. The air quality and wildfire warnings are touted as “new” features on the app, although a company spokeswoman told me they were introduced last June. I write this from Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, where, today, Google Maps tells me the air quality is “acceptable,” though it could pose a “risk for some people, particularly those who are unusually sensitive to air pollution.” That doesn’t seem acceptable to me, but I suppose it’s all relative. A little to the south, in Flatbush, near Farragut Avenue, the map shows a green dot: Air quality there happens to be “good” today, posing no risk to anyone. I’m happy for the people who live or work near the corner of East 26th and Farragut, but there aren’t many other green dots on this map.There are no wildfires in my area today.There’s something absurdly dystopian about this, almost like a parody of our information-obsessed, crisis-riddled world. Information, delivered easily through our phones, is supposed to solve all kinds of problems now. Mass shooting? Google has an alert for that. Public transit system underfunded, contributing to planetary collapse? Google tells us how far we can travel by subway and how much it will cost to take a Lyft the rest of the way. I use the app for this often, and when I do, I can sense my anger and stress over insufficient government investment in transit ebbing; as Google seamlessly solves my practical problem, the bigger picture recedes from my view. Apps make us feel like savvy individuals winning at twenty-first-century life. We can do this. We can get to New Jersey. Maybe we can even avoid the pollution if we steer clear of Newark.Yet who is molding us into these hypervigilant individuals? Companies who are contributing to the crisis. Instead of becoming more adept at navigating climate collapse alone, we need to take collective action to prevent it. Google is not a reliable ally in this project, to say the least.While Google is hardly the worst corporate climate offender, its operations produce millions of tons of carbon emissions, and in 2019 The Guardian reported that the company had made large contributions to right-wing climate-denier organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the group that convinced Trump to abandon the Paris Agreement. In the most recent election cycle, Google’s PAC gave more than 40 percent of its House campaign donations to Republicans, a political strategy that anyone serious about preventing climate catastrophe might wish to rethink. And like all big tech companies, Google spends big on lobbying, talks big on climate, but spends only a tiny fraction of its lobbying efforts on climate policy. As recently as last June, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, opposed—and ultimately defeated—a shareholder resolution urging the company to evaluate whether its lobbying activities were aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming.To be fair, the flood warnings, which have been in place since 2018, save lives, as Google points out. It’s obviously better not to drive into lethal weather. And more encouragingly, in the long run, the data Google is gathering to create these warnings can help scientists and community groups who are working to address the crisis. The street-by-street air quality data, Google points out, can help inform solutions; for example, pollution concentrated in a spot where a freeway meets a bridge could inspire a road redesign or a crackdown on speeding in that spot.  The warnings promote a culture of individual invincibility and information obsession. Google has also used its technologies to curb emissions, through “eco-routing,” for example, helping users to find travel routes with the lowest possible carbon footprint. These and other serious sustainability measures, including increased use of renewable energy, have come about partly because of pressure from the company’s own workers.Still, the message these warnings send is a worrying one: The apocalypse is upon us, but here’s an app to help you keep out of its way. The warnings promote a culture of individual invincibility and information obsession. Neither of these qualities will help us stop the climate crisis, and they may even foreclose political solutions: After all, if environmental crisis is something I can reasonably manage in my daily life, why take political action to stop it?Besides, information will not help everyone, and the implication that it can is dangerous. In this sense, the apps confirm environmental justice activists’ worst fears: that in lieu of curbing emissions, the well-informed, tech-savvy affluent will simply optimize their own lives and pull up the drawbridge while the rest suffer. Many people have no choice but to live in the most toxic parts of town, regardless of what Google says. If you live by a truck depot, or by the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, you cannot click away the daily assault on your respiratory system. Not everyone can afford to take a cab when the train doesn’t come. This app-based approach to the climate crisis treats survival as a series of consumer choices, but life is more precious than that. It deserves our collective attention.Most perilously, though, the new Google Maps warnings promote resignation: The climate crisis is happening, and all we can do now is work around it. 

A weird paradox of modern life is that, although humans struggle to address big problems like climate change, we’re great at making our lives easier. While the planet has warmed steadily every year since 2000, it’s become exponentially simpler, in the twenty-first century, to get somewhere you’ve never been before, find information on any topic, or order lunch. Some malcontents may gripe that environmental breakdown is itself a huge hassle, but guess what? There’s an app for that too. Silicon Valley can’t fix the climate crisis, but having solved problems like food shopping, these captains of industry now seek to help us avoid the manifold inconveniences of the apocalypse.Now when you open Google Maps to plan your travels, the app warns you about bad air quality hot spots, as well as floods, wildfires, and hurricanes. The air quality and wildfire warnings are touted as “new” features on the app, although a company spokeswoman told me they were introduced last June. I write this from Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, where, today, Google Maps tells me the air quality is “acceptable,” though it could pose a “risk for some people, particularly those who are unusually sensitive to air pollution.” That doesn’t seem acceptable to me, but I suppose it’s all relative. A little to the south, in Flatbush, near Farragut Avenue, the map shows a green dot: Air quality there happens to be “good” today, posing no risk to anyone. I’m happy for the people who live or work near the corner of East 26th and Farragut, but there aren’t many other green dots on this map.There are no wildfires in my area today.There’s something absurdly dystopian about this, almost like a parody of our information-obsessed, crisis-riddled world. Information, delivered easily through our phones, is supposed to solve all kinds of problems now. Mass shooting? Google has an alert for that. Public transit system underfunded, contributing to planetary collapse? Google tells us how far we can travel by subway and how much it will cost to take a Lyft the rest of the way. I use the app for this often, and when I do, I can sense my anger and stress over insufficient government investment in transit ebbing; as Google seamlessly solves my practical problem, the bigger picture recedes from my view. Apps make us feel like savvy individuals winning at twenty-first-century life. We can do this. We can get to New Jersey. Maybe we can even avoid the pollution if we steer clear of Newark.Yet who is molding us into these hypervigilant individuals? Companies who are contributing to the crisis. Instead of becoming more adept at navigating climate collapse alone, we need to take collective action to prevent it. Google is not a reliable ally in this project, to say the least.While Google is hardly the worst corporate climate offender, its operations produce millions of tons of carbon emissions, and in 2019 The Guardian reported that the company had made large contributions to right-wing climate-denier organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the group that convinced Trump to abandon the Paris Agreement. In the most recent election cycle, Google’s PAC gave more than 40 percent of its House campaign donations to Republicans, a political strategy that anyone serious about preventing climate catastrophe might wish to rethink. And like all big tech companies, Google spends big on lobbying, talks big on climate, but spends only a tiny fraction of its lobbying efforts on climate policy. As recently as last June, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, opposed—and ultimately defeated—a shareholder resolution urging the company to evaluate whether its lobbying activities were aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming.To be fair, the flood warnings, which have been in place since 2018, save lives, as Google points out. It’s obviously better not to drive into lethal weather. And more encouragingly, in the long run, the data Google is gathering to create these warnings can help scientists and community groups who are working to address the crisis. The street-by-street air quality data, Google points out, can help inform solutions; for example, pollution concentrated in a spot where a freeway meets a bridge could inspire a road redesign or a crackdown on speeding in that spot.  The warnings promote a culture of individual invincibility and information obsession. Google has also used its technologies to curb emissions, through “eco-routing,” for example, helping users to find travel routes with the lowest possible carbon footprint. These and other serious sustainability measures, including increased use of renewable energy, have come about partly because of pressure from the company’s own workers.Still, the message these warnings send is a worrying one: The apocalypse is upon us, but here’s an app to help you keep out of its way. The warnings promote a culture of individual invincibility and information obsession. Neither of these qualities will help us stop the climate crisis, and they may even foreclose political solutions: After all, if environmental crisis is something I can reasonably manage in my daily life, why take political action to stop it?Besides, information will not help everyone, and the implication that it can is dangerous. In this sense, the apps confirm environmental justice activists’ worst fears: that in lieu of curbing emissions, the well-informed, tech-savvy affluent will simply optimize their own lives and pull up the drawbridge while the rest suffer. Many people have no choice but to live in the most toxic parts of town, regardless of what Google says. If you live by a truck depot, or by the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, you cannot click away the daily assault on your respiratory system. Not everyone can afford to take a cab when the train doesn’t come. This app-based approach to the climate crisis treats survival as a series of consumer choices, but life is more precious than that. It deserves our collective attention.Most perilously, though, the new Google Maps warnings promote resignation: The climate crisis is happening, and all we can do now is work around it. 

A weird paradox of modern life is that, although humans struggle to address big problems like climate change, we’re great at making our lives easier. While the planet has warmed steadily every year since 2000, it’s become exponentially simpler, in the twenty-first century, to get somewhere you’ve never been before, find information on any topic, or order lunch. Some malcontents may gripe that environmental breakdown is itself a huge hassle, but guess what? There’s an app for that too. Silicon Valley can’t fix the climate crisis, but having solved problems like food shopping, these captains of industry now seek to help us avoid the manifold inconveniences of the apocalypse.

Now when you open Google Maps to plan your travels, the app warns you about bad air quality hot spots, as well as floods, wildfires, and hurricanes. The air quality and wildfire warnings are touted as “new” features on the app, although a company spokeswoman told me they were introduced last June. 

I write this from Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, where, today, Google Maps tells me the air quality is “acceptable,” though it could pose a “risk for some people, particularly those who are unusually sensitive to air pollution.” That doesn’t seem acceptable to me, but I suppose it’s all relative. A little to the south, in Flatbush, near Farragut Avenue, the map shows a green dot: Air quality there happens to be “good” today, posing no risk to anyone. I’m happy for the people who live or work near the corner of East 26th and Farragut, but there aren’t many other green dots on this map.

There are no wildfires in my area today.

There’s something absurdly dystopian about this, almost like a parody of our information-obsessed, crisis-riddled world. Information, delivered easily through our phones, is supposed to solve all kinds of problems now. Mass shooting? Google has an alert for that. Public transit system underfunded, contributing to planetary collapse? Google tells us how far we can travel by subway and how much it will cost to take a Lyft the rest of the way. I use the app for this often, and when I do, I can sense my anger and stress over insufficient government investment in transit ebbing; as Google seamlessly solves my practical problem, the bigger picture recedes from my view. Apps make us feel like savvy individuals winning at twenty-first-century life. We can do this. We can get to New Jersey. Maybe we can even avoid the pollution if we steer clear of Newark.

Yet who is molding us into these hypervigilant individuals? Companies who are contributing to the crisis. Instead of becoming more adept at navigating climate collapse alone, we need to take collective action to prevent it. Google is not a reliable ally in this project, to say the least.

While Google is hardly the worst corporate climate offender, its operations produce millions of tons of carbon emissions, and in 2019 The Guardian reported that the company had made large contributions to right-wing climate-denier organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the group that convinced Trump to abandon the Paris Agreement. In the most recent election cycle, Google’s PAC gave more than 40 percent of its House campaign donations to Republicans, a political strategy that anyone serious about preventing climate catastrophe might wish to rethink. And like all big tech companies, Google spends big on lobbying, talks big on climate, but spends only a tiny fraction of its lobbying efforts on climate policy. As recently as last June, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, opposed—and ultimately defeated—a shareholder resolution urging the company to evaluate whether its lobbying activities were aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming.

To be fair, the flood warnings, which have been in place since 2018, save lives, as Google points out. It’s obviously better not to drive into lethal weather. And more encouragingly, in the long run, the data Google is gathering to create these warnings can help scientists and community groups who are working to address the crisis. The street-by-street air quality data, Google points out, can help inform solutions; for example, pollution concentrated in a spot where a freeway meets a bridge could inspire a road redesign or a crackdown on speeding in that spot.  

Google has also used its technologies to curb emissions, through “eco-routing,” for example, helping users to find travel routes with the lowest possible carbon footprint. These and other serious sustainability measures, including increased use of renewable energy, have come about partly because of pressure from the company’s own workers.

Still, the message these warnings send is a worrying one: The apocalypse is upon us, but here’s an app to help you keep out of its way. The warnings promote a culture of individual invincibility and information obsession. Neither of these qualities will help us stop the climate crisis, and they may even foreclose political solutions: After all, if environmental crisis is something I can reasonably manage in my daily life, why take political action to stop it?

Besides, information will not help everyone, and the implication that it can is dangerous. In this sense, the apps confirm environmental justice activists’ worst fears: that in lieu of curbing emissions, the well-informed, tech-savvy affluent will simply optimize their own lives and pull up the drawbridge while the rest suffer. Many people have no choice but to live in the most toxic parts of town, regardless of what Google says. If you live by a truck depot, or by the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, you cannot click away the daily assault on your respiratory system. Not everyone can afford to take a cab when the train doesn’t come. This app-based approach to the climate crisis treats survival as a series of consumer choices, but life is more precious than that. It deserves our collective attention.

Most perilously, though, the new Google Maps warnings promote resignation: The climate crisis is happening, and all we can do now is work around it. 

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Revealed: top carbon offset projects may not cut planet-heating emissions

Majority of offset projects that have sold the most carbon credits are ‘likely junk’, according to analysis by Corporate Accountability and the GuardianThe vast majority of the environmental projects most frequently used to offset greenhouse gas emissions appear to have fundamental failings suggesting they cannot be relied upon to cut planet-heating emissions, according to a new analysis.The global, multibillion-dollar voluntary carbon trading industry has been embraced by governments, organisations and corporations including oil and gas companies, airlines, fast-food brands, fashion houses, tech firms, art galleries and universities as a way of claiming to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint.A total of 39 of the top 50 emission offset projects, or 78% of them, were categorised as likely junk or worthless due to one or more fundamental failing that undermines its promised emission cuts.Eight others (16%) look problematic, with evidence suggesting they may have at least one fundamental failing and are potentially junk, according to the classification system applied.The efficacy of the remaining three projects (6%) could not be determined definitively as there was insufficient public, independent information to adequately assess the quality of the credits and/or accuracy of their claimed climate benefits.Overall, $1.16bn (£937m) of carbon credits have been traded so far from the projects classified by the investigation as likely junk or worthless; a further $400m of credits bought and sold were potentially junk. Continue reading...

Majority of offset projects that have sold the most carbon credits are ‘likely junk’, according to analysis by Corporate Accountability and the GuardianThe vast majority of the environmental projects most frequently used to offset greenhouse gas emissions appear to have fundamental failings suggesting they cannot be relied upon to cut planet-heating emissions, according to a new analysis.The global, multibillion-dollar voluntary carbon trading industry has been embraced by governments, organisations and corporations including oil and gas companies, airlines, fast-food brands, fashion houses, tech firms, art galleries and universities as a way of claiming to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint.A total of 39 of the top 50 emission offset projects, or 78% of them, were categorised as likely junk or worthless due to one or more fundamental failing that undermines its promised emission cuts.Eight others (16%) look problematic, with evidence suggesting they may have at least one fundamental failing and are potentially junk, according to the classification system applied.The efficacy of the remaining three projects (6%) could not be determined definitively as there was insufficient public, independent information to adequately assess the quality of the credits and/or accuracy of their claimed climate benefits.Overall, $1.16bn (£937m) of carbon credits have been traded so far from the projects classified by the investigation as likely junk or worthless; a further $400m of credits bought and sold were potentially junk. Continue reading...

California Leads the Way in Low-Carbon School Meals

The IPCC assessment “was pretty unforgiving,” says the director of nutrition services for Southern California’s Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), in making “strong connections between our food systems and climate change.” Methane is a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas that scientists say has driven roughly 30 percent of Earth’s warming since pre-industrial times. The […] The post California Leads the Way in Low-Carbon School Meals appeared first on Civil Eats.

In 2021, Josh Goddard came across some sobering news. That year’s United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report showed that globally, meat and dairy production is responsible for fueling nearly a third of human-caused methane gas emissions. The IPCC assessment “was pretty unforgiving,” says the director of nutrition services for Southern California’s Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), in making “strong connections between our food systems and climate change.” Methane is a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas that scientists say has driven roughly 30 percent of Earth’s warming since pre-industrial times. “Kids and lentils aren’t good bedfellows.” But creativity and the right investments “can make something like lentil piccadillo rather special.” The news was “an impetus for action” for Goddard, who runs one of the state’s largest school meal programs serving upwards of 10 million lunches, breakfasts, snacks, and suppers annually with more than 80 percent of students eligible for free and reduced-priced meals. With blessing from administrators and the community, Santa Ana schools started offering an entirely plant-based lunch menu once a week. Milk is still available daily per U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) requirement. The revised offerings, which include creative dishes such as tempeh tacos and buffalo cauliflower wraps, have helped reduce SAUSD’s climate impact, Goddard says. His EPA-guided calculations estimate a district-wide reduction in emissions by about 1,300 tons a year. Santa Ana’s efforts, however, are not unique. Across the nation, students returning to school have found expanded plant-based options in their cafeteria offerings. But in California, an array of recent progressive school food initiatives has helped raise the bar on making lunch menus not just more climate-friendly, but healthier and more inclusive, by appealing to a greater range of dietary preferences and restrictions—as well as palettes. “Kids and lentils aren’t good bedfellows,” says Goddard. With tight budgets and complex USDA reimbursement requirements, appeasing the palettes of 39,000 students can be a challenge. But along with creativity, ingenuity, and state support, investments in kitchen facilities, equipment, and staff training, he says, “can make something like lentil piccadillo rather special.” Plant-Powered Progress As school districts across the country move to a plant-forward menu approach, many have widened their offerings far beyond cheese pizzas and nut butter sandwiches. In 2022, the New York School System introduced “Plant-Powered Fridays,” serving up hot, vegan meals such as zesty chickpea stew and a bean and plantain bowl to its 1.1 million students. Lee County schools in Florida—the 32nd largest school district in the country—have been dishing up bean burger gyros and breaded tofu nuggets weekly since 2015. At public schools in Minneapolis, “we make [plant-based dishes] a choice, every single day,” says Bertrand Weber, director of the district’s culinary and wellness services. While selections often include dairy products, they steer clear of meat analogs such as imitation chicken tenders and “bleeding vegan burgers,” he says. Instead, offerings focus on fiber-rich, whole and minimally-processed ingredients including legumes and pulses, pea protein crumble, and soy products such as tofu and tempeh—foods that are better aligned with the nutritional guidelines of leading public health organizations. “We want to normalize plant-based food and not stigmatize it.” Plant-based foods are not the most popular items on the menu, Weber concedes. He estimates the “take rate” is about 10 percent—though he has seen steady growth in demand since implementing the change two years ago. In nearby Richfield, the district reports that on some days, nearly half of its students reach for the vegan choice. “Our approach is, here are the [daily] options that you have,” he says, “and one of those is always non-meat.” Such broader selections caters to the shifting trend among Gen Z towards plant-based diets—which, despite an increase in overall U.S. meat consumption, has jumped sevenfold since 2017. “Everybody seems to have a different reason for eating plant-based foods,” says Kayla Breyer, founder of Deeply Rooted Farms. The plant-based protein manufacturer supplies a pea crumble to schools across the country that replaces ground beef “one for one,” without changing recipes. The product checks many boxes including environmental, health, and animal welfare concerns, says Breyer, while helping schools respond to dietary, religious, and cultural restrictions. Unlike imitation meat burgers decried by environmental advocates for their heavy carbon footprint, the shelf-stable crumble requires minimal processing and ships dry, thereby lightening transport costs and freeing up refrigerator space. The low-allergen ingredient is also certified kosher and halal, “so it has broad appeal” in an understated way, she adds. “We want to normalize plant-based food and not stigmatize it.” Revamping the Menu Back in California, a new report from Friends of the Earth (FOE) finds that in the state’s 25 largest school districts, lunches are increasingly leaning towards inclusivity. The study, which reviewed changes in menus from the past four years, found that more than two-thirds now serve non-meat, non-dairy entrees at least once a week—a 50 percent spike since 2019. Additionally, more than half of middle and high schools offer a plant-based option every day. “We were astonished to see the progress, despite 2020 being such a tough year for school nutrition services,” says Nora Stewart, FOE’s California climate friendly school food manager, who led the study, noting the unprecedented challenges in staffing and supply chains during the height of the pandemic. Stewart points to a confluence of major state initiatives that helped propel the effort, starting with the Universal Free Meals Program. Along with nine other states, California has extended federal pandemic-era benefits to offer free breakfast and lunch to all students, regardless of income status. Along with ensuring equitable meal access, the state has also made significant investments in school food policy reform aimed at improving the quality and sustainability of cafeteria menus. California’s $60 million Farm to School Incubator Grant Program, a first in the country, supports districts in sourcing organic and locally grown foods. Additionally, the Kitchen Infrastructure and Training (KIT) fund allocates $600 million to upgrade school cooking facilities and train staff to expand on-site meal preparation. And a one-time $100 million fund helps districts implement these and other nutrition- and climate impact-minded measures. The state support is invaluable to menu transition, Stewart says. While beans and legumes are cheap, procuring and transforming plant-based ingredients into appealing meals—ones that can compete with popular options—can be a challenge, she adds. And the USDA Foods program, which provides schools with subsidized meat, dairy, and other select commodities, covers a limited range of plant-based proteins such as beans and nut butters, “so the [state] funding helps to really offset some of those costs.” Moises Plascencia, farm to school program coordinator in Santa Ana, says that the new programs help elevate plant-forward menus to a whole new level. The support for local sourcing allows procurement from farms within a 70-mile radius, giving the district access to a greater choice of fresh produce. With a near-90 percent Latino population, ingredients such as tomatillos, Mexican squash, and herbs resonate with students, he notes, and lets kitchen staff “provide culturally relevant foods.” And that ups the appeal of any school lunch, he adds, “because then, you’re providing folks with things they want.” “We’re increasingly drawing the connection between food as a driver of climate change … even just a small shift [towards a plant-based diet] could have a profound impact.” Nevertheless, the tight $5 per-meal federal reimbursement rate often hamstrings budgets. “Nutrition service directors are hugely incentivized to use their pot of money on the USDA foods program,” says FOE’s Stewart, which ultimately skews the menu towards a heavy reliance on federally subsidized animal products. Further south in Temecula Valley, limited budgets aren’t the only deterrent to embracing a full plant-based menu, says Amanda Shears, Temecula Valley Unified School District’s (TVUSD) assistant nutrition services director, in an email. Overall demand in the 27,000-student district—where nearly a quarter qualify for free and reduced lunches—is “minimal,” she adds, so “my goal is to design menus for everyone . . . using the resources and funds available.” All district schools offer daily vegetarian options, but most contain cheese and dairy, says Ava Cuevas, a junior at TVUSD’s Chaparral High School. And the two vegan options—the bean burger and salad bar—are served in limited quantities, so they’re “sold out in minutes,” she adds. As an animal welfare activist, Cuevas sees plant-based diets addressing a range of concerns, including climate impact and access to healthy food. She has also experienced food insecurity in the past, so the value of school lunches is not lost on her, she says. “Knowing that I can’t rely on [it] is definitely a distraction.” She’s stepping up her advocacy this fall—though until things change, she adds, “it’s [going to be] a lot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.” Meanwhile, Shears maintains that “making more plant-based meals available is important to me,” noting that the district is trying to ramp up scratch cooking and local sourcing of fruit and greens. Yet her department faces pressing priorities: Since the pandemic, school kitchens have been “severely understaffed,” she says, and equipment and facilities need an upgrade to better accommodate onsite food storage and preparation. The state funds, she adds, will be definitely helpful in the endeavor. Statewide, the FOE report found that beef, cheese, and poultry together accounted for more than two-thirds of school purchases through the USDA program. Plant-based protein, on the other hand, made up just 2.5 percent of the pie, despite representing 8 percent of menu offerings. The USDA is currently considering a proposal for expanding credit options to include whole nuts, seeds, and legumes, according to an agency spokesperson contacted by Civil Eats. Not surprisingly, cheeseburgers and ground beef entrees are among the most popular lunch selections in California schools. Yet, because of cattle’s large methane footprint, those choices result in 22 times more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than tofu noodle bowls or a plant-based wrap, Stewart notes, and account for nearly half the climate footprint of all protein served at lunch. And while pizza and other cheese-heavy dishes have only a quarter of the impact, the relative inefficiency of cheese production—it takes almost 10 pounds of milk to make a pound of cheese—still equate to sizable emissions, along with high water and land use requirements. “We’re increasingly drawing the connection between food as a driver of climate change,” Stewart adds. With an enrollment of nearly 6 million students in California public schools, “even just a small shift [towards a plant-based diet] could have a profound impact” in reversing the course. Yet revamping menus to steer schools in a plant-forward direction—and for that matter, a more nutrition-minded one—requires equipping them with adequate resources, says Brandy Dreibelbis, executive director of culinary at the Chef Ann Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes whole ingredient, scratch cooking and better nutrition in schools. Investing in kitchen facilities and culinary training for staff is key to tailoring healthier meals, Dreibelbis says, and transitioning lunches away from processed heat-and-serve foods. “Cooking from scratch gives [schools] much more flexibility in their menus,” particularly whole ingredient, plant-forward ones. And other upgrades such as larger refrigerators can boost the procurement of fresh, locally grown ingredients, helping to truncate the supply chain and create more transparent connections to the food source. As part of a national organization, Dreibelbis has seen progress in all 50 states, but California is way ahead of the game, she says, especially with the recent flood of initiatives. “There’s so much more momentum and progress [in the state] around school food in general.” And ultimately, schools have an influential role in shaping the eating habits of their students—and steering the course of consumption towards more climate-conscious choices. “It’s a big opportunity to make sweeping changes to our food system right now,” says SAUSD’s Goddard. “If the federal government [runs] one of the largest feeding operations on the planet, why shouldn’t that be a venue for change?” The post California Leads the Way in Low-Carbon School Meals appeared first on Civil Eats.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.