In a budget memo released in late March, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed eliminating two programs that focus on limiting exposure to lead paint. The suggested proposal would eliminate as much as $16.61 million in funding and over 70 full-time staff members. While the current federal government is looking to get rid of as much federal oversight as possible by transferring powers and responsibilities back to the states, environmental and public health advocates are extremely concerned about the hazardous consequences for citizens–particularly children.

History of Lead and Lead Paint Use

Lead is a naturally-occurring metal found in the Earth’s crust. As one of the earliest discovered metals in human history, lead quickly gained popularity due to its corrosion resistance and low boiling point. In ancient times, “sugar of lead” was used by Roman winemakers as one of the first artificial sweeteners. Up until the 19th century, white lead pigments were widely utilized in paints by artists, as the durability of lead made it an ideal paint additive. Lead-based paint was also used in the U.S. in the 1920s, though several European countries had already banned the use of it.

Usage of lead-based paint started to decline in the 1940s. In 1971, the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA) was passed, which aimed to phase out lead paint use in housing built with federal dollars. Lead paint was eventually banned altogether by the American government in 1978.

Lead Poisoning

Lead poisoning occurs when you absorb too much lead by breathing or swallowing it. The neurotoxic effects of lead are substantial, and children are particularly susceptible. When the LBPPPA was passed in 1971, a blood lead level of 60 micrograms per deciliter was considered safe. It wasn’t until 1991 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lowered the “acceptable” blood lead level to nine micrograms per deciliter or less. That number has since been lowered again, and there is still no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe.

“Lead Paint” Courtesy of Mike Mozart : License: (CC BY 2.0)

Lead-based paint, which also includes any lead-contaminated dust, is one of the most common causes of lead poisoning. According to a 2011 national housing survey, more than a third of housing units across the nation contain lead-based paint. Risk of exposure is particularly high in older homes with flaked or chipped paint.

Some neurological and behavioral effects of lead poisoning are considered to be irreversible, and it’s estimated that 2.6 percent of American preschool children have a blood lead concentration over 5 micrograms per deciliter–the current level at which the government recommends public health intervention. Children may experience developmental delay and learning difficulties as a result of lead exposure. Most lead poisoning in children occurs from eating chips and flakes of deteriorating lead-based paint. Children with pica, a disorder which leads to a compulsive appetite to consume non-food items, are especially at risk of ingesting lead.

Lead Paint Programs

In October 1992, Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title X of Public Law 102-550). Title X amended the Toxic Substances Control Act, and was designed to develop a national strategy to address lead-based paint risks in all housing. Congress promulgated Title X after concerns that low-lead poisoning was widespread amongst American children, particularly those under six years old and minority and low-income populations.

EPA’s Proposed Budget Cuts

On March 31, 2017, a 64-page budget memo covering the EPA’s  2018 fiscal year was released by the Washington Post. The memo showed that officials within the EPA want to eradicate two programs that reduce children’s exposure to lead paint. One of the programs at risk is the Lead Risk Reduction Program. The new budget would slash $2.56 million from its funding and lay off about 73 full-time equivalent employees. This program requires professional remodelers to participate in training to learn safe practices for stripping away lead-based paint in homes. The program was created through an EPA regulation in 2010, which mandated federal certification for renovators.

Lead-based paint programs run by the EPA are also potentially at risk of losing $14.05 million. The EPA has been offering financial assistance to states and tribal jurisdictions, under Section 404(g) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, since 1994. States and tribal programs are given federal money to address lead-based paint risks. Money is granted to develop or carry out authorized lead-based paint activities programs; authorized lead pre-renovation education programs; or authorized renovation, repair, and paint programs.

While a spokeswoman for the EPA stated that the cuts are intended to give local and state governments the authority and responsibility to fund their own entities, the vast majority of states are unable to do so. Only fourteen states are actually able to operate programs which train contractors in removing lead paint. The rest depend on the federal government to successfully run their programs.

These changes come after a Trump Administration order to reduce the EPA’s overall budget by 31 percent. The EPA has proposed eliminating 25 percent of its employees and scrapping 56 programs including: lead reduction programs, water runoff control, and pesticide safety.

Environmental Racism?

Between 1997 and 2001, the CDC found that 60 percent of children who were reported with confirmed high blood-lead levels were black. Children living and playing in inner cities are more likely to be exposed to lead blowing across playgrounds. A 2015 analysis by the Huffington Post uncovered a strong correlation between high percentages of black populations and high lead poisoning rates. Between 1999 and 2004, black children were 1.6 times more likely to test positive for lead in their blood than white children. In Detroit, where 84 percent of the population is black, eight percent of children tested had elevated blood-lead levels in 2013.

Low-income and minority populations are far more likely to live in neighborhoods with dilapidated homes, thereby elevating their risk of exposure to lead paint. Other legal and environmental advocates note that the cuts to these programs will set the U.S. back decades in preventing lead poisoning and only stifle revenue streams. In other words, the government is likely dooming low-income and minority citizens to toxic living conditions.

CDC Lead Poisoning Prevention

The CDC still has programs to help study and eliminate childhood lead poisoning in America. The Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 authorized the CDC to initiate these efforts. As a result, the CDC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program was created which helps to develop policies to prevent childhood exposure and poisoning, educate the public and health care providers, provide funding to state and local health departments, and support research to determine the efficacy of prevention efforts.

To date, the CDC has funded nearly 60 childhood lead poisoning prevention programs; developed the childhood blood lead surveillance system, which allows states to report their data to the CDC; expanded public health laboratory capacity; and provided training to public health professionals. The CDC, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, EPA, and other agencies have created a federal interagency strategy to achieve the elimination of childhood lead poisoning as a public health issue by 2020.

Conclusion

While lead-based paint was banned almost forty years ago, its persistence in homes across the country is still alive and well to this day. Pre-1980 American housing contains upwards of three million tons of lead in the form of paint. If the EPA strips these lead reduction programs of funding, this nation will continue to have a high risk of lead exposure for children and adults. Since 36 states rely on federal money to keep programs running, the EPA’s proposed budget is establishing a permanent lead-based environment for the country’s most vulnerable populations.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is the Trump EPA Budget Removing Lead Paint Protection Programs? appeared first on Law Street.

While many media outlets and health officials alike are hailing the end of the outbreak of Legionnaires’ desire in the South Bronx, many more are celebrating the Mayor’s signing of a new bill to prevent future outbreaks of such diseases. The piece of legislation requires (not will require: it was effective immediately) landlords to “register, inspect and clean air-conditioning cooling towers on a regular basis, as well as to certify those towers.”

However, this legislation–while important–is very late in coming. The New York Times reported that,

The city’s Health Department was slow off the mark this time. And it had advance warning. Last January, eight cases were reported at Co-op City, a housing complex in the Bronx, and traced to a cooling tower. In May, nine cases in Flushing, Queens, were tied to a cooling tower and a water system in a senior citizens’ center. Although the equipment involved in these small clusters was quickly disinfected, no concerted effort was made by the city to inspect or monitor cooling towers more broadly.

Significantly, the bacteria behind the potentially lethal disease is inhaled far and wide across the city (the bacteria itself is often not lethal) often spewed from the cooling towers usually located on the roofs of buildings that provide water for air-conditioning units. Yet, the lack of concern that the Health Department showed for the outbreaks in the Bronx last January–those in Queens were quickly addressed–mirrors the cause of the most recent outbreak that killed 12 people: environmental racism. This form of racism led to a very slow response to this latest outbreak, which spurred resistance from South Bronx residents.

The generally abysmal health conditions in the South Bronx caused by environmentally racist policies and practices created the perfect storm in the bodies of those who died in the outbreak: pre-existing health conditions such as asthma and heart disease killed these twelve people just as much as the bacteria.

So all this emphasis on the cooling towers is important. It is important that policies are changed so that these towers do not literally spew poison.

But poison is not only being spewed by cooling towers in the South Bronx. It is being spewed by corporate policies that produce obscene amounts of pollution; it is being spewed by power plants that are concentrated in the area so as not to infect predominately white neighborhoods; it is being spewed by the industrial sites that cause asthma and generally make the air unbreatheable.

Until these kinds of poison are addressed–the kinds of poison that the government and corporations directly and deliberately channel into neighborhoods of color–then the new law to “protect” people from Legionnaires’ disease will simply draw attention away from the overall failure to protect South Bronx residents from even worse, chronic epidemics.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Real Causes of the Legionnaires’ Outbreak Stem From Environmental Racism appeared first on Law Street.

Much of the environmental activism combating global warming is based on the rhetoric of personal responsibility and consumerism: if we buy more “green” products, global warming can be stopped. But can we really buy our way out of rapidly rising temperatures and increasing devastation from human-created environmental disasters? Read on to learn about the emphasis on personal responsibility in environmentalism, and the arguments for and against such an approach.

Global Warming: “You” Can Fix It

It is nearly impossible to find articles addressing climate change without finding a list of things that “you” can do to help stop a massive planetary process.

These tips are meant to be empowering and are geared toward combating a frightening sense of apathy about issues of dire importance like global warming. Climate change in particular is something that many people perceive as being in the distant future, and therefore a sense of denial colors so many people’s thinking about climate change.

Lists of “Top 10 Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Dioxide Emissions Footprint” that abound on the internet are meant to help break down global warming into something digestible; something that is not so colossal that you might as well give up before you start trying to do anything about it. People and organizations concerned about climate change want to break it down into little things that “we can all do everyday” to combat it. Talk of “greening your commute,” “greening your home,” and “buying energy efficient products” dominate many discussions about addressing global warming.

However, critics of this approach point out that the desire to do “something” may be just as damaging–if not more so–than recognizing that this is a huge problem with no easy solution. Discussing global warming as though it can be adequately addressed by individuals using fluorescent light bulbs arguably risks minimizing the gravity of the situation.

Greenwashing

Gas, technology, and car companies that make so many daily commutes possible engage in practices that have been accused of creating enormous amounts of pollution and unnecessary toxic waste. Instead of encouraging actions that target these corporate practices at a systemic level, many efforts to “fight” global warming may actually encourage the greenwashing of these massive corporations.

Greenwashing is usefully defined on the Greenwashing Index–an online-based, awareness-driven attempt to “help keep advertising honest”–in the following way:

Everyone’s heard the expression ‘whitewashing’ — it’s defined as ‘a coordinated attempt to hide unpleasant facts, especially in a political context.’ ‘Greenwashing’ is the same premise, but in an environmental context. It’s greenwashing when a company or organization spends more time and money claiming to be ‘green’ through advertising and marketing than actually implementing business practices that minimize environmental impact. It’s whitewashing, but with a green brush. A classic example is an energy company that runs an advertising campaign touting a ‘green’ technology they’re working on — but that ‘green’ technology represents only a sliver of the company’s otherwise not-so-green business, or may be marketed on the heels of an oil spill or plant explosion.

People who criticize corporate greenwashing argue that articles and organizations encouraging people to buy “green” products are actually encouraging people to increase corporate profits by endorsing greenwashing practices. Thus, companies all the way from airlines to those that sell home appliances and personal beauty products engage heavily–and successfully–in greenwashing.

The meat industry often takes the lead in greenwashing. These companies actively distance themselves from the environmental devastation that accompanies factory farming and associated industries, as described by Scientific American here:

Current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of ‘CO2-equivalent’ greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone’s lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.

Meat company Tyson, for example, has advertised itself as animal-friendly, claiming to slaughter its animals in a “humane” manner. But advocates point out that these claims are greenwashed, as the pigs Tyson sells live their lives in cages so small that they cannot move one step back or forward. Critics point out the greenwashed term that Tyson uses for this torturous practice is “individual housing.” This kind of advertising also erases the tremendous environmental destruction that can result from factory farming. When consumers are encouraged to buy “green” and “ethical” meat, they are encouraged not to think about the ways that any form of mass-meat production inherently contributes to  global warming.

Critics of greenwashing would argue that encouraging people concerned about global warming to “fight” it by changing their buying practices often only encourages companies to simply change the ways they advertise themselves: once they market themselves as “greener,” consumers can feel better about buying what are often more expensive “green” products, and help the corporation to turn a profit.

Unequal Burdens of Personal Responsibility

Critiques of the “you can stop global warming” movement are also concerned that harm can occur on an individual, not just corporate, level.

This individualist focus arguably takes attention away from the ways that the environmentally destructive practices that are driving global warming are not the result of individual failings, but rather of massive structures of capitalism. Sustained collective action, rather than individualized consumption choices, are required to combat these larger systems of oppression that fundamentally shape global warming.

When considering the potential impact of “what you can do to reduce global warming” lists, it is important, also, to ask: who is this “you” that these forms of media are talking to? Awareness website Time for Change refers to “a drought in Africa” because of “your increased yearly consumption of fuels,” which makes it clear that the intended “you” is not African, but probably North American. However, even within the presumed North American audience, the burden of personal responsibility arguably falls differently on people of color and people with dis/abilities.

“What you can do to stop global warming” lists that advocate for increased use of public transportation and biking instead of driving seem to work only for those who live in and near cities with accessible and affordable public transit systems. Public transportation systems–even relatively extensive ones like those found in New York City–are often of vastly unequal quality, cost, and distribution.

When cities are designed in ways that lead to modest-income workers of color being driven out of living in city centers where they are often employed and thus must have long commutes to work, these workers are disproportionately impacted by the very climate disasters that are becoming more frequent with global warming. “What you can do” lists encouraging the use of public transportation as a means to fight climate change take for granted the idea that the “you” the list is addressing are people who have cars and who have consistent, reliable access to public transportation–the structure of which is often biased against modest-income neighborhoods of color to begin with.

Bike riding is also often touted as something “you” can do to put a dent in rising carbon dioxide levels. But not everyone can simply hop on a bicycle: the “you” addressed here is clearly not a person with mobility-related dis/abilities who already has inadequate access to public transportation. Additionally, in neighborhoods like those in the South Bronx that the government and corporations target as dumping grounds, it can actually be unhealthy to ride your bicycle–when you exercise in highly polluted areas, you increase the amount of toxins you are inhaling. With asthma rates already devastatingly high in areas like this due to the practices of governments and corporations, encouraging people to ride their bikes as though everyone can is simply misguided. Individualist steps to address climate change can sometimes backfire, and raise other causes for concern.

So…can “you” stop global warming?

Alone? Perhaps not. Changing individual consumer practices shift some of the priorities of corporations, which puts at least the rhetoric of fighting climate change at the fore. However, these shifts don’t necessarily end environmentally destructive corporate practices. Collective action that targets systemic causes of global warming rather than displacing all the responsibility–and therefore, the blame–onto unconcerned individuals might be a common place to start.

 Resources

Huffington Post: 14 U.S. Cities That Could Disappear Over the Next Century, Thanks to Global Warming

About News: Top Ten Things You Can Do to Reduce Global Warming

Guardian: What’s the Carbon Footprint of… a New Car?

Greenwashing Index: About Greenwashing

Business Pundit: The Top 25 Greenwashed Products in America

Scientific American: How Meat Contributes to Global Warming

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Tyson Exposed by Former Suppliers’ Convictions

One Green Planet: Five Ways Factory Farming is Killing the Environment

CounterPunch: Global Warming is Economic Imperialism

Policy Link: For Millions of Low-Income Workers Left Behind by Public Transit Systems, Every Day’s a Snow Day

Daily News: Bronx, Brooklyn Residents Claim City Targeting Their Neighborhoods for Waste Transfer Stations

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Corporate Greenwashing and Global Warming appeared first on Law Street.

Regardless of the political debates about global warming, scientists have long been involved in trying to combat this environmental problem. But what exactly are activist-scientists doing–or not doing–to address global warming?

One facet of combatting global warming is dealing with raised carbon dioxide levels. A lot of talk about carbon dioxide levels focuses on so-called “carbon sinks”–forests that, due to plants’ ability to process carbon dioxide, remove the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere–and their potential to mitigate the effects of global warming. But can forests and artificial means of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere actually “save us” from global warming?

Capturing Carbon Dioxide

Instead of working to prevent the rising carbon dioxide levels that have been fueling global warming, one of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent projects has been the capturing and storage of excess carbon dioxide. This process involves the harvesting of carbon dioxide from facilities such as electricity power plants that emit a great deal of carbon dioxide. Once the carbon dioxide is harvested directly from these sources, it is channeled–sometimes by pipeline and sometimes by truck–usually underground, where it is re-introduced into the earth in order to produce more oil.

Carbon dioxide capturing and sequestration is often upheld as an easy fix to global warming:

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology that can capture up to 90% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation and industrial processes, preventing the carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide capture can occur through three basic methods. Pre-combustion capture is used in industrial processes like natural gas burning; post-combustion capture is used in the food and beverage industries; and oxyfuel combustion capture is used with water instead of air as a combustion material in industries other than power generation.

Once harvested, the carbon is transported and injected into the earth in liquid form, where it is often channeled into increasing oil production. While sponsors of carbon capture argue that this process is completely safe, there are serious concerns that the injection of such large amounts of liquid into the earth actually increases the likelihood of devastating earthquakes.

Is fueling oil production to fight global warming wise?

Though many support carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, there are serious concerns that this process is used to directly increase, rather than reduce, dependence on non-renewable, highly toxic oil production and use. The carbon dioxide that is harvested from power plants is channeled back into oil production and therefore “helps the United States continue producing record amounts of oil.”

This capture and sequestration method is arguably so popular because it actually creates profits for the massive multinational corporations involved in oil production and related fields. But some scientists are concerned that this process actually further entrenches unsustainable energy practices. David Biello at Scientific American points out:

The process will perpetuate fossil fuel use and may prove a wash as far as keeping global warming pollution out of the atmosphere. Then there are the risks of human-caused earthquakes as a result of pumping high-pressure liquids underground or accidental releases as all that CO2 finds its way back to the atmosphere.

There’s certainly evidence that this corporate-motivated approach to reducing carbon emissions has its drawbacks, especially given the amount of energy that is inefficiently used by the capture and sequestration technology.

 Alternative to Oil: Artificial Photosynthesis

Some scientists are beginning to reevaluate their hesitations about carbon sequestration. Scientists at Berkeley have been working to refine a way that captured carbon can be broken down through artificial photosynthesis instead of being channeled back into oil production.

Dr. Peidong Yang, a chemist at the Berkeley Lab working on artificial photosynthesis–the process that plants use to create food by breaking down carbon dioxide and sunlight into glucose and water—has stated about the research that:

Our system has the potential to fundamentally change the chemical and oil industry in that we can produce chemicals and fuels in a totally renewable way, rather than extracting them from deep below the ground.

Through combining nanowire technology with specific bacterial populations to mimic the photosynthetic processes that leaves undergo naturally, the Berkeley team has created the potential for solar-powered chemistry that non-lethally utilizes sequestered carbon.

The question now is once this new technology is ready for market (it is not quite there yet) will the corporations that profit from the current methods of the re-use of sequestered carbon utilize it?

To the Forests: Natural Photosynthesis and Global Warming

It is important to note, however, that despite the hopefulness with which many are embracing the new developments in artificial photosynthetic capabilities, we seem to be forgetting one crucial thing: Photosynthesis, even on a massive scale such as that accomplished by rainforests, cannot reverse or halt global warming.

Because carbon dioxide is essentially “plant food,” it is easy to focus on an abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as being good for plant growth. In turn, the more plants there are, the more carbon dioxide will be taken out of the atmosphere. Since extremely excessive carbon dioxide emissions are a principle driver of global warming, plants (particularly strong concentrations of plants, such as rainforests) are often thought to be helpful in reducing carbon emissions and in slowing global warming. Indeed, some scientific studies show that, under certain laboratory greenhouse conditions, increased carbon dioxide levels can contribute to a greater amount of plant growth. This is extremely important because, as Carol Rasmussen, a member of NASA’s Earth Science News Team, reports:

Forests and other land vegetation currently remove up to 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. If the rate of absorption were to slow down, the rate of global warming would speed up in return.

Through a natural process referred to as carbon fertilization, plants “eat” the extra carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human processes, thus reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Recently, however, the purported impacts of carbon fertilization have been called into question: a recent study found that increased tree growth does not always result from increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Regardless of whether forest growth is stimulated by increased carbon dioxide, Climate Science Watch encourages us to think beyond the small picture of plants taking already overwhelming amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. There is a bigger picture of the relationship between global warming–which is already occurring–and plant life. A report by Climate Science Watch reminds us that:

Climate [change] impacts like drought, floods, extreme weather, shifting seasons, and increasing ranges of weeds, invasive species, and plant pests will all negatively impact crop yields [and other plant growth].

Additionally, other nutrient restrictions limit the amount of increased natural photosynthesis that can occur in forests. Differentials in rainfall levels and subsequent droughts that are already being caused by global warming negatively impact the amount of plants that can grow and photosynthesize.

Hammering home these cautionary pieces of evidence is the fact that massive forests like the Amazon have been suffering from increased tree mortality–both due to direct human destruction and the indirect impacts of altered conditions from climate change. Therefore, the Amazon rainforest is consuming a billion tons less each year than it has previously. For perspective, each yearly Amazon drop amounts to twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the U.K. per year.

So Should We Take Carbon Dioxide Back Out of the Atmosphere?

Investing hope and massive resources in carbon capture and sequestration, forest-driven photosynthesis, and artificial photosynthesis produces a sense of calm in many that the impacts of global warming can be combated without creating actual changes in the corporate practices that are increasing dangerous carbon dioxide levels. These debates about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are important, but they are fundamentally invested in addressing symptoms rather than causes. While these are great scientific achievements, the causes of global warming need to be addressed as well.

Resources

Primary

Environmental Protection Agency: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration

NASA: NASA Finds Food News about Forests and Carbon Dioxide

Additional

Environment 360: Can Carbon Capture Technology Be Part of the Climate Solution?

Alternet: Corporations Have Big Plans to Profit From Global Warming

Guardian: Chevron Accused of Racism as it Fights Ecuador Pollution Ruling

Guardian: Tropical Rainforests Not Absorbing as Much Carbon as Expected

Guardian: Just 90 Companies Caused Two-Thirds of Man-Made Global Warming Emissions

Science Daily: Major Advance in Artificial Photosynthesis Poses Win/Win For the Environment

Climate Science Watch: The CO2 “Fertilization” Effect Won’t Deter Climate Change

Corp Watch: Climate Change and Environmental Racism

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Carbon Dioxide Capture: Can it Stop Global Warming? appeared first on Law Street.