Annals of a Warming Planet
Can Green Energy Power the Cannabis Boom?
By Bill McKibben
January 27, 2021
Agricultural communities around the country are commercializing the cannabis trade for the sake of tax revenue, and thus laws governing its cultivation will be needed.Photograph by George Rose / Getty
Subscribers to The Climate Crisis newsletter received this piece in their in-boxes. Sign up to receive future installments.
Last week’s newsletter was about the need to stop burning things, but there’s at least one area where I know that this advice is a lost cause. That’s at the small blaze at the end of a joint: marijuana stocks are booming in the wake of the U.S. Senate wins in Georgia, which gave the Democrats a majority in that chamber, since investors reckon that Democrats are likely to continue along the steady path toward legalization.
The amount of carbon produced by burning pot is not actually a concern. But it turns out that producing the crop, at least the way that it’s grown by large-scale entrepreneurs, requires huge amounts of electricity. As early as 2012, it was estimated that one per cent of the country’s electricity was used for raising pot. In California, the leading state in production, it was three per cent. An indoor growing facility can have the lighting intensity of a hospital operating room, which is five hundred times recommended reading levels; researchers from the National Coalition of State Legislatures found that a five-thousand-square-foot indoor farm in Boulder County, Colorado, was using 41,808 kilowatt hours per month, while an average household used about 630 kilowatt hours. Many growers apparently pair their bright lights with high-powered air-conditioning in order to “shorten a plant’s growing cycle.” The researchers added—and here I must confess my own preference—that “the energy used to produce one marijuana cigarette would also produce 18 pints of beer.”
Those numbers really are large and mean that, right at the moment when we need to be desperately reducing the amount of energy we use, we’ve found a huge new electricity hog. Yes, that energy can be produced by the sun, but for the foreseeable future the best use of new solar panels and wind turbines is to displace existing uses, not underwrite new ones. One of the first people to write me about the issue was a small-scale solar operator named Naoto Inoue, the C.E.O. of Solar Market, who began building arrays in New England about fifteen years ago. “So many people’s efforts to reduce the carbon footprint is going down the drain because of indoor-grow greed,” he said.
It’s an especially ironic use of power because of marijuana’s history in the otherwise green counterculture and because you can grow it outdoors—in the sunlight. In Vermont, where I live, each resident is allowed to grow six plants, and, although I haven’t taken advantage of the law, I know that six plants turns out to be a lot. Here, pot is the new zucchini, and if you leave your car unlocked when you go shopping you may return to find a sack of the stuff on the back seat. If any commodity could be left as a part of a local gift economy, it seems like it might be marijuana; but here, as in other places, we’re quickly commercializing the trade, in order to reap state-tax revenue. In which case, laws governing its cultivation will be required: Massachusetts is making larger growers use no more than thirty-six watts of electricity per square foot, down from a typical forty to forty-five watts; in Maine, growers can apply for state grants to make their operations more energy-efficient. Perhaps sun-grown pot, like shade-grown coffee, will catch on: last week, a prospective grower in the Berkshires sought local approval for a farm with promises about outdoor, artisanal cultivation.
Inoue’s solution is a heavy carbon tax for growers—with a high enough tariff, the advantage will switch back to outdoor growers. Barring that, new installations should come with their own renewable-energy construction. Barring that, I.P.A.s.
Passing the Mic
About half of all products on grocery shelves contain palm oil, and production has doubled in the past decade. The James Beard Award-winning food journalist Jocelyn Zuckerman has travelled from Indonesia and Malaysia to Brazil and India looking at the vast plantations where the oil palms are grown. Her forthcoming book, “Planet Palm,” is a compelling look at just how much trouble it’s possible to cause with a single plant. (Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.)
Palm oil seems to cause more havoc per ounce than almost any commodity, and yet we’ve barely heard of it. Why is it so bad?
The main problem is its effect on the environment. The oil palm plant grows best at ten degrees to the north and south of the equator. Unfortunately, that swathe also corresponds with the planet’s tropical rain forests. Not only are these ecosystems important for sequestering carbon but they support more than half the world’s plant and animal species. We now know that global biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history, with far-reaching consequences in terms of pollination and pest control, among other things. The demise of a single species can lead to the collapse of an entire ecosystem, affecting local communities and ultimately destabilizing economies and governments. The region targeted for oil-palm development also overlaps with much of the earth’s peatlands—soils formed over thousands of years through the accumulation of organic matter—and draining and burning this terrain to make way for plantations sends massive quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Finally, we’re flirting with pandemic disaster. Some seventy-five per cent of today’s emerging infectious diseases originate in animals, and sixty per cent of those can spread directly from them. Over the past few decades the number of such animal-to-human, or “zoonotic,” transmissions has skyrocketed. A third of these new diseases can be linked directly to deforestation and agricultural intensification, most of it involving tropical rain forests. Mowing down these natural treasures doesn’t just push iconic animals like the orangutan to the brink of extinction; it also sends virus-carrying wildlife like bats in search of new habitat, forcing them into closer contact with humans.
Do we really need this stuff to keep our economies functioning—and what about the economies of the countries it comes from?
VIDEO FROM THE NEW YORKER
 
Play video on original page
I guess I’d start by asking whether our economies are “functioning” in the first place. The Labor Department just announced that 1.15 million workers filed for unemployment in the first week of 2021. The World Food Programme says that it will need to feed a hundred and thirty-eight million people this year—more than at any time in its sixty-year history. Meanwhile, the world’s richest one per cent owns forty-four per cent of the global wealth. Let’s also consider where the oil ends up. Some two-thirds of global production finds its way into food, most of it fried and/or ultra-processed. In recent years, rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes have shot dramatically up, particularly in the low-income countries where Big Food is now focussed on dumping its industrial-palm-oil-enabled junk. What is the cost to those countries’ economies of treating the diseases resulting from these unhealthy new diets? How about the lost income of those sidelined laborers? Yes, the economies of Indonesia and Malaysia, which together account for some eighty-five per cent of the world’s palm-oil production, are deeply reliant on the commodity. But they are also facing public-health crises related to shifting diets. Palm-oil laborers in Southeast Asia, meanwhile, make around seven dollars a day, and studies have found that diets in communities where the palm-oil industry has moved in are far less healthy than those of traditional communities living in the same region. We won’t get into the agrochemicals that poison workers and local waterways.
What are the effective pressure points on the governments that allow this, and the corporations that encourage it? Are there some hopeful signs?
Unfortunately, as in Trump’s America and Bolsonaro’s Brazil, the governments in Southeast Asia tend to be a part of the problem, more concerned about cozying up to industry than protecting the health of their citizens or the planet. The Indonesian President recently signed an omnibus bill that will eliminate critical protections for workers and the environment. Next door in Malaysia, the government routinely spreads disinformation about the palm-oil industry’s environmental and social impacts, and has paid a D.C. lobbying firm some million dollars to counter opposition to it. Here as elsewhere, it’s been civil society and the private sector leading the way. Consumers and N.G.O.s have pushed traders and other companies to sign no-deforestation agreements and have raised awareness about institutional investors linked to palm-oil-related deforestation. Local communities from Cameroon to Guatemala and Papua New Guinea are stepping forward to sound the alarm about illegal oil-palm concessions, are demanding indigenous land rights, and are speaking out about labor and human-rights abuses. It’s a tough climb—there are massive interests at stake, and these people do not play pretty—but I think that, as more folks come to understand what this industry is all about and exactly what’s at stake, there may be room for some cautious optimism.
Climate School
To see the Biden Administration starting to move on the climate challenge is invigorating, but it’s worth remembering how far behind we are. As the Washington Post reports, new data from the journal Nature Communications on the Antarctic show that the Southern Ocean is warming “faster than predicted,” threatening to erode glaciers from below where they stretch out over the sea. “Like removing a doorstop, the collapse of these ice shelves can free up inland ice to move into the ocean, raising global sea levels and harming coastal communities.”
With the Keystone XL pipeline dead, indigenous campaigners are pushing the Biden Administration to shut down the Dakota Access pipeline, too, and stop construction on Minnesota’s Line 3. Dallas Goldtooth, a member of the Mdewakanton Dakota and Dine nations and the Keep It in the Ground campaign organizer for the Indigenous Environmental Network, said that the KXL decision “is a vindication of ten years defending our waters and treaty rights from this tar-sands carbon bomb. I applaud President Biden for recognizing how dangerous KXL is for our communities and climate, and I look forward to similar executive action to stop DAPL and Line 3 based on those very same dangers.” The Ponca elder Casey Camp-Horinek also wrote an eloquent letter to the President. Meanwhile, a United Nations commission chastised the Canadian government for not getting buy-in from First Nations on various pipeline and energy-development plans.
Oil executives talking to Bloomberg said that the KXL cancellation may end the era of “mega-pipelines.” “I can’t imagine going to my board and saying, ‘we want to build a new greenfield pipeline,’ ” the Williams Companies’ C.E.O., Alan Armstrong, said in an interview, noting that his company has seen pipeline projects shut down by regulators. “I do not think there will be any funding of any big cross-country greenfield pipelines, and I say that because of the amount of money that’s been wasted.”
Scoreboard
Columbia University has joined Cornell and Brown as the third Ivy to move toward full divestiture from fossil fuels. “There is an undeniable obligation binding upon Columbia and other universities to confront the climate crisis across every dimension of our institutions,” Lee C. Bollinger, the president of the university, said. “The effort to achieve net zero emissions must be sustained over time, employing all the tools available to us and engaging all who are at Columbia today and those who will follow us in the years ahead. This announcement reaffirms that commitment and reflects the urgent need for action.”
An Israeli company announced new batteries for electric cars that can be recharged in just five minutes. “The number one barrier to the adoption of electric vehicles is no longer cost, it is range anxiety,” Doron Myersdorf, the C.E.O. of StoreDot, the company that made the breakthrough, said. “You’re either afraid that you’re going to get stuck on the highway or you’re going to need to sit in a charging station for two hours. But if the experience of the driver is exactly like fuelling [a petrol car], this whole anxiety goes away.”
The Saudi oil giant Aramco misreported its carbon emissions—by half.
The Bank of France moved toward the head of the line of central banks greening their portfolios. It’s out of the coal business and, according to Reuters, the bank said in a statement that by 2024 it “would also exclude companies with more than 10% of revenue coming from oil or 50% from gas, which could potentially mean the central bank would have to shun groups like French energy major Total.”
The Times reports that, on Tuesday, Larry Fink, the C.E.O. of Blackrock, in his annual letter to investors, told the boards of companies in which it invests “to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net-zero economy,” which he defined as limiting global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial averages and eliminating net greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.” On the same morning, New York City announced that its pension funds had divested four billion dollars from fossil-fuel companies. And the evening before, Senator Chuck Schumer, known in Washington as a champion of Wall Street, used far stronger language than he has in the past to demand climate action. “If there ever was an emergency, climate is one. So I would suggest that [the Biden Administration] explore looking at climate as an emergency, which would give them more flexibility,” he told Rachel Maddow, on MSNBC.
Warming Up
I find, in the absence of the ex-President’s tweets, that I’m able to let my guard down a little more these days. The musician Elori Saxl has produced an album perfect for decompressing, “a meditation on the effect of technology on our relationship with land/nature/place that ultimately evolved to be more of a reflection on longing and memory.” It combines digitally processed recordings of wind and water with electronic synthesizers and chamber orchestra. Half of the piece was written “in the Adirondack mountains of northern New York in summer surrounded by lakes, rivers, and moss-covered forest floors, and the other half on a frozen island in Lake Superior in deep winter.”
Bill McKibben is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org and a contributing writer to The New Yorker. He writes The Climate Crisis, The New Yorker’s newsletter on the environment.
More:
Climate Change
Marijuana
Electric Cars
Greenhouse gases
Fossil Fuels
Environment
The Climate Crisis
Coverage of environmental news and the climate crisis from a leading voice in the movement.
Enter your e-mail address


By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement.
Read More
Annals of a Warming Planet
With a New Pipeline in East Africa, an Oil Company Flouts France’s Leadership on Climate
Total’s oil imperialism in Africa is giving the lie to President Emmanuel Macron’s soaring climate rhetoric.
By Bill McKibben
Dept. of Public Health
Is Marijuana as Safe as We Think?
Permitting pot is one thing; promoting its use is another.
By Malcolm Gladwell
Video
The Seminole Tribe Perfected Alligator Wrestling
“Being able to be so close to an animal who is so powerful and has lasted so long, you have to show it respect."
NewsBooks & CultureFiction & PoetryHumor & Cartoons​Magazine​Crossword​Video​Podcasts​Archive​Goings On
Customer CareShop The New YorkerBuy Covers and CartoonsCondé Nast StoreDigital Access​Newsletters​Jigsaw PuzzleRSSSite Map
About​Careers​Contact​F.A.Q.​Media KitPressAccessibility HelpCondé Nast Spotlight
© 2021 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement and Your California Privacy Rights. The New Yorker may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad Choices