The get-rich-quick scheme, banned in China and elsewhere, is invading U.S. communities unchecked, posing as an “equalizing, democratizing” currency. It’s not.
by Maura Stephens and Karen Edelstein
In capitalism every few years or decades something new comes
along that causes rapid creation of wealth — think microwaves,
electronics, and military weapons expansion during the Cold War;
semiconductors; the rise of venture capital as an industry; the personal
computer craze of the 1980s; the rise of the Internet and hedge funds in the
1990s followed by Internet commerce, genomics, nanotechnology, and the commercialization
of information gathering and surveillance (data mining) to benefit corporations
and investors.
In the fight to slow the buildup of greenhouse gases, many
scientists, policymakers, and environmental advocates have focused largely on
the extraction of fossil fuels. Fracking for methane (“natural” gas),
frack-sand mining, bitumen (“tar sands”) extraction, and mountaintop demolition
to access coal are certainly implicated in the alarmingly steep increase in
carbon in our atmosphere in recent years. But fossil fuel extraction is only
one of the culprits in the carbon buildup.
Other
significant human-exerted forces include agricultural
practices, land clearing, industry, and decomposition of wastes in landfills.
But aside from the ecological and energy-extraction components, there is a
behavioral component we cannot ignore, and that’s where cryptocurrency mining
fits in.
We need to look at patterns of consumption and, importantly, the
environmental, health, and biodiversity costs associated with making
money the capitalist way, which is not designed to have positive
bearing on the health and wellbeing of anyone but the super-rich.
Cryptocurrency, not in itself a fossil fuel, is far from benign
environmentally; its operators are appropriately called “miners,” and
the industry is as perilous as the plastics industry — both
intricately tied to fossil fuel extraction.
What’s the Appeal?
Bitcoin is big.
Let’s note here that the term “bitcoin” (lowercase) has become
synonymous with and is frequently used interchangeably with “cryptocurrency,”
although Bitcoin (uppercase) is a brand name among many other cryptocurrency
brands.
Fluctuation of Bitcoin value. Source: CoinDesk (Oct. 4, 2021)
FracTracker experts estimate that nearly 40% of U.S. investors
own Bitcoin, a huge number, especially considering the industry is only a few
years old.
In early October 2021 Bitcoin’s price, which like all
cryptocurrencies has fluctuated wildly, was at nearly $50,000, bumping the
global value of the currency close to $930 billion. Estimates from July 29
indicated that all cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero,
Dogecoin, and others had a “value” of close to $1.6
trillion, or about 2.1% of the world’s money supply.
Who Loves It Most?
Many believe, with enthusiasm approaching
religious fervor, that this form of cryptocurrency is the answer to
an otherwise centralized banking system that has benefited the privileged few.
Anyone who opens an online account and puts some cryptocurrency
into it can send “money” across the world in a matter of minutes — 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year — which makes this system appealing.
And many supporters
of Bitcoin tend to look to their short-term gains, rather than
long-term impacts, claiming that the “societal value Bitcoin provides is worth
the resources needed to sustain it.”
This technology is being used in many industries, as Billy Silva
lists in Medium:
“capital markets, financial services, payments and remittances, derivatives,
identity and reputation management, governance, sharing economy, supply chain,
auditing, stock trading, internet of things, insurance, healthcare, and
others.”
Many financial publications and advisers are featuring stories
and webinars about cryptocurrencies. Some of them are enthusiastic, salivating
over the potential success of this new “disruptor” along the lines of Netflix,
which sent Blockbuster Video to the graveyard.
Who Loves It Less?
Some, like Investopedia’s Nathan Reiff and Somer Anderson,
publish disclaimers such as this:
Investing in cryptocurrencies and other initial coin offerings
(ICOs) is highly risky and speculative, and this article is not a
recommendation by Investopedia or the writer to invest in cryptocurrencies or
other ICOs. …
The value of one type of cryptocurrency does not necessarily
follow that of another. Cryptocurrency values are volatile for
a variety of reasons, including their relative newcomer status as investments.
Plus, anytime an unregulated industry’s stocks
skyrocket amid speculative behavior and seem both too good to be true and
grossly overvalued, we may be looking at a bubble.
Jeremy Grantham, an investment analyst and asset-management firm
CEO widely quoted in capitalist financial circles, has been warning that the current market
situation is a “fully fledged epic bubble. Featuring extreme
overvaluation, explosive price increases, frenzied issuance, and hysterically
speculative investor behavior, …this event will be recorded as one of the
great bubbles of financial history.”
He’s not talking about only cryptocurrencies, but they are
certainly a prime driver of the bubble.
The world learned about the aftermath of bubbles most recently
during the 2007-10 great economic meltdown, the fallout from which hit people
all around the world. Essentially a Ponzi scheme, it was caused by the United
States’ deadly combination of unscrupulous lenders and greedy or misinformed
borrowers looking for a short-term payout.
Unscrupulous lending by unregulated banks and private firms (light green and blue) were largely responsible for the housing bubble that led to the 2007-10 financial crisis. In all, 12 million loans “valued” at nearly $2 trillion were given. Chart reprinted with permission from The Orange County Register / June 9, 2007
There had been attempts by
bipartisan legislators in Congress to restrict subprime
mortgages — loans given, mostly by unregulated private firms,
to high-risk or no-credit-history borrowers, often with hidden and crippling
payback requirements — as well as the hedge funds and derivatives they spawned.
But they were unsuccessful in the age of President George W. Bush and Federal
Reserve Board chair Alan Greenspan. Indeed, Bush stopped all attempts to check
the predatory lending schemes even amidst strenuous opposition from
the attorneys general and banking superintendents of all 50 states.
Who Should Love It Least?
The simple fact is that cryptocurrencies are unregulated.
They’re on a rampage. They’re already benefiting only the rich — exactly the
opposite of an initially intended economic goal of democratization and
equalization. They are a smoke-filled bubble.
Bubbles eventually burst.
Plowing through the pandemonium, environmentalists,
social-justice advocates, community stewards, and labor organizers need to focus
on the even broader risk connected with crypto mining — one
that could affect the survival of our planet, not just the wealthiest of
investors.
This risk stems from the astronomical quantity of energy required
to run some types of cryptocurrency operations, without returning any benefit
to local communities or job seekers — let alone benefiting smaller-scale
investors. Those investors could be wiped out as were so many homeowners
and borrowers, especially in communities of color and low-income areas, in
2007-10, even as culpable big lenders were bailed out by the U.S. government
(Remember “Too Big to Fail”/”Too
Big to Jail”?).
How It Works: Like
Playing Cards Stacked on Wishes
The first thing to understand is that cryptocurrency, like paper
money, has no intrinsic value. There’s no gold or even a
precious substance that we’d need for life on Earth like, say, a gallon of water,
backing it, no government guaranteeing it.
Just as countries abandoned the gold standard decades
ago and replaced it with a system called “fiat money” (such as
the U.S. dollar), it simply represents faith that
individuals have when they give and receive that currency. Its
decentralized process, with millions of hosts, was ostensibly created in part
to cut down on illegal transactions. Furthermore, each different cryptocurrency
— Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. — has its own approach, adding to the complexity.
One important term (among many arcane ones) in understanding
cryptocurrency is blockchain, aka distributed
ledger technology, DLT. This is a way of keeping track of transactions that’s
transparent to anyone who wishes to see them, and allows transactions to occur
without the use of a middle-entity such as a bank or credit card company.
The blockchain is essentially a database
owned by the network, which itself consists of millions of
computers around the world, each with its own key. Whenever
a transaction occurs, the details (except for the two parties’ identities) are
shared as a cryptographic puzzle with everyone on the network. The
computer on the vast network that first guesses the details is
the winner. This winner of the verification or validation process collects
several newly “minted” bitcoins — each now worth $50,000 or so — as a reward.
That’s a big payout and tempting even for minor investors, but
in truth they can’t compete: Those with the most and the fastest computers reap
the most money.
Digiconomist reports that the carbon footprint of a single Bitcoin block in 2021 is roughly equal to the carbon footprint generated by 1,890,394 Visa transactions. A single mined Bitcoin has a carbon footprint of 259 tons (235 tonnes),in comparison to that of a Bitcoin’s worth of gold, at 24.25 tons (22 tonnes).
Another term that is perhaps less known, but crucial in
discussing the impacts of cryptocurrency on the environment, is “proof-of-work,” a
process used by both Bitcoin and Ethereum. This form of cryptocurrency
validation uses a method to achieve consensus on the blockchain. Simply put,
proof-of-work cryptocurrency is created as many machines all work to solve the
same complex mathematical equation, or puzzle. The first machine to solve the
problem wins.
Thus, the more machines you have working on the same puzzle, the
greater your chances of profiting. As the complexity of the computations
increases, it becomes harder for the average person to profit, since one
must have thousands of machines to remain competitive.
And so the system begins to resemble a traditional centralized
capitalist system that remains profitable — to the very wealthy.
Unregulated,
Climate-Crazy Profiteering
This facet of current cryptocurrency mining has drawn criticism
from previous enthusiasts, including Jackson Palmer, who cocreated
Dogecoin. He now calls it “an inherently
right-wing, capitalistic technology built primarily to amplify the wealth of
its proponents through a combination of tax avoidance, diminished regulatory
oversight, and artificially enforced scarcity.”
And, he adds, “Cryptocurrency is like taking the worst
parts of today’s capitalist system (e.g., corruption, fraud, inequity)
and using software do technically limit the use of interventions (e.g., audits,
regulation, taxation) which serve as protections or safety nets for the average
person. Financial exploitation undoubtedly existed before cryptocurrency, but
cryptocurrency is almost purpose built to make the funnel of profiteering more
efficient for those at the top and less safeguarded for the vulnerable.”
And it’s catastrophically
energy-intensive.
While there are other models for cryptocurrency mining, the
proof-of-work model is of particular concern to environmentalists worldwide
because of its energy-intensive nature. Proof-of-work mining
can use the same amount of energy as an entire country such
as Argentina (population
45.2 million).
A 2018 study published
in Nature estimated conservatively, based on 2017
transactions, that the number of computers used to mine Bitcoin alone
could produce enough greenhouse gases to raise global temperatures above the
2-degree Celsius tipping point before 2048. It’s important to note
that cryptocurrency mining energy use has risen 320% in the
past five years.
Megatons of Electronic
Waste and Attendant Toxins
Emissions from the electrical use are not the only ecological
disaster. The machines generate
a lot of heat, so they need to kept cool, requiring more energy. Being used for
ever increasingly sophisticated computations, they need to be the speediest and
most powerful models available. Computer companies build in fast obsolescence —
underscored in summer 2021 by Apple’s response to the revelation by
the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab of “ForcedEntry,” as they call the
Pegasus spyware that made 1.65 billion Apple iPhones and other devices
vulnerable to a complete, almost undetectable takeover by the private Israeli
surveillance firm NSO.
To counter the problem Apple issued a patch, but only for newer
devices, thus forcing those with devices six or more years old to remain
vulnerable or purchase new ones.
These electronics contain toxic chemicals and heavy
metals, which leach into soil, water, and air — and the bodies of
humans and other species.
In September 2021 a Dutch team economics team published a study, “Bitcoin’s
growing e-waste problem,” in the journal Resources, Conservation and
Recycling. The researchers found that as of May 2021, Bitcoin’s
annual e-waste generation had added up to 6.6 million pounds (30.7 metric
kilotons), with an average per-transaction e-waste of 9.6 ounces (272
grams).
Who’s Fighting Back?
Everything we do about climate change will be undermined by
growing cryptocurrency mining operations unless governments
address this industry, around which facts and figures are changing
daily.
China had been historically the worldwide center of
cryptocurrency mining. However, on September 24, 2021, China’s central bank
made all cryptocurrency-related activities illegal (supposedly to support the
country’s climate goals). This alone at least temporarily dropped the global
energy use for the industry as Chinese facilities went offline.
But this also means that the most attractive new
geographic centers for mines are now elsewhere, especially in
the United States.
Unless truly energy-efficient alternatives to proof-of-work
mining are adopted, the energy use for this industry remains impossibly
outsized. There is one potentially less energy-intensive model known as
“proof-of-stake,” but there is no proof that it would either work for
transactions or cut energy use sufficiently, and the biggest cryptocurrencies
including Bitcoin are unlikely to switch from their current proof-of-work
model.
It’s imperative to keep on top of its whack-a-mole next
appearances.
The Finger Lakes: Test
Case for Lunacy
What began as a small protest against cryptocurrency mining
along the western shore of Seneca Lake, the deepest of the stunning Finger
Lakes of New York State, is now an international
story as the world watches Bitcoin operators bulldoze their way
into the United States.
The Greenidge
facility along the shores of Seneca Lake is now the test case
for proof-of-work crypto in the United States. This once-mothballed coal-fired
plant sat dormant for seven years before it was repurposed to burn
methane (“natural” gas from fracklands in neighboring Pennsylvania) to
supply power to the grid in times of high demand, even as public
opposition to fracking in New York was growing to a crescendo and
prompted the state government to issue a moratorium, and later a ban, on
fracking within the state’s boundaries.
Quickly finding the gas power plant unprofitable, the
owners installed 7,900 Bitcoin machines. This change in usage increased
the air emissions at the Greenidge plant tenfold compared with its
previous levels as a “peaker” power plant. In January 2020, for example,
operating at 5% of its capacity (similar to when it was serving as a power
plant) the plant
emitted 28,301 tons of CO2. This is equivalent to what
would be produced by the electricity consumption in more than 4,000 households.
By December 2020 CO2 emissions jumped to 243,103 tons,
increasing by almost ten times. During that same 12-month period, emissions of
polluting nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxides, together known as nitrogen oxides
(NOx), jumped from 5.2 to 49.2 tons; again, by ten times in the same 12-month
period. CO2 and NOx are both potent
greenhouse gases that fuel climate warming and instability.
Greenidge’s plan is to expand 25-fold by 2025, using
at least 500 megawatts of power along Seneca Lake and elsewhere. It has applied
for a renewal of its air permit, which allows annual emissions of up
to 641,878 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). This is
after zero emissions for five straight years (2011-16).
Neighbors are alarmed about the plant’s negative impacts,
worried at the thought of losing the region’s clean air, their trust in the 4.2
trillion-gallon freshwater lake that serves as a drinking water source for
100,000 people and the life within and around it, and the region’s vibrant
economic engine of agriculture, much of it organic, and tourism — which supports
58,000 jobs and generates $3 billion annually for New York.
As well, the plant is legally permitted to discharge up to 134 million
gallons of 108 degree F water daily into Keuka Outlet, a protected trout
stream that drains directly into Seneca Lake. Furthermore, thermal inputs of
any sort can enhance
the growth of environmentally destabilizing harmful algal
blooms (HABs), which in recent years have been plaguing the Finger Lakes and
many other water bodies.
Opponents of the facility include residents, property owners, grape
farmers, winery owners, and vacationers who flock to the region each year to
enjoy this popular tourist destination.
Supporters, aside from Atlas Holdings, the private investment firm
behind the project, appear to be limited to politicians in local and
state offices, including disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo, who received $95,000 in
donations from the company and its managing partners in
2014, shortly before they purchased the plant. Interestingly, soon
afterward the facility received a $2 million state
grant to help convert the once-shuttered plant to
methane (fracked-gas) from the state, and the NYS DEC also waived
any requirements for a comprehensive environmental impact statement.
Thirty other upstate New York power plants could be converted to
data centers, with catastrophic consequences for statewide
CO2-equivalent emissions.
Before he resigned in August 2021, Governor Cuomo had positioned
New York as a leader on climate, instituting the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA),
designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Bitcoin miners have
discovered a loophole: By buying up old power plants to generate power
for private use, thus operating “behind the meter” (by not supplying power to
the grid for public consumption), they’re able to evade the CLCPA requirement
that stipulates 70% of the state grid’s electricity must come from renewable
sources by 2030.
Greenidge, like other cryptocurrency peddlers, calls itself a “carbon neutral”
facility, because it now purchases carbon offsets.
But carbon offsets are a form of public relations greenwashing and
do not protect communities from industry’s pollution. (Furthermore, the CLCPA
does not allow power plants to use carbon offsets. Laws such as this one must
be enforced to be effective.)
Coming Soon to a
Community Near You?
Cryptocurrency mining requires four things: computing
power capable of running complex calculations, a ready source
of cheap energy to run the mining computers, proximity to high-capacity
power lines, and a way to cool the equipment. In
general, locations that require fewer months of air conditioning are more
economically attractive. So many mining operators are shopping around for
structures like retired electrical generation facilities, including old
coal, gas, and nuclear power plants. These typically have desirable
features for miners including high-capacity powerlines connected to the grid
and built-in cooling systems that often discharge waste heat into an adjacent
lake or river.
Data center locations around the world. Source: datacenters.com
According to datacenters.com,
there are nearly 2,600 data centers worldwide: 930 in the eastern United
States, 378 in the western United States, 556 in Europe, and 498 in Asia. Many
are used for other purposes such as cloud-based computer file storage, but an
increasing number are used for cryptocurrency mining.
Regardless of whether a facility is intended to be a general
data center or a specific cryptocurrency mining operation, communities will
want to be aware of where retired electrical generating facilities are in their
regions, because those can be attractive for repurposing.
FracTracker Alliance used
the Energy Information Administration’s list of retired electrical generation
facilities and created this map showing
U.S. facilities that could become targets.
Click on the map to explore the dynamic version. Data sources
are also listed at the end of this article. Use the Layers dropdown menu to turn
layers off and on. Courtesy of FracTracker Alliance. Map Tutorial
Many of these formerly fossil-fuel-fired facilities were
sited in “environmental justice” communities whose residents
fall into one or more of these demographic groups: low-income, people of color,
indigenous, elderly, immigrant, less than high school-educated, rural. On first
glance it seems like a benefit that they’re no longer polluting these
communities. But replacing them with bitcoin mining would negate any such
relief.
Who’s in the Cross-Hairs
Next?
Environmentalists and policy-makers in Montana have
tried to slow down the expansion of cryptocurrency mining’s climate impacts by
implementing zoning restrictions.
Elsewhere communities are being taken by surprise.
Journalist Peter Mantius,
who runs the Finger Lakes’ only news organization devoted to environmental
issues, revealed in
July 2021 that Atlas Holdings is planning to open a second bitcoin
mining operation in Spartanburg, South Carolina, in a bankrupt
printing plant, and another company has sights on one in Paducah,
Kentucky.
Pennsylvania is already ravaged by fracking and related
infrastructures. Now it is under assault by the bitcoin mining industry as
well. Among other projects, a coal plant in Venango County, northwest
of Pittsburgh, is being transformed into a cryptocurrency operation,
burning waste coal. Two nuclear power
plants — one in Beaver County intended to supply
energy to a mining operation in Ohio, and another in Luzerne County —
are being “repurposed.” In all cases — coal, gas, and nuclear — marketing
campaigns claim they are contributing to a “carbon-free future.”
Surprising Resistance,
Unsurprising Support
El Salvador became the first government to embrace the use of
cryptocurrency, with less than
perfect early results including
massive public protests.
Other countries besides
China have been banning and even criminalizing cryptocurrency because
it’s defeating their climate goals and robbing power from the public. Algeria,
Bolivia, Cambodia, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Morocco, Nepal,
Pakistan, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia have banned
or severely restricted its use, and Bangladesh has made jail
sentences mandatory for anyone caught using or owning any
cryptocurrency.
Because of this, as we’ve seen, miners are moving
rapidly across the United States, where there are currently no industry
regulations and the Securities and Exchange Commission might actually
approve an exchange-traded fund that allows investors to put
their money directly into cryptocurrencies.
The primary concern for governmental regulators, of course,
would be to regulate
cryptocurrency so that its volatility would not imperil
investors eager to get rich. In early October the Department of Justice announced the
creation of a “national cryptocurrency enforcement team” to prosecute
criminal uses such as money laundering and cyber crimes, but that’s a far cry
from serious regulation of pollution to communities and watersheds or beginning
to halting the socio-ecological harm.
This is a serious nationwide problem. Biden’s Build Back
Better initiative, which contains a strong climate component, and the United
States has rejoined the Paris Climate Accord. Not that these activities are
nearly enough. But clearly, allowing the cryptocurrency industry to proliferate
can serve only to undermine overdue plans to reduce greenhouse gases and slow
down catastrophic weather events like the floods, fires, and megastorms that
have become daily occurrences.
What Can We Do?
The future of our species and others on the planet is made even
more precarious unless proof-of-work cryptocurrency changes its climate-busting
model.
It will be very difficult to stem the tide of cryptocurrency,
given the thrill it seems to give speculative investors and the inroads it has
already made into the public consciousness. According to nasdaq.com, nearly 50 million U.S. Americans now own a share
of Bitcoin.
Cryptocurrency operations must be required by enforceable laws
to use 200% renewables. This means that they use only their own on-site
renewable energy sources to power their machines, while simultaneously
producing an equal amount of renewable energy for the public power grid.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress must immediately enact a moratorium on
cryptocurrency operations lasting a sufficient time to both (a) study
proof-of-work’s impacts on air, water, climate, and the long-term economy and
(b) give the industry time to make its operations truly sustainable, if indeed
that is possible.
In this, New York activists want to position the state as a
national leader. Indeed, the Finger Lakes region is home to Ithaca Hours. The
brainchild of the visionary Paul Glover, it was the first modern local currency
in the United States. An “ecological economic bartering model,” as Glover termed
it, Ithaca Hours is based on the value of an hour of work; every type of work,
from lawyer to farmworker, rocket scientist to doula, is equally valued.
Imagine spreading the idea of local currencies nationwide, or a
currency based on things that have real–not fictional–value such as water or
food. That would be the intelligent way forward, instead of permitting
energy-intensive cryptocurrency operations that serve only to further enrich
certain already-wealthy investors while spewing a staggering amount of greenhouse
gases and intensifying climate chaos.
The United States could position itself as a global leader on
this front and take a strong stand against cryptocurrencies. From a
capitalist standpoint, that’s not such a bad deal as it props up the
modern banking and financial sectors. From a competition standpoint, if
China could ban cryptocurrencies outright, why can’t the USA?
And from an ecosocialist perspective, banning
mining and using cryptocurrencies stops both this massive emissions source and
this insane new capitalist craze, both of which harm everyone in
society; no amount of wealth based in paper or gold or fiat will serve to save
anyone from the ravages of climate chaos.
In New York, statewide groups are asking residents to:
- Sign the online petition and submit
a written public statement against the Greenidge power plant before
October 22nd.
- Call
Governor Kathy Hochul: (518)-474-8390. Tell her that unregulated “behind
the meter” Bitcoin operations completely evade the state’s Climate
Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), and that she must direct
the DEC to deny Greenidge’s Title V air permit renewal.
- Ask
your state
legislators to support legislation that would
place a moratorium on any new or expanding Bitcoin operations in the
state of New York until a comprehensive study of the industry and its
impacts on air, water, human health and agriculture can be fully
evaluated.
Everywhere:
- Watch
for announcements about plans to repurpose retired electrical
generating stations in your community.
- If
you are an investor or have a mutual fund or retirement fund, talk
to your financial adviser about why cryptocurrency is a bad bet. We
still live in a capitalist society, and as long as we do, we need to use
our funds, whatever they are, as tools.
- Do
not invest in cryptocurrency.
- Instead, invest
locally! There are all sorts of ways to
do so including local cooperatives, credit unions, community-supported
farms, artist collectives, funding established local businesses seeking to
expand or improve. Some financial analysts, including Michael Shuman,
author of Local
Dollars, Local Sense and a workshop leader on the
subject, have shown that overall, the return on these investments is as
good as or better than gambling on the stock market and other capitalist
ventures.
- Don’t
be hoodwinked by industry spin claiming
that cryptocurrency enables businesses and governments to “reduce their
environmental impact” or “catalyze the development of renewable energy.”
- Talk
to your municipal and statewide policymakers about climate impacts from
cryptocurrency mining, and then pressure them to make laws outlawing
the practice. It’s hard if not impossible to stop it once it begins, but
it it’s not allowed in the first place, your community and all of us will
be better off.
- Push
federal policymakers to pass, at
the very least, the moratorium as noted above, but seriously,
with heavy fines and criminal penalties for any corporate
executives and board members found guilty of violating it.
- If
China can ban it altogether, why can’t the United States?
- Spread
the word about
the dangers of this new threat.
Maura Stephens is an independent journalist and educator and member of the coordinating committee of System Change Not Climate Change. Karen Edelstein is FracTracker Alliance’s Eastern Program Coordinator. She has worked as an environmental cartographer for nearly 25 years.
Post a Comment