As more states legalize weeds, their commercial production increases. It is possible that these growing operations are not only raising customers, but also raising the temperature of the planet.
A new study published in Nature Sustainability on Monday aims to quantify the climate impact of indoor cannabis cultivation across the country. The authors, who are researchers at Colorado State University, wanted to track the intensity of these operations on greenhouse gases if they were established anywhere in the country.
“Policy makers and consumers don’t pay much attention to the environmental impacts of the cannabis industry,” Jason Quinn said. associate professor of the mechical eDepartment of Engineering a Colorado State University and the lead author of the study, wrote in an email. “There is little or no regulation on emissions for indoor cannabis cultivation. Consumers also do not consider the environmental effect. This industry develops and expands very quickly without taking into account the environment ”.
Many cannabis growers prefer indoor to outdoor cultivation as it offers greater control over plant habitats and more security. But these indoor operations come at a cost to the climate, as they require heating, ventilation, and air conditioning to maintain the ideal levels of temperature and humidity and high-intensity crop lights that are maintained throughout the day. They often also bomb in regular supply of carbon dioxide to accelerate plant growth and increase profits.
G / O Media may receive a commission
To find out to what extent carbon intensive consumption of weeds occurs, the team of researchers developed a model to track the energy and materials used for the type of operation of weeds. indoor warehouse style cultivation 41% of American producers use. The model was designed to mimic a typical real warehouse, complete with air conditioning, light cultivation, pesticides and fungicides, water applied by drip irrigation “at an average rate of 3.8 liters per plant per day” and more.
Because U.S. temperatures and humidity vary widely, the authors ’model calculated the energy needed to maintain these indoor weather conditions by using one-year hourly weather data from more than 1,000 locations across the country. . Using data from grid emissions across the country, the model showed greenhouse gas emissions that would produce all the energy needed. In addition, the model took into account the “upstream” emissions of the production and transport of water, fertilizers, fungicides and bottles of carbon dioxide in the crop houses, and also monitored the pollution of gases. “downstream” of all the waste that these operations send to landfills. .
All in all, the authors found that the accumulated greenhouse gas emissions created by one of these indoor crop warehouses were between 5,033 pounds (2,283 kilograms) and 11,428 pounds (5,184 kilograms) of carbon equivalent per 2 , 2 pounds (1 kilogram) of dried flower. In other words, the eighth weed you buy (legally, of course) has a carbon footprint of up to 41 pounds (19 kilograms).
The authors say you don’t need to ruin your buzz. We don’t need to give up growing weeds. We just need to start shifting the industry to more external cultivation operations.
“If indoor cannabis cultivation were to become fully outdoor production, these preliminary estimates show that the state of Colorado, for example, would see a reduction of more than 1.3% in the annual state [greenhouse gas] emissions, “the study says. This means Colorado would only see a reduction of 2.3 million tons of carbon equivalent each year, which the study notes is roughly on par with emissions from the entire mining industry. the state.
The results of the study suggest that 80% of greenhouse gas emissions created by cannabis cultivation are caused by “caused by practices directly related to indoor cultivation methods, specifically environmental control in the indoor, high-intensity crop lights and the supply of carbon dioxide to increase plant growth. ” Yes, to grow outdoors we still need to send materials and equipment, and yet waste is sent to landfills, issues we should continue to work on. But the authors found that they are much less energetic.
Of course, outdoor cultivation may not be possible in all parts of the country. Thus, within states, the authors also identified places where indoor cultivation is relatively less energy-intensive. In Colorado, for example, “the practice of growing cannabis in Leadville results in 19% more GHG emissions than in Pueblo,” because the former tends to be colder. In climates where outdoor cultivation could work, policymakers should take steps to initiate the transition. This includes changing regulations and zoning codes to allow more of these operations abroad.
But all of this is just a first step, the authors say. Much more research needs to be done on how to make this expanding industry more sustainable.