by Eva Dreyer

Why are we inclined to remove dead trees in the first place?

As most of us already know, we have a very fractured and exploitative view of nature. We like to profit from what we can and clean up what we cannot. Our “clean up” attitude leads to weeding, trimming, pruning, mowing, fencing, replacing important habitats such as thorny scrub with more “favourable” ones that please the eye, and the list goes on. We are very aesthetically inclined, and we project these views on nature, seeking out perfectly shaped and shined fruits and manicured parks. So, it is plain and simple to understand that we have a very hostile relationship with nature’s “uglier” sights; those involving death and decay. This article’s point of discussion is on why we need to change our attitude toward dead and dying trees, and how this acceptance of death can bring more life. 

This topic is near and dear to Trinity staff and students’ hearts after the falling and felling of the campus’s iconic Oregon maples in 2018. These trees were in poor health from stress and fungal disease, and experts made the tough decision to remove the Library Square maples after the tragic collapse of the huge Front Square tree due to the risk of safety hazards and damage to buildings. This was also an example of “salvage logging”, the practice of removing trees that have been damaged by disease, insect infestation, wildfires, and other natural disturbances for the purpose of preserving the economic value of the tree that would otherwise be lost if left to decay. Supporters of salvage logging argue that it is the more sustainable option, however there is much more to the issue than simply the economic benefits of recovering wood.

“we need to change our attitude toward dead and dying trees, and how this acceptance of death can bring more life”

Why should dying trees be left to die?

While the death of a tree marks the end of one life, it brings benefit to thousands more. At least 80 species of bird and 100 animal species rely on dead or dying trees for the resources they provide. Birds use snags, limbs, and logs from dead trees for perching, foraging, and nesting. There are also countless wood-decaying insects and fungi whose entire life cycles take place on or within dead or dying trees. Therefore, allowing dead trees to decay in their ecosystems is a huge opportunity for increased biodiversity. A collapsed tree also serves as groundcover to lessen soil erosion and protect young seedlings from overgrazing. The breakdown of organic matter from dead and decaying trees also allows for natural nutrient recycling within ecosystems, increasing soil health. Regrowth that occurs after human disturbance is dramatically different to that which occurs after natural disturbance of a fallen tree, meaning a single dead tree being left alone can change the trajectory of succession for its entire surroundings. Salvage logging allows for open areas to be colonised by light-demanding, highly competitive species, sometimes completely inhibiting vegetative succession to progress to late successional trees. In fact, studies on the ancient Białowieża Forest in Poland, one of the closest to pristine old growth forests in European Lowland, found that salvage logging actually had greater negative effects on forest regeneration than that of insect pest outbreaks themselves. 

When and where should dying trees be left alone?

Unfortunately, letting dead trees lie is not a one-size-fits-all solution. As seen with Trinity’s Oregon maples, there are times when we must intervene and remove unhealthy trees for the sake of safety and to prevent potential damages. Dying trees should not be left alone in busy public spaces or urban areas as there is a risk associated with the potential for trees to fall and injure people, cause damage to nearby buildings or block roads. They should also not be left alone if they are carriers of highly threatening diseases that could spread to other trees. However, there are special exceptional cases here. For example, live trees infected with Ash dieback disease should not be felled to avoid further spore dispersal and to attempt to keep as many disease-resistant trees as possible. These trees should only be felled if they are a damage or safety concern. 

Leaving trees to decay should be prioritised in rural areas, on farmland, parkland, or public land where it is safe and possible, in our personal home gardens and so on in order to increase biodiversity and improve ecosystem health. The size and species of the tree in question should be taken into account – for example, deciduous and hardwood trees produce far more cavities than evergreens or conifers. It is therefore ideal that there is a diversity of trees left to decay in one environment for the best biodiversity opportunities. 

“If we want a healthy planet, we need to get used to the “ugly” sights of nature. Perhaps our distaste for the sight of a rotting tree comes from our own fear of ageing and death”

Full circle moments

While it is straightforward to list all of the ecological benefits of allowing dead trees to decay, the most important takeaway is that we must change our perspective. If we want a healthy planet, we need to get used to the “ugly” sights of nature. Perhaps our distaste for the sight of a rotting tree comes from our own fear of ageing and death; Western culture harbours a hatred for ageing, one of the most innately natural aspects of life. Maybe we can collectively learn a lesson from the full circle nature of life, and all of the beautiful benefits that decaying trees can bring to their ecosystems.

by Faye Murphy

Formula One is one of the most resource-intensive sports, but only 1% of its emissions come from racing, with 72% of its emissions involved in shipping the cars, tyres, personnel and motorhomes over five continents to 22 races a year. And it’s not slowing down – F1 has been consistently expanding its calendar in recent years. To combat this, on November 12th, Formula One announced its plan to become carbon neutral by 2030. Recently, on June 27th, they published an update on this plan. In a sport where cash is king, they have the resources and finances to produce worldwide change.

In 2014, the sport switched to hybrid V6 turbo engines, the change did not only reduce each car’s emissions but directly impacted road-car engines. This impact is proven through Mercedes optimising the efficiency of their S-class road car’s V6 turbo engine and EQ power from F1 development. As a result, the industry relevancy of the sport is and will continue to be essential in the development of sustainable transport.

In 2007 F1 first tested their “energy recovery system”, which was first fully implemented in the 2014 season, the same year the V6 engine was introduced. The energy recovery system has become automated in current F1 cars and allows for the management of batteries and energy to ensure maximum power through a race. This technology is now used by many manufacturers, such as Renault, to ensure efficient energy usage in their hybrid/electric vehicles.

Many other technologies first introduced in Formula One have now been used in the average road car. These include; lightweight materials such as carbon fibre, used to reduce the weight of the chassis to reduce fuel usage, and flywheel energy storage systems, which use rotors to store energy as rotational energy. The “flybrid” technology has been used on construction sites to power cranes, reducing fuel consumption by 40% and eliminating the emissions of 17 cars from each crane.

“sustainably-fueled hybrid vehicles can reduce greenhouse gas emissions more significantly than electric vehicles”

In the June 27th update, Formula One gave further information on their plans for the new 2026 regulations. The new regulations will focus on “low-carbon fuels, electric batteries & autonomous vehicle technology”. The regulations will “restrict the use of unsustainable materials in battery production” and use “100% sustainable drop-in fuels”. In addition, the 2026 regulations state that hybrid engines must receive “more power from electrical means”, which will directly affect the automotive industry, as seen from previous technologies. These developments in the automotive sector can create a cycle and reduce the sport’s emissions from travel and shipping.

With the transport industry producing 14% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, the low-carbon fuels being developed by F1 has the potential to reduce CO2 levels by “85– 96% (Wheel-To-Tank) or 70% (life-cycle analysis)”, according to Concawe’s research. Research also indicates that sustainably-fueled hybrid vehicles can reduce greenhouse gas emissions more significantly than electric vehicles. This is due to these fuels having more potential compatibility with the entire transport industry, including aviation, marine, infrastructure and automotive, whereas electric vehicles are limited to the automotive industry. In addition, sustainable fuel can use the current infrastructure of petroleum products, which will prevent the need for large engine modifications to suit the fuel.

There are many issues with current biofuels, but the “advanced sustainable fuel” currently in development within Formula One aims to overwrite these. Problems with current sustainable fuels include the fact the material is being directly displaced from the agricultural industry to produce the raw materials used to create biofuels, which could slowly be causing food shortages and inflation. To combat this issue, the F1 fuel will “only permit 2nd generation bio-content or fuel sourced from waste or e-fuel sourced from Direct Air Capture/flue CO2”. The drop-in nature of the fuel in development will also have higher acceleration uptake speeds, which will be “commercially attractive” for fuel producers, especially in the current global fossil fuel inflation rates. Formula One is in the optimal position for this development as the intense competition within the sport directly impacts the efficiency and quality of development. The sport’s regulations also allow for a plethora of sustainable options to be examined while acting as a stepping stone between lab and industry.

“[F1] believes in leaving positive change in each place they visit and increasing diversity within the sport”

Currently, in the 2022 season of Formula One, cars are only using 10% sustainable fuel, which must be increased to 100% by 2026. In order to achieve this in a safe manner, the 2022 season will be focused on research, while 2023 and 2024 will see fully sustainable fuels introduced in F1’s sister championships, Formula Two and Formula Three. The next step will be ensuring the F1 engine suits the new sustainable fuel before being implemented in 2026. In addition to the 10% sustainable fuel usage, current F1 cars receive between 17-21% of their power from electricity, while the new regulations will increase this to 45%. To achieve this, F1 is focusing on limiting unsustainable and high-risk materials such as cobalt while increasing lighter yet higher power density and battery management. Similarly to sustainable fuels, hybrid engines and the energy recovery system, this development will have the potential to influence the transport industry. The sport has also stated its aim to “offset unavoidable emissions through a mix of biological and technological sequestration”, although the exact method of this sequestration has yet to be confirmed.

The Formula One ethos not only includes the decarbonisation of the sport but also believes in leaving positive change in each place they visit and increasing diversity within the sport. They aim to achieve these by ensuring all waste from each Grand Prix is reused, recycled or composted while creating initiatives for more young people to follow a career in STEM regardless of their background. According to their latest update, the sport is also working to form a “culture of inclusion and creating a diverse talent pool within F1”. They have begun progress on this action by officially partnering with the W-series, an all-female racing competition, and introducing fully funded scholarships.

From all these developments, it is clear to see that Formula One is in a unique position to trial new sustainable options before they enter the industry, giving information on their progress and possible changes before they enter the worldwide market. Due to the popularity and huge capital within the sport, they have the opportunity to reduce the transport industry’s impact on climate change and help in meeting the UN’s sustainable development goals. Formula One gives us hope for the future, and during a global heatwave, hope is needed now.

by Nadja Burkart

When logging roads were discovered being built into the old-growth valley known as Ada’itsx or Fairy Creek in August 2020, land defenders from all over Canada responded quickly by gathering and setting up various camps and blockades throughout the forest in order to prevent the logging company, Teal Jones,  from clearcutting the area. They were soon joined by thousands of other people, and since then more than 1,200 people have been arrested in the biggest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history. Located on Vancouver Island in the western province of British Columbia (BC),  Fairy Creek is one of the last undisturbed old-growth valleys on the island, and some of its trees such as its towering yellow cedars are thought to be more than 1,000 years old. However, what started as a protest to protect Fairy Creek has rapidly spread to include all of BC’s giant old-growth forests which have been unsustainably logged for centuries and only make up a tiny percent of BC’s remaining forests. 

All old-growth forests in BC are essential to a functioning ecosystem, but the remaining giant old-growth trees have especially important roles in biodiversity maintenance as well as acting as highly efficient carbon sinks. Canadian old-growth forests in coastal areas are defined as trees that are 250 years or older, and while there are 13.5 million hectares of old-growth forests left in BC (for size reference, Ireland is 8.4 million hectares), only around 2.7 million hectares are able to nurture the classic giant trees and about 1.7 million of these are unprotected. The trees in these functioning areas can stretch 180+ feet into the sky, which is more than half of the height of the Dublin Spire! When these giants eventually fall and decompose naturally they become “nurse logs”. These logs aid forest regeneration because the fallen trunk is tall enough so new seeds that fall on the log can access light above the shade-producing ferns on the ground. Nurse logs also slowly release their stored nutrients and water, both of which are essential for the new seedling and for countless species of fungi and insects who also live on these tree skeletons.

Clearcutting, the main practice used by BC loggers, doesn’t allow for trees to slowly decay and also disturbs the underlying mycorrhizal (fungi) networks which have recently been proven to allow “communication” and distribution of resources between networks of tree species which is critical for forest prosperity and regeneration. Clearcutting has led to the forestry industry becoming the highest source of carbon emissions in BC because the bare patches left behind to rot and release carbon faster than the young, artificially planted, and often monoculture trees can absorb. Old-growth forests also provide important habitat for salmon– yes, salmon! When they’re not living in the open ocean, their life cycle actually begins and ends in inland streams where they spawn, reproduce, and die. Large trees are essential near these rivers because they support insect life (fish food) and their roots prevent sedimentation and erosion of stream banks. Because salmon are considered a keystone species they are needed by bears, wolves, seals, and whales, with Chinook salmon being the primary diet for the endangered southern resident killer whales. Clearcutting in these areas like the Fairy Creek watershed puts almost all BC species in unimaginable danger. 

Since clearly, the survival of these forests is critical to the wellbeing of citizens, then shouldn’t the government urgently act to stop the clearcutting of these areas? Sadly, they are not. The BC premier John Horgan continues to claim he’s going to implement the 14 proposed recommendations from an Old Growth Strategic Review Panel Report, but it has been 2 years he has yet to apply anything. Then, after more than 18 months of talks within the BC government, the province suddenly “consulted” First Nations communities by only giving them 30 days to decide on whether they want to defer logging. This is an issue because many First Nations are reliant on the industry as an important source of revenue, which is needed because many are left with limited resources after facing centuries of continued systemic racism from government policies such as residential schools and the Indian Act. This decision to “consult” in only 30 days essentially passed the hot seat to First Nations while simultaneously providing absolutely zero financial support, making it less likely to pass. The land that Fairy Creek lies on is a part of the Pacheedaht First Nation’s traditional territory, and along with the Ditidaht and Huu-ay-aht nations, they agreed to defer logging (of around 2,000 ish hectares) in Fairy Creek for 2 years until they make their own plan of action for old-growth.

The elected Pacheedaht Chief has stated that he doesn’t welcome the protests and wants people to leave, but Elder Bill Jones of the Pacheedaht Nation and many other members and indigenous youth from other nations across BC are in favour of the protests and are still actively inviting people to defend the last trees (not only in Fairy Creek but all of BC) from destruction. The UBCIC (Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs) has also called for an immediate halt of all industrial old-growth logging and support for First Nations alongside this. 

“Clearcutting has led to the forestry industry becoming the highest source of carbon emissions in BC [British Columbia]”

The blockades themselves consist of various camps spread around the woods where people can eat and rest in between blocking logging roads. One method of slowing operations is called the “sleeping dragon” where people’s arms get chained underground in a pipe, which is then cemented under the logging road. They also perch on top of tripods of logs leaned onto each other high in the air, or camp on platforms high up in the trees which interrupts loggers because it’s difficult to get them down. The protestors often remain there for hours to days and are brought food and water.

Unlike the protestors, the RCMP (police) often have little patience and this leads to dangerous altercations. Jackhammers and excavators are used to quickly dig up the sleeping dragons which is obviously risky because they’re not precise and dig inches away from people’s bodies. They also use chainsaws to cut down the tripods which topple the land defenders to the ground, leading to someone becoming hospitalised for a concussion. Additionally, the RCMP have set up legally questionable media exclusion zones which block media and others from viewing these arrests, and this is concerning because they’ve acted quite violently towards protestors. Videos of unprovoked mass pepper spraying and one RCMP officer stomping someone’s guitar into pieces are just a few examples of their excessive force and an insight into what the province has paid 6.8 million dollars for the RCMP to do! 

The protests will continue throughout this year and for years to come unless the government acts to end industrial old-growth logging and seriously consult and listen to First Nations voices. In the end, these trees are essentially irreplaceable. It shouldn’t matter how much they’re financially “worth” (it’s arbitrary anyway) because the intrinsic value of forests alone should be enough motivation to save them from further destruction, and that is true for forests around the world. 

by Bruna Ciulli

So, sharks are gnawing away at the internet. The occurrence of shark attacks on underwater internet cables is rare, especially since companies such as Google have begun reinforcing their cables with Kevlar. That being said, shark interference in the physical system that transports 99% of cloud data, be that Netflix films or corporate cyber security is startling. In what way are our seemingly immaterial virtual experiences and industries impacting the planet in adverse and unexpected ways?

Underwater internet cables lie at the bottom of deep, relatively flat parts of the ocean floor. On average, these cables are about the width of a garden hose containing many fragile, signal carrying glass filaments. They operate with fibre-optic technology, firing laser rapidly to receptors at the other end. There are approximately 1.3 million kilometres of these internet cables which have been laid by massive, highly regulated ships. Along the Irish coastline, 27, often thousand kilometres long, cables terminate. After being laid, these cables cause relatively minimal environmental disturbances, however, they are at risk from more than sharks. Providing vital connection for entire communities, they can become pressure points in geopolitical conflicts, similarly, the recent volcanic eruption in Tonga demonstrated the cables’ vulnerability. Interestingly, cables can also suck up microplastics which can cause malfunctions. These cables are generally owned by telecommunication companies with a great deal of recent investment for multination corporations like Amazon, begging questions about who owns the virtual connections we take for granted.

Data centres are a particularly pertinent topic in Ireland. Across the state, there are 70 operational data centres and eight more under construction. Most of these are located in Greater Dublin area, which has become the largest data centre hub in Europe. Attracted by a temperate climate, skilled workforce, potential for renewable energy in wind, hydro, and tidal, and vitally, the low corporate tax rate, companies such as BT, Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft have set up data centres in Ireland. Though there has been a recent slowing-down in the proposition of new centres, there is no sign of a complete stop as a Tiktok centre will be one of the multiple new additions this year.

“As of 2021, the International Energy Agency estimated that data centres accounted for 1% of global electricity consumption and, thereby, 0.3% of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions”

The environmental impact of these data centres is staggering. EirGrid, Ireland’s state-owned electric power transmission operator, calculates that by 2028 29% of Ireland’s electricity will be used by data centres. As of 2021, the International Energy Agency estimated that data centres accounted for 1% of global electricity consumption and, thereby, 0.3% of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, which is only increasing. EirGrid claimed earlier this year that “Data centres can play a hugely important role in… utilisation of renewable energy in Ireland… in turn helping Ireland reach its target of 70% renewable energy by 2030”. You would be forgiven for thinking presupposition seems paradoxical. It is. Inefficient computing within the data centres is partial to blame for the obscene emissions. A 2021 Forbes survey conducted at 100 companies that spend nearly $1 million annually on cloud computing found that “for more than half of these companies, CPU utilisation is only between 20%-40%”. What this means is that servers kept on an underused, standby mode are using the vast majority of the electricity.

Corporations have generally investigated two solutions to this problem, on-site cooling systems and offshore, underwater data centres.The former option is more common. Google, for example, uses an “evaporative cooling” method whereby water is evaporated into cool air. Microsoft has previously used an adiabatic cooling method and a two-phase immersion cooling method in which a fluid with a low boiling rate is boiled by the servers but at a very low temperature, therefore, regulating temperature. Microsoft is attempting to convert much of its data storage to underwater, offshore centres after the success of Project Natick. The project, according to Microsoft, went as follows: “the underwater datacenter [sic] is filled with dry nitrogen air. The servers are cooled with fans and a heat exchange plumbing system that pumps piped seawater through the sealed tube”, and the rate of failures within the centre dropped to one-eighth of that on land.

These projects to increase the efficiency of the computers are fine but as Beth Whitehead, Deborah Andrew, Amip Shah and Graeme Maidment point out in their article for Building and Environment journal, these cooling systems often consume electricity just as voraciously as unused computers. Never mind water consumption and potential environmental disturbances of large data centres along the shoreline. As a result, many hyperscale data companies have rushed to invest in renewable energy, with Amazon becoming the world’s largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy.

It is not only the large-scale infrastructure that makes up the cloud technologies. Most items that can be connected to the web form a vital part of the cloud technologies. From fitness watches and baby monitors to motion sensors and home assistants, any item with which one accesses the cloud. These cloud technologies can be broadly referred to as the Internet of Things, the analogue connection to the virtual. In the Journal of International Affairs, Shuo-Yan Chou argues that the growing Internet of Things will usher in a fourth Industrial Revolution. This could transform the cloud from being concerned with connectedness in the immaterial and more concerned with production, work, healthcare, big data and so on. Pushing the cloud into all aspects of life already seems to have begun, but can the environment handle it?

From smartphones to electric car components, almost all of these technologies require rare earth elements, including the fifteen lanthanides, scandium, cobalt, and yttrium. As the Internet of Things expands, the demand for these elements has skyrocketed. By 2040 demand is predicted to increase at least six-fold. Extracting REEs from the earth produces “13kg of dust, 9,600-12,000 cubic meters of waste gas, 75 cubic meters of wastewater, and one ton of radioactive residue” for every ton of REE, according to Jaya Nayar at the Harvard International Review. In 2016 China controlled 85% of the market. The lack of proper regulation has led to catastrophic human rights and environmental results, including water poisoning and workers’ health complications. Though some alternatives to toxic mining being research seem positive for the time being it is toxic mining practices which allow us to connect to the cloud.

Physical cloud technologies are complex, spanning firewalls, crypto mining, and satellites. However, each with their own environmental challenges, their complex real-world impacts have been swept under the rug for too long. We see our virtual lives as disentangles from the
land and other species. Between widespread privacy violations and environmental devastation, it is clear that we need a shift in our relationship with the ‘cloud’. There has to be reckoning with the enormous quantity of actual hardware that exists globally; using Google, Tiktok, and even Turnitin has a footprint that we must recognise.

by Ruaidhri Saulnier

Do you know where the story of the soy that is in the milk and tofu you consume begins? The first English language mention of tofu was in 1603, compiled by Jesuits living in Japan. The second time, mentions it indirectly, believing it to be cheese of which they have plenty.

Tofu was grown in Europe as early as 1737 in the Netherlands, and later in France and England. Although it was grown as a curiosity in botanical gardens, rather than for commercial application. The first American mention comes from former American president Benjamin Franklin who encountered it in the 18th century, and confused tofu for a type of cheese.

Aware of his error he became curious about its origin. How widespread was tofus at this time? Historically uncertainty persists. It was first made in Europe in 1880, although not on a commercial scale. The Society for Acclimatization, founded in 1855, actively promoted research into soyfoods and soybean, publishing more than 30 articles on the topic. The first commercial tofu firm was established in 1878 in the USA, making tofu, fermented and unfermented.

“protein isolate could be used as a substitute for ivory”

Europe’s first commercial soyfoods manufacturer was established by a Chinese man, biologist, engineer, and anarchist, Li Yuying, (Chinese: 李煜瀛). The factory was founded to fund his political actions. A variety of soy-based products were made in this factory, including bean-curd jam, soy coffee and chocolate, eggs and bean-curd cheese in a variety of flavours, as well as flour and biscuits. One-hundred-twenty workers were brought in to work here as part of the Work-Study program to transform them from “superstitious and ignorant” individuals, to knowledgeable and moral citizens when they would eventually return to China, at the founding of the Republic of China under Sun Yat-sen.
Li started working on bringing soy to the west in 1905 at the Second International Dairy Congress in Paris. In 1910, he published a treatise in Chinese on the health benefits of soybeans and soy products, for example, its ability to alleviate diabetes and arthritic pain, which was later translated into French. In 1912, at the Society for Acclimatisation’s annual lunch, he brought a variety of soy products for them to try, in line with their tradition of bringing in new foods from not well-known plants. Following this, with his partner Dr. Grandvoinnet, a 150-page pamphlet, which included their series of eight previously published articles, “Le soja: sa culture, ses usages alimentaires, thérapeutiques, agricoles et industriels”. This 150-page document is considered by historians William Shurtleff and Akiko Aoyagi to be “one of the earliest, most important, influential, creative, interesting, and carefully researched books ever written about soybeans and soyfoods. Its bibliography on soy is larger than any published before that time.”

During Li’s time in the factory, he and his engineers invented and patented new machines for producing soy milk and bean curd. The above historians further comment on these patents supported by original ideas, and allowing French-style cheeses to be made from these machines. These new machines also allowed him to create the world’s first soy protein isolate, called Sojalithe, after its milk protein counterpart, Galalith. Li claimed that this protein isolate could be used as a substitute for ivory, which with a modern vision, could be a sustainable alternative to the current sources of ivory: elephants, rhinos, sperm whales, hippopotami, etc.

The water footprint of soy is fairly high, especially when compared to other plant-based alternatives, but the truth is, the water footprint of similar animal products is much higher. (The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products, A.E. Ercin M.M. Aldaya A.Y. Hoekstra (2011)). The water footprint of 1 litre of soy milk compared to 1 litre of cow’s milk is half that of the most water-efficient country, and almost eight times less than the least effective country studied, and 28% of the global average. The efficiency of soy is even higher when comparing the water footprint of 150g soy burgers compared to equivalent 150g beef burgers, with six times smaller water footprint, all the way up to twenty-two times less, for an average of 7% of the water footprint. For the soybeans studied above, non-organic soybeans have a larger water footprint than organic soybeans.

The world has a lot of work to do to reduce dependency on animal products, but efforts to change diets in the west are nothing new. From the very first mention of “toufu” by westerners to the first commercial factory in Europe to the modern-day, where water consumption can be measured, soybeans, among other vegetable products, are shown to be more sustainable water-wise than their non-vegetable alternatives. We must ask the question: why have we not embraced these products further?