The Sun's GigaFact check is nominally true, woefully short on context. HB25-1044: Local Funding for Vulnerable Road User Protection. Fixing the backflow preventer "oopsie"
The Colorado Sun's GigaFact check is nominally true, woefully short on context.
Does feeding cows seaweed cut the methane emissions from their .. ahem .. tailpipes? The intrepid fact-checkers at GigaFact and the Colorado Sun deem this one true. See their rundown in the first link below.
In the grand tradition of "fact checks", however, there is a good deal left out here, with only minor hints at the complex reality behind this question. This becomes painfully clear to anyone who takes the time to read the resources they used to arrive at their verdict of "True".
There are two problems I see here. The first being the laughably precise numbers the Sun puts to the amount of greenhouse gas that Ag is responsible for. The second is the inadequate amount of detail hinted at in the Sun's pitiful caveat that (quoting their fact check), "...further testing is necessary to make sure it’s [feeding cattle seaweed] safe and effective."
The Sun uses the state's (see screenshot 1 attached for the quote from the fact check), Greenhouse Gas Inventory as a source to arrive at the figure that Ag contributes 10.4% to the state's total greenhouse gas emissions.
This inventory, the subject of a previous newsletter linked second below, is faulty. As I go into at length in the previous newsletter, the state's inventory authors themselves admit to not only having errors in the ESTIMATES they provided, but not really having a sense of the size of the errors, no "boundedness".
Knowing that, revisit the Sun's number of 10.4%, and ask yourself whether or not it seems reasonable to quote a number to the nearest tenth of a percent when the errors are unbounded and unknown. How much stock do you put in that number, and/or how much stock do you put in that level of precision?
To my mind it brings into question whether or not the fact checker here did more than simply paw through the state's report to put a statistic in her blurb so it would look more official.
Turn now to the claim that seaweed reduce cattle methane emissions. The Sun bolsters this claim in part by the reference linked third below. It's a National Library of Medicine paper on the (quoting the title) "Potential of Seaweeds to Mitigate Production of Greenhouse Gases during Production of Ruminant Proteins".
I would say that, and it doesn't take much reading into the study to come to this conclusion, "further testing to make sure it's safe and effective" is quite an understatement.
I have never raised cattle, but one of the things I have learned in touring feedlots, talking with producers, and in looking over some of the assignments my students in cattle feed and rangeland management classes do, that feeding cattle is complicated. This is a field that has more depth than it would seem to at first blush.
Even if you knew nothing about it, however, you could merely read the abstract of the paper and see glimpses.
I attached a screencap of the abstract as screenshot 2 with some highlighting to show you what I mean.
Does seaweed reduce methane emissions? The results are (quoting the abstract) "... seaweed specific and animal species‐dependent."
Perhaps as importantly, and left completely out of the Sun's fact check, does this any consequences for the cattle or their production? The lack of information is in the abstract, but not the Sun.
Lastly, let's zoom out a little to discuss something completely left out of the Sun's consideration (but, again, hinted at in the article). Is it a reduction in emissions overall to grow, harvest, process, and transport the seaweed from the ocean to where the cows are? If the seaweed add +10 units of emissions and we trim -5 units from the cows, have we reduced anything?
Here the problem with fact checks shows itself, particularly with GigaFact checks in the Sun which are severely limited in depth. Our world is complicated. It's not simple.
A claim being "true" or not is hardly something you can do in 147 words except for the simplest and most banal of topics. An attempt to do otherwise is disingenuous.
https://coloradosun.com/2025/01/24/did-a-study-find-that-feeding-cows-seaweed-can-cut-methane-emissions/
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/are-we-falling-behind-on-our-greenhouse?r=15ij6n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10190624/
HB25-1044: Local Funding for Vulnerable Road User Protection
HB25-1044 (linked first below) is one of those bills that easily flies under the radar for some. I could see why. If you don't, as the vast (VAST) majority of Coloradans don't, ride a bike to work, issues about bikes and etc. are not top of mind.
They ought to be, however, because those that do are vocal. I can tell you from personal experience, though won't bore with details, they are vocal with a capital V.
And I bet you my lunch they'll be out in force for this bill, a bill that could end up costing you yet more money, money you'll pay every time you register your vehicle.
The details of what this bill does are pretty simple. It lets your local government (if they choose to, it doesn't mandate it) add fees to your vehicle registration which would then fund protections for "vulnerable road users".
Check out the dressier summary from the bill's fiscal note attached as screenshot 1.
This effort is the continuation of last year's failed effort (see the second link below) which would have created a state-wide enterprise to do this work and charge us all yet more fees. Nothing like the die hard spirit that says if you can't get the whole state to do it, you make it a local bill so that the locals can do it.
If you live in a place like Ft. Collins, Denver, Boulder, etc., I would recommend speaking up. These are the kinds of governments that would love to increase your vehicle registration to pay for things like bollards on bike lanes. And these are the kinds of bills that will draw plenty of passionate advocates speaking in favor.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1044
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-036
Related:
I shared a Substack in the past about preference laundering in gun studies.
The below came to my inbox yesterday. Takes on the topic in the context of bicycle advocacy.
Worth a read!
Fixing the backflow preventer "oopsie"
Due to some maneuvering by plumbers' unions and a bit of an oopsie by the legislature (see the first link below for context), the state passed a law in 2024 that mandated that only licensed plumbers could inspect vacuum breakers, instead of the much cheaper to pay techs that were enabled to do this work prior to the change.
It was promised last year that this mistake would be remedied, and that right quick.
This seems to be a promise that the government intends to keep. The second link below is to a Colorado Politics article that details how a bill to patch this up is being fast-tracked.
More in the article.