The Lincoln Squirrel – News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

conservation

Corrections and more information on Farrington/Panetta proposal

The May 22 article headlined “June 25 Special Town Meeting agenda grows” misstated the proposed future ownership of the Farrington/Panetta land as well as the number of signatures required to bring a citizens’ petition (100 for a Special Town Meeting, vs. the 10 signatures need for a regular Annual Town Meeting). The article has been updated with information below from Rural Land Foundation Executive Director Geoff McGean.

The RLF is trying to arrange for Farrington Memorial, which owns 75 acres of land on the south side of Route 2, to get $3.1 million from a combination of the town’s Community Preservation Act fund, the City of Cambridge, and private donations. Farrington will retain ownership, but 65 of those acres will then have a permanent conservation restriction and trail easement held by the town. The remaining 10 acres where the Farrington Nature Linc buildings are now located will have a deed restriction that will significantly limit their future expansion.

In addition, some of the Farrington land (mostly wetlands) will be deeded by Farrington to the City of Cambridge for watershed protection purposes. That land will also have a permanent conservation restriction held by the town.

In a separate deal, developer Civico will pay $3.1 million in a single transaction for three lots that currently have houses. Two parcels (2.8 acres and 3.2 acres) are now owned by the Frank J. Panetta Trust and a third 14.1-acre lot is owned by the Paul Panetta Trust. The company will then build 20 starter homes, which will be sold to future buyers individually. The town is not involved in the financial negotiations for this transaction, and no town money will be used for land acquisition or housing construction.

After the housing is built, no major changes or additions to the Civico land can be made without the agreement of all the homeowners as well as Town Meeting, because the town is approving this specific development under the North Lincoln Overlay District. See this RLF public outreach slide deck for more details as well as maps and drawings.

My Turn: Planning for climate-friendly aviation

By Christopher Eliot

In a previous Lincoln Squirrel article, I explained why “sustainable” aviation fuel (SAF) is unlikely to make aviation climate-friendly, barring one or more significant technological breakthroughs.

If SAF will not make aviation climate friendly, what should be done? Unfortunately, this is a very hard question to answer. I do not have an ideal solution any more than the aviation industry, but I believe my truthful admission is better than industry propaganda. It requires a lot of energy to fight the law of gravity. Currently, aircraft use the energy reservoir of millions of years of fossil fuel. It is unclear what renewable energy sources can practically be used to support aviation. It is more unclear if we can produce enough renewable energy for basic electrical needs and aviation too.

Expanding aviation is clearly wrong: we don’t want to make a hard problem bigger. We need to constrain the growth of aviation, starting with private jets which are the worst part of the problem as explained by Alex Chatfield on February 23 (“My Turn: Proposed private-jet Hanscom expansion is a climate bomb in sheep’s clothing“).

Existing aircraft can be made somewhat more efficient, thus reducing their environmental impact. Unfortunately, crowded seating, while loathsome for passengers, does reduce the fuel consumption per passenger mile. Scheduling that reduces empty seats is beneficial to the airlines and to the environment. Flying directly to a destination under 3,000 miles away is almost always more environmentally friendly than flights with layovers. Further efficiencies are possible but will only produce some percentage of improvement, easily outweighed by increases in travel.

Spending a trillion dollars to support production of SAF does not seem like a good use of resources or a path to a solution. Spending a trillion dollars on high-speed rail is much more likely to succeed and have a much better impact on climate considerations.

The single most impactful proposal is the development of blended wing aircraft. Fundamentally altering the shape of an airplane to generate much more lift will significantly reduce fuel consumption, and climate impact. JetZero claims the design can reduce emissions by up to 50%. However, more independent estimates predict more conservative benefits of 20-30%. Furthermore, the development of a new aircraft with associated production, servicing, and operational infrastructure is exceedingly challenging from a technical perspective, and maintaining the investment interest for the long development period is excruciatingly hard. The safety issues associated with a new design are immense. One or two fatal crashes could easily end production of an otherwise promising technology.

Jet contrails, while short-lived, turn out to have a massive effect on global warming and may account for 50% of the climate impact of aviation. Modifying flight paths to avoid the conditions where contrails form could substantially reduce this effect, although this has not been proven.

Electric aircraft are being tested and may soon become operational but it is not certain this technology will prove to be economically feasible. Several promising companies including Eviation and Lilium that have attempted to develop electric aircraft have recently failed. The industry wants to focus on electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVtol) instead of the simpler electric conventional takeoff and landing (eCtol) form of electric aircraft. From an environmental perspective, eVtol is probably bad and eCtol is probably good. All forms of electric aviation are technically difficult and have an uncertain future.

EVtol would create a whole new aviation industry providing a fast way to commute from cities to suburbs. Vertical takeoff and landing requires a prodigious expenditure of energy, likely limiting range to 25-50 miles. It is likely that eVtol will be a form of luxury travel unavailable to most people. It will probably be an expensive replacement for bus and automobile service to those who have the means. It will place a further drain on limited green energy sources, create new sources of overhead noise and confusion while reducing the environmental impact of nothing.

ECtol, on the other hand, could replace a certain number of short range flights (200-300 miles), including trips to The Cape and Islands. While this is a limited benefit, it is certainly better for the environment than using private jets to fly those same routes. Approximately half of all air travel is under 593 miles. More than 90% of high-traffic scheduled flights are less than 1,500 nautical miles. Current battery technology cannot produce electric aircraft that address a large percentage of the aviation problem. Increasing battery efficiency by at least a factor of three might allow electric aircraft to replace almost half of the current passenger miles. Electric aircraft do not have to cross oceans to dramatically reduce the climate impact of aviation.

My best plan for aviation requires (hopefully) addressing 10-30% of the problem with electric aircraft, 20-50% through the development of blended wing aircraft, 10-30% by reduction in contrails, 20-30% of the problem with high-speed rail, 10-20% of the problem with SAF, 10% from incremental optimization of engines, and remaining reductions due to remote meetings, more local vacationing, and some reductions in the use of air travel. The technological improvements are all uncertain; reduction in air travel is the only proven way to reduce aviation’s impact on the climate. However, while uncertain, the various engineering proposals (other than SAF) could greatly reduce the climate problem of aviation. Moving slowly toward this goal will be better for the aviation industry than following the false promise of SAF and being forced to drastically scale back operations when the scale of the climate crisis becomes inescapable.

What can you do?

The most direct action is to reduce your air travel slightly, maybe by 10%. Perhaps you can combine two trips into one (longer) trip or convert an in-person meeting to an online meeting. You can support groups opposed to private jet expansion and write to your government representatives.

Eliot, a Lincoln resident, is the former chair of the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Survey is part of town vulnerability and resilience project

Residents are invited to take a survey to help the town team better understand the impact and vulnerabilities that community members may experience.

The survey, which is open until April 30, asks about community priorities such as food and water, housing, transportation, and ecosystems. It asks respondents to choose among several possible measures including a communications platform, an intratown shuttle service, or projects involving food insecurity or local agriculture. Survey participants can enter a drawing for drawing to win a gift card to one of Lincoln’s businesses.

The survey is part of the MVP (Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness) 2.0 pilot program. MVP is a state-funded grant program that helps Massachusetts communities adapt to the changing climate and implement projects that build community resilience. MVP 2.0 aims to build on the work done during MVP 1.0 by convening a community team to do equitable climate resilience work and get coaching on strategies for building resilience, equity, and climate justice.

In 2023, Lincoln (along with 32 other communities) was selected for MVP 1.0, which resulted in an initial community resilience study and led to a $100,000 grant that enabled the town to create its Climate Action Plan. The new $95,000 will culminate in a seed project that will advance the town’s climate resilience priorities.  

The latest work is being done by a core team of four town staff members and volunteers Karen Boyce, Tom Flint, and Mary Stechschulte.

My Turn: A swimmable Charles River? Yes we can!

By Emily Norton

Forty years after the cleanup of the Charles River began, we still cannot safely swim in its waters.

The only swimming that takes place in the Charles’ lower basin — the area between Watertown and Boston Harbor — is via special permit, and those events are frequently cancelled due to poor water quality. But now we have an opportunity to change that.

In October 2024, the U.S. EPA released a draft permit requiring commercial properties with an acre or more of “impervious surfaces” — surfaces such as pavement and roofs that cannot absorb water — to better control the stormwater pollution coming from their land. This is a big deal, because stormwater is the main source of pollution that’s degrading water quality in the Charles, as well as in the Mystic and the Neponset Rivers.

When it rains, water passes down roofs and across parking lots, sidewalks and streets, collecting organic material, pathogens and other pollutants in its path. All that untreated water then goes into storm drains and is dumped directly into our rivers. This polluted stormwater runoff fuels toxic algal blooms, feeds invasive plants (which crowd out native species) and degrades habitat, harming the river and making it less safe for recreation.

As climate change brings more intense rainstorms, we are only seeing the volume of polluted water in our rivers increasing. That’s where this new draft permit comes in.

Currently, a disproportionate amount of stormwater pollution comes from land owned by large commercial businesses, industrial sites, and universities. EPA’s proposal would require these private property owners to rein in their dirty water runoff, either by reducing the total amount of the impervious surface on their land that the rain passes across, or by implementing different types of eco-friendly infrastructure such as green roofs, underground holding tanks, or vegetated ditches called bioswales. These new requirements have the added benefit of reducing inland flooding, as more green infrastructure and less pavement means stormwater will be stored in tanks or infiltrated into the ground rather than flowing into storm drains.

This will also benefit Lincoln taxpayers, as municipalities are required to reduce stormwater pollution within their borders, placing the financial burden entirely on residents. This new permit will force those who are contributing most significantly to the problem to pay their fair share to address it.

These requirements are not yet set in stone, and public support is needed to get them across the finish line. EPA is accepting written comments on this new regulatory approach through March 17. If you care about achieving a swimmable Charles, and a safe healthy environment, your voice matters. Tell the EPA and the incoming administration that we need a clean Charles River now. More information on submitting written comments can be found at crwa.org/advocacy-center.

In the early 20th century, public beaches lined the Charles in Boston and Cambridge. Let’s re-commit to reopening Magazine Beach, Havey Beach, Charlesbank Beach, and Gerry’s Landing Beach, so that on a hot summer day we can all cool off with a jump into the refreshing, clean water of the Charles River.

Emily Norton is the executive director of the Charles River Watershed Association.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

My Turn: “Climate Minute” on Upfront Carbon Emissions

(Editor’s note: Click here to read previous Climate Minutes from CFREE. The article below will illustrations can be found here.)
 
By Collette Sizer for CFREE
 
Upfront carbon emissions account for a staggering 13% of global CO2 emissions and require urgent action to address them. But most people know very little about them. What are they?
 
Upfront (often called “embodied”) carbon emissions are those caused by making, transporting, and installing materials in a product, like steel and plastic in a car or concrete and glass in a house. Upfront carbon emissions happen just once, when a material is created and incorporated in a product.
 
Upfront carbon emissions — greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) — are emitted for every object we buy. Those emissions are enormous for cars and houses (in the U.S., 10-20 tons of CO2 for the average car and 30-40 tons for the average house) and contribute strongly to the climate crisis. (10 tons is equivalent to burning five tons of coal.) But mostly we aren’t aware that they are being released.
 
We’re all familiar with operating emissions — greenhouse gases created when we burn fossil fuels to run our car or house. Operating emissions are released throughout the life of the car or house. We’re already working to reduce operating emissions from our homes by improving insulation and switching from gas or oil heat to heat pumps. And more and more of us are buying electric vehicles (EVs) or plug-in hybrids. These are great steps. We all must work to reduce operating emissions from every aspect of our life to help slow the rate of global warming.  But we must also reduce or prevent upfront emissions as much as possible, from now on.
 
Why? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has defined a carbon budget for the planet — a fixed amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that we can emit before 2050 and still stay within 1.5 or 2° C. of warming. If we emit more than the budgeted amount, the risk of catastrophic warming, which may not be reversible, greatly increases. So, we need to go all out towards reducing both operating and upfront carbon emissions, for the benefit of ourselves, our children and grandchildren.
 
How can I reduce upfront emissions?
 
To reduce or prevent upfront emissions, we should select as many of the following options as are applicable to a purchase we’re considering:

  1. Skip the purchase if it isn’t necessary! It has been said that the house/car with the lowest upfront emissions is the one that isn’t built/made. That applies to any purchase we’re considering, from a T-shirt to a townhouse, since everything we buy has upfront emissions associated with it.
  2. Purchase a used car or an existing house. (he upfront emissions are already out there!
  3. If building or renovating a house:
    • Select materials carefully, opting for those with low global warming impact but also high durability. There are enormous differences in this area between materials that perform the same function. Here’s a visual that illustrates some of the key materials in a home that need to be evaluated. Work with your architect on this, as contractors will likely not be educated in this area yet.
    • Choose used materials when possible. (e.g., doors from a used building supply store, polyisocyanurate rigid insulation from demolished commercial buildings – half the price of new)
  1. Decrease the quantity of materials involved by buying a smaller car or house.
  2. Buy durable products. Frequent replacement means higher long-term upfront emissions.

And, of course, as we weigh choices through the lens of upfront emissions, we also have to consider operating emissions. We have to work hard at reducing both! This is illustrated very clearly when buying a car. The Green Energy Consumers Alliance has these recommendations regarding the purchase of a car:

  • Ask “Do I really need to buy this car?” f you can avoid it, do so.
  • If you conclude that you do need to buy a car, get an EV or plug-in hybrid if at all possible. Lifetime emissions, including both upfront and operating, will be far lower than those of a gas-powered car. Charging issues and cost do sometimes make it difficult to own an EV, but long-distance charging is getting a lot easier for owners of non-Tesla EVs as more brands gain access to the extensive Tesla supercharger network. Most brands should have access this year. In addition, other charging networks are growing fast.
  • Get the smallest car that will work for you. This will minimize both upfront and operating emissions.

In addition:

  • If you absolutely must buy a gas-powered car, hybrids will have the lowest operating emissions. Buy the car used, if at all possible, to avoid new upfront carbon emissions. Same for an EV. There is a growing market for used EVs/plug-in hybrids.
  • Consider an e-bike as a second vehicle. Overall emissions are a fraction of those for a car.

Although they are not yet widely known, upfront carbon emissions are a real threat. We can make a difference to our world by considering their impact, along with that of operating emissions, in every purchase we make.
 
CFREE (Carbon Free Residential – Everything Electric) is a subcommittee of the Lincoln Green Energy Committee (GEC). CFREE provides guidance on how households can reduce use of fossil fuels and decrease greenhouse gas emissions to help Massachusetts meet statewide emissions limits set for 2030, 2040, and 2050. It also provides information about state and federal incentives that help reduce the cost of such changes. For more information, visit lincolngreenenergy.org.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Tree preservation group presents some early results

Lincoln certainly has a lot of trees, but what condition are they in? Should there be more rules about which ones can be cut down or preserved? The new Tree Preservation Study Group, which is gathering information to help answer these questions, presented some of its initial findings at the January 14 meeting of the Planning Board and an updated version of their State of the Town handout.

The group (which is not an official town board or committee) reported on the results of their recent survey about the town’s trees as well as tree regulations in other towns, findings from the Charles River Watershed Association, and information about diseases currently affecting some species of trees in Lincoln and elsewhere. Based on their ongoing research, they may or may not propose specific regulations for Lincoln.

Group chair Susan Hall Mygatt noted that other towns including Concord, Weston and Lexington have tree bylaws or management plans (see page 9 of this PDF, which also includes detailed results of the survey).

Lincoln does in fact have some rules around trees. According to the Conservation Commission’s Hazard Tree Removal Policy, property owners must get permission from the commission before work including tree or brush removal, lawn expansion, ground disturbance, and construction if the project lies in or within 100 feet of wetland resource areas (defined as wetlands, streams, ponds, and 100-year flood zones) as  well as riverfront areas (land within 200 feet of a year-round stream).

Threats to trees from both people and nature

The issue of trees was highlighted recently when a number of mature trees were cut down along roadsides in several locations. A number of old or ailing trees were removed by Eversource because they were seen as a potential threat to power lines in a project that was announced last spring. Those trees were identified in a list from the Department of Public Works, though some were spared after residents asked for specific exceptions during public hearings.

Lincoln Tree Warden Ken Bassett noted that “it’s our call” on which trees are taken down and Eversource is required to demonstrate to the Public Utilities Commission that it’s making efforts to protect services to customers, but the company will “absolutely honor any objection” (though the objector and the town then assume the risk of losing power if the tree in question does in fact fall on a power line, he said.

National Grid was planning to dig a trench alongside part of Codman Road for a gas line repair but was persuaded not to, because it would have fatally damaged the roots of a large tree. Another potential threat to roadside trees is installation of new water mains. Many of them are in need of replacement, work on a segment under Lincoln Road is scheduled to begin this spring.

A bigger issue facing Lincoln’s trees is not road work but natural pests that are killing off trees in Lincoln’s forested areas, particularly the emerald ash borer, “which has clearly made a dramatic impact now in most eastern Massachusetts towns, said Conservation Director Michele Grzenda. Many of the ailing roadside trees targeted by Eversource are ash trees, and the species is listed as “critically endangered” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Another threat is beech leaf disease, which is caused by an invasive nematode. The large beech on Route 117 in Weston next to Dairy Joy fell victim to this disease a year or two ago and had to be cut down.

Town hopes to become a Climate Leader Community

Now that Lincoln has approved a Climate Action Plan, the next step seen by the Green Energy Committee is for the town to become a state-certified Climate Leader Community (CLC), 

The Select Board decided earlier this month to formally apply for technical assistance from the Mass. Department of Energy Resources by November 29 to help prepare an application for the CLC designation that’s due by next summer.

If Lincoln becomes a CLC, it will be eligible for grants to help implement its Climate Action Plan that the town approved in 2023. The CLC program expands on the Green Communities program (of which Lincoln is already a part) by encouraging movement not only towards energy efficiency, but also greenhouse gas reduction.

There are six eligibility requirements for CLCs, three of which Lincoln has already met: having a Green Energy Committee, being already designated as a Green Community, and adopting an opt-in specialized energy code. Before next summer, the town must also:

  • Commit to ending onsite use of fossil fuels by 2050
  • Adopt a Zero Emissions First policy
  • Create a Municipal Decarbonization Roadmap

The consultant will help town officials and the Green Energy Committee (GEC) to draft the Municipal Decarbonization Roadmap, which identifies specific “green” projects in town that would be eligible for future grant applications. A Zero Emissions First policy affects procurement future decisions when purchasing town vehicles for first responders and the DPW. 

This last requirement might be the toughest for Lincoln. “We’re getting pushback from departments on eclectic vehicles,” such as issues with back-ordered police cars and concerns about whether EVs would have enough power for things like snow plowing, Town Administrator Tim Higgins said at the board’s November 4 meeting. 

This will make us take a hard look at all that stuff,” Select Board member Jim Hutchinson said. “It’s really a question of how hard we can push.”

The GEC is also hoping the town will hire a professional climate coordinator or sustainability manager to oversee and coordinate Lincoln’s various sustainability efforts. However, several other departments are also seeking additional staff.

“I think we would be hard-pressed to make room for this position in the fiscal year 2026 budget, but I could see prioritizing it in the coming years,” Higgins said.

My Turn: U.S. is falling behind in the renewable energy race

By Emma Loren

By the year 2050, it is estimated that 90% of the world’s energy can and should be supplied by renewables. Countries like Iceland are above this curve, as almost 100% of their energy comes from geothermal energy, a renewable source. With countries like Iceland, China, and Norway in the lead, it’s hard not to notice that the United States continues to lag. While the U.S. has made noticeable strides in renewable energy, it is falling behind in the transition compared to other major global economies.

Currently, the United States gets only 20.3% of its energy from renewable sources, which is behind the global average of 30%, despite having the resources and potential to be a leader. Meanwhile, China firmly establishes itself as a dominant force in the renewable energy sector, particularly in solar panel manufacturing. In an impressive show of growth, China increased its renewable energy generation capacity by 301 gigawatts (GW) in 2023, which includes solar, wind, and hydro. This increase followed a addition of approximately 168 GW in 2022, a 79% increase from 2021. Notably, this accounted for about 59% of the total global additions to renewable capacity in 2023. In comparison, the United States added just 33.8 GW of new clean energy projects in 2023, allowing for a 12.5% increase from the previous year.

This map (click to enlarge), created with data from the World Bank, shows how countries around the globe are progressing in renewable energy consumption. As the urgency of climate change intensifies, this map serves as a reminder of where we stand and how far we still have to go.

The United States’ slow transition to clean energy sources can be blamed on policy inconsistencies, infrastructure, and historic dependence on fossil fuels. Unlike countries such as Germany and Denmark that have established long-term energy policies, the U.S. lacks a bipartisan unified approach, resulting in stagnant progress. Political shifts in leadership often lead to changes in energy dynamics, causing uncertainty for renewable energy implementation and gaining the interest of investors.

Infrastructure challenges further hamper progress. The U.S. power grid, much of which was built in the mid-20th century, is not designed to handle the variability of renewable sources like wind and solar. Unlike fossil fuel plants that produce a steady flow of electricity, renewables generate power intermittently; solar panels only work when the sun is shining, and wind turbines need a wind in order to spin. This inconsistency requires a more flexible, modernized grid that balances supply and demand in real time. However, the challenge of modernizing the grid is complex due to America’s historic support for the fossil fuel industry.

The continued support for the fossil fuel industry is one of the main reasons why the U.S. is lagging in the global clean energy transition. Many benefits given to fossil fuel companies were established over a century ago and continue to give them an unfair advantage today. Despite evidence of the urgency to shift to renewables, U.S. policies still lean to favor oil and coal through subsidies and loopholes that ultimately give then an advantage. For example, the Percentage Depletion Allowance lets oil and gas companies reduce their taxes by deducting a set percentage of their income — often more than what they spend. Other industries lost this tax break long ago, but fossil fuel companies continue to see benefits. Additionally, another benefit known as Intangible Drilling Costs, allows these companies to deduct most of their drilling expenses, thus gaining more profits. These oil, gas, and coal companies can even lease federal lands for extraction at bargain rates.

These incentives make it harder for renewables to compete on a level playing field. In 2020 alone, the U.S. provided $649 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, according to the International Monetary Fund. If we want to tackle climate change seriously, we need to stop these subsidies and give renewables a fair chance to grow. The U.S. has made progress in renewables, and wind energy alone has increased, contributing to nearly 10% of the nation’s electricity generation, which is projected to reach 20% by 2030. The Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law highlighted some positive progress regarding climate investments. But with a change in administration, these two pieces of legislation can go away. Therefore, to catch up in the global clean energy race, we need lasting investments and a complete redesign of the outdated power grid.

Lincoln resident Emma Loren is earning a master’s degree at Georgetown University studying environment and international affairs, focusing on energy policy and science.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

School composting program brings together kids and volunteers

This spring, the Lincoln School launched a school-wide food composting program. The Lincoln School Foundation sponsored the pilot program, working with second-grade teacher Nicole McDonagh, Principal Sarah Collmer, and many others to create a greener future for the school and the town.

Diana Smith, Belinda Gingrich, and Emily Haslett were among the volunteers who helped launch the Lincoln School composting program.

Over a period of four weeks, volunteers in a total of 72 slots (two adults per lunch hour) went to work. After participating in an informational session and reviewing an instructional slide deck, they guided students as they dumped organic matter, trays, and other items into either compost or trash. Unopened, non-refrigerated food items that meet the official guidelines for food sharing are donated to the local food pantry. Students and staff move the compost binds to a holding location, where Black Earth Composting picks them up weekly.

The school will receive some composted soil that will be used in raised beds that the Lincoln Garden Club is funding. The club’s Diana Rice-Sheahan will be responsible for planting and maintaining the beds for two years, after which Lincoln Common Ground and other volunteer groups will continue.

Daniel Ravanales and Gordon Allen stand proudly with the schools compost containers.

The composting program also has the benefit of showing what students are consuming, which can inform menu choices and help minimize food waste and spending. Studies have shown that American school cafeterias waste more food (especially fruits and vegetables) than those in other developed countries.

One of the volunteers who helped with the program’s rollout was Select Board Chair Kim Bodnar. “The lessons it shares with students around environmental sustainability and waste reduction are important, and it’s something that brings the Lincoln School community together with the broader community.”

In addition to the LSF, Garden Club, and Select Board, members of the School Committee, PTO core team, METCO Coordinating Committee, First Parish Church, Friends of Modern Architecture, Friends of Lincoln Public Library, the Council on Aging & Human Services pitched in to make the composting program possible.