Monthly Archives: November 2020

Storm Surges: Here’s What You Need to Know

Posted on by

Flooding in Nicaragua following Hurricane Iota (Carlos Herrera/ Associated Press)

As the Atlantic Hurricane season continues into November with Hurricanes Eta and Iota, we should understand the causes of storm surges which follow tropical cyclones.

What is a storm surge? 

Storm surges are changes in sea level from a storm. These occur when sea water is sucked towards the eye of a cyclone and pushed towards the shoreline. Many factors, such as temperature, wind, and pressure, can affect the intensity of these surges and how hard they hit coastal communities.

There are different parts to a storm surge, and they can impact how much water makes it to land. 

Multiple components drive storm surge events : the storm surge itself, the astronomical tide, and the storm tide.

The adition of astronomical tide and storm surge creates surge tide (NOAA)

Astronomical tides amplify storm surge events, creating a storm tide that is more devastating than the surge itself. Storm surges push a certain direction towards land, but as they approach astronomical tides, which can vary daily, the two water levels merge so the storm tide height can differ depending on the astronomical tide. A storm surge occurring during high tide will have a higher storm tide than a storm surge at low tide.

Larger storms create larger storm surges

When looking at a map of a storm projection, your eyes immediately focus on the size of the storm. It’s safe to say that the bigger a cyclone is the more damage it can cause. This also is true for storm surges. Bigger hurricanes drive bigger storm surges. Water level rises where winds are strongest at the center of the storm. This wind pulls waters in towards the center, creating the potential for a larger storm surge. Larger storms pull in more water, creating a bigger surge. These surges also span longer distances during larger storms.

What causes this is that changes in pressure. During cyclones, atmospheric pressure is higher along the outside of a storm and lower in the middle, pushing the water to the center. This drives a storm surge. Higher intensity storms cause a higher pressure deficit, which is what sucks more water towards the center of the storm to create the storm surge. In short, stronger storms mean higher surges.

The Physical Coastline Impacts How Storm Surges Hit

Storm surge height can vary from place to place depending on its shoreline. The slope of the continental shelf affects the approach of the storm surge. Continental shelves are where the edges of continents dip under water.  Some continental shelves are short with abrupt drop offs while others have longer slopes like ramps. In general, the West Coast has a short continental shelf while the East Coast has a wider, more shallow shelf. 

A visual of how a coastline can impact the approach of a storm surge (NOAA)

A storm surge would hit these two types of coasts differently. Shallow  continental shelves are more vulnerable to storm surge damage because there is little buffer to stop the sea water from coming onto land. This is the case with the Louisiana coast. Steeper shelves don’t have as much water that can make it over the cliff- like break in the shelf Miami Beach, Florida has this type of shelf. The two locations could see different storm surges from the same storm. What could hit Miami as a 8-9 foot surge could approach Louisiana as 20 feet. 

What’s Being Done with this Information?

These complexities make storm surges hard to predict. Hurricane Eta delivered 10-15 feet of storm surge to parts of Nicaragua. In an area that has had the constant threat of storms, the notice was short. Taking these factors into account, institutions, such as the National Weather Service are creating models that simulate real life conditions to better predict storm surges to prepare at risk communities, Like Tampa Bay, for oncoming events. These models that predict surge height coupled with hurricane trackers could be life saving.

  

Less Ground, More Water: Dredging in Estuaries is Causing Higher Storm Surges

Posted on by

A dredging ship digging sediments from the bottom of a channel (NOAA)

Hurricane season is scary for those living in vulnerable areas. They cause property damages, drastic changes to livelihood, and in many cases, loss of loved ones. Hurricane Sandy devastated the communities of Long Island in 2012 causing major flooding and leaving hundreds of thousands without power.  It is one of the most costly storms in US history.

With hurricanes becoming more frequent, this year being one of the worst on record, and storm surges becoming worse with climate change, it seems that the devastation these storms bring is unstoppable. But is that true? Are sea level rise and climate change the  only factors contributing to storm surge intensity?

The natural environments of storm prone areas help reduce the impacts of storm surges. A recent study explored the ways human impacts in these areas worsens the severity of storm surges. Wetlands provide buffer zones for inland damage resulting from natural disasters such as cyclones and their following storm surges; their removal for industry and communities is a common example of human interference amplifying the impacts of natural disasters.

  A recent study from R. Familkhalili and their group of researchers explored the ways human activity impacts the severity of storm surges. The study models surge events to determine how storm surges behave in an estuary, areas where fresh water bodies meet the ocean. 

Maritime transportation is an essential part of coastal economies. To keep ports open to ships dredging water bodies is often necessary. Dredging removes sediments to ensure the safe passage of boats and ships through canals and harbors. Not only does dredging provide work for those directly involved in the process, it also helps open up coastal communities to maritime trade and other opportunities that bring economic stability to these areas. Economic activity based in the Long island Sound is estimated to produce $9.5 billion per year, and this economic activity is heavily dependent on dredging. While dredging is good for boats, it can be devastating for estuaries. 

A photo of coastal storm surge flooding in New Jersey (Scott Anema/ New Jersey National Guard)

More dredging means a greater water depth, and higher storm surge heights. Changes to the depth of estuaries can have an impact on tides, circulation, and transportation patterns. This means that higher storm surges from sea level rise will only be amplified by dredging. 

Familkhalili simulated multiple surge events on estuaries to examine the interaction of dredging and storm surges. The simulations essentially create a model estuary where conditions of  storm surge or estuary can be changed. The results of this study found that more channel deepening, resulted in more frequent and higher waves and deeper waters during surge events.

Different areas of estuaries will be affected differently by storm surges. Storm surges were placed into two categories: those with short time scales and those with long time scales. The scale depends on the heights of the surge waves. Long time scale surges have small waves while short scale surges have high waves. Surges from short time scale storms affect the mouth of the estuary while long time scale surges go farther into the estuary. This means that different parts of an estuary are more vulnerable to flooding from different types of storm surges. 

    The flood risk to estuaries worsens because of human activities such as dredging. We may think that a deeper channel may act as a trap or buffer for surge waters, but this is not the case. The deeper channels that are left from dredging allows for higher storm surges to reach further into estuaries. Sea level rise continues to worsen these issues. 

This study can help save at risk communities. While dredging brings economic opportunities to communities, dredging is not just about shipping, it is about community resilience to powerful storms. The attention brought to the implications of dredging and other activities that deepen bodies of water alert communities and their officials of the problems that they face from storm surges and what is causing those problems.  

Storms that cause surges are becoming more frequent and more intense as the climate is changing. When the areas that soften the blow of these storms are being unnaturally altered, that line of defense goes away. For estuaries like the Long Island Sound, maintaining the integrity of the surrounding ecosystem is key to protecting surrounding communities. As the activities that change those spaces simultaneously make natural disasters more dangerous, we need to become more aware of these effects to be better prepared for its impacts. This study begins to explore these impacts, and looking to the future, as more research investigates this subject, we can better prepare for the impacts of storm surges. 

The tide is high, but can we still hold on?

Posted on by

View of strom surge flooding in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (Paul Morse/The White House)

When Hurricane Zeta made landfall in Louisiana Wednesday this past October, it was the 25th storm for the 2020 Atlantic Hurricane season. 11 of these storms reached the US breaking a 104 year old record. Zeta made landfall as a Category 2 hurricane. While hurricanes fall on a category scale from 1-5, 1 being the least damaging and 5 being the most, Zeta still sustained winds ranging from 96-110 mph, which still has a devastating impact for those in the storm’s path. For coastal communities, a hurricane means strong winds, heavy rains, and flooding, that leads to property damages and even death. Flooding from hurricanes is even more dangerous to communities than winds. 

 What causes floods that put entire communities under water? It’s not just rainfall It turns out storm surges drive coastal flooding from hurricanes. Storm surge is a temporary water level from the interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean which pushes surface waters toward the eye of the storm, and along the path of the storm. As hurricanes, also referred to as cyclones or typhoons, make landfall, they don’t just dump a bunch of rain, they bring seawater too, flooding areas with water levels reaching 20 feet or higher. 

Multiple factors affect the height of storm surges including: whether it is high or low tide, the intensity of the storm, storm size, and physical characteristics of the coastline where the storm makes landfall. In 2005, a 25-28 foot storm surge made Hurricane Katrina one of the deadliest hurricanes in history, Damage from the surge extended miles inland. The storm killed 1200 people and caused $75 billion in damages. 

Storm surges change lives long after the waters have retreated. People face the cost of rebuilding homes and businesses from the ground up in the aftermath of these devastating storms. Families face displacement.Damage to infrastructure can make rebuilding an even bigger challenge. During Hurricane Maria, the storm destroyed infrastructure and supply lines connecting Puerto Rico to the mainland United States, and with a lax relief effort the island is still recovering. 

As climate change intensifies, so will the frequency and severity of hurricanes and the storm surges. Just as storm surges can differ from storm to storm, the impacts of hurricanes and storm surges can differ, both environmentally and socially, throughout the world. In this beat I will look at the impacts and responses to storm surges around the world, which will help prepare for future full storm surges and climate change.            

 

Out of sight, out of mind? Why you should take a closer look at US infrastructure

Posted on by

A nearly failing D+ grade doesn’t bode well in any scenario. Unfortunately, that’s the grade the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave US infrastructure based on its physical condition and needed investments to bring the grade up to a B, or a state of good repair. 

Most Americans don’t remember a time before roads, running water, and electricity, nor think twice about the infrastructure that makes it all possible. That means infrastructure is working as it should, or so you may think. Even though you can’t always see it, infrastructure in the US is becoming increasingly vulnerable due to its severe underfunding and lack of maintenance. A strong and robust infrastructure network is a matter of your health and security, a booming economy, and environmental sustainability. Here’s what you need to know: 

What exactly is infrastructure?

Infrastructure is a catch-all term that encompasses more visible structure like roads, power lines, and water reservoirs. It also includes non-visible structures like broadband Internet access and structures not often considered as infrastructure, like airports, public parks, and even schools. Essentially, it’s anything that is intended for public use. 

Though this broad definition allows everyone to agree on its importance, the consensus is misleading. Presenting infrastructure as a monolith makes it harder for the less visible components to get the funding and attention they need. While infrastructure like roads and rails enjoy nearly unanimous support in its renewal, investing in equally vital yet less visible services like water and wastewater management shouldn’t be neglected. 

What does this have to do with the environment? 

It has everything to do with the environment. Infrastructure is the built environment; it’s all around you, provides you with resources you need for survival, and influences how you interact with the natural environment. 

However, because of its complexity and broad range of services, infrastructure has varying relationships with the environment.

Climate change makes some infrastructure more vulnerable. Likely in our lifetimes, rising sea levels will submerge low-lying coastal areas which will impact transit, energy, and water management amongst other complications. In November 2020, Tropical Storm Eta submerged roads in South Florida beneath nearly a foot and a half of rain. Roads are vital not just for travel but for emergency response. Rising sea levels also threaten nearly every naval and Air Force base on the East Coast, which will need to either be closed, relocated, or protected at great expense.

Aftermath of Tropical Storm Eta in South Florida, via Miami Herald

 

The built environment can also contaminate the natural resource it is supposed to provide. Many of the pipes that bring water to 90% of the population were built nearly a century ago, and are now reaching the end of their life cycles. This not only results in pipe breaks that cost money and water; these outdated pipes also pollute the drinking water with contaminants like lead, posing public health concerns.

This is an issue of environmental racism, as communities of color are more likely to face these infrastructure failures. 

Some infrastructure even exacerbates climate change. While structures like public transportation and renewable energy can help reduce our carbon footprint, infrastructure also includes crude oil pipelines that encourage the use of these fossil fuels. The longer we continue to invest in fossil fuel, the more difficult it will be to combat climate change. 

What’s being done about it?

Frustratingly, not enough.

Today, the federal government only funds 25% of public infrastructure, down from 38% in 1977 when the census first started tracking this data. This puts the burden on state and local governments to find ways to finance projects themselves. These projects are increasingly reliant on public-private partnerships where the government contracts a private firm to build a highway, for example. The private firm can set up toll gates to generate the funds necessary to maintain this structure.

Highway with private tolls, via US Department of Transportation

 

While this is an efficient way to finance projects, profit is prioritized over serving the public. Increased federal spending will help more equitable allocation of funding for projects because they can afford to spend in a deficit.

In terms of legislative activity, the US House of Representatives passed a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan in July. It included funding for roads and bridges, water decontamination, and both public and commercial transit systems. The hope is that not only will these projects create jobs, but also boost the economy in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the bill likely will not see the light of day due to Republican representatives viewing it as too climate-focused and co-opted by the Democrats as a “partisan wishlist.” These tensions exist not just between the two parties, but also the federal and state governments in terms of implementing needed funding and planning of infrastructure. 

What is left to be done?

A lot. Right now the US can take advantage of low interest rates. This makes it favorable for local and state governments to borrow money and to spend on infrastructure projects. Additionally, with millions of people needing employment and the economy in shambles, investing in infrastructure will spur economic growth as well. 

In terms of planning, the very way these systems are being built need to be reconsidered. Infrastructure should serve the public rather than prioritize profit. The onus is also on planners and engineers to prioritize the social and environmental needs of people, not just the technical and financial considerations. 

Ultimately, the burden to be sustainable falls on everyone. Putting infrastructure higher on the to-do list is also going to require increased public awareness and pressure. Don’t you want a say in the structures that govern your everyday life? 

Done effectively, investing in infrastructure will generate social, economic, and environmental benefits. It’s a win-win-win situation, but we have to act now.

Seed Sovereignty Explainer

Posted on by

Since the dawn of time, humans have saved and replanted seeds in order to sustain crops for our global population. However, with new developments in crop technology, this right is in danger. Since the 1900s, approximately 75% of agricultural plant genetic diversity (types of plants) has been lost as farmers worldwide have ditched their diverse, local varieties for genetically altered, uniform, high-yielding varieties. This introduction of genetically modified seeds has resulted in over 90% of crop variety disappearance from farmers’ fields. Increased globalization and pressures from wealthy multinational seed corporations are endangering the human right to a sustainable, nutrient rich future. The Seed Sovereignty movement works to fight this trend and save growers’ rights to freedom in their fields. 

 

What are the origins of the Seed Sovereignty Movement?

In the 1980s, activists Pat Mooney and Cary Fowler popularized the seed sovereignty movement. It centers rights of production and sources of production by signaling a transformation from farmers rights to plant breeders rights. The movement was pushed further in the 1990s and 2000s with the transnational agrarian movement and an emphasis on peasant rights as traditional seed holders.

 

Why does seed sovereignty matter?

Seed sovereignty as a movement is especially important due to the fact that enhanced crop technology has reduced the varieties of available seeds on the market. Adoption of seed production by corporations has caused a large decrease in biodiversity. These decreases are intended to streamline agriculture to make a profit, with companies focusing on few seed strands and few breeds of seeds. Hired scientists took over the role of seed breeding and altered seeds for optimal efficiency, making them widely available in local and global markets, and seemingly more productive than other varieties. This transformation of seed networks to the corporate realm has in turn altered social, traditional, and economic systems by enforcing reliance on a select few, corporate patented strains of seeds. 

Seed Sovereignty restores and saves human heritage in the face of mass seed streamlining. During this unprecedented time in which 94% of the seed varieties listed in the 1903 USDA catalog are no longer available from the most common commercial sources, the Seed Sovereignty movement works against this era of corporate domination and monopolization of seeds.

 

What prompted the movement?

The Seed Sovereignty movement responds to growing corporate interest in ownership of seeds and modifications to seeds. In response to WWII technologies and the Green Revolution (introduction of industrial agriculture), traditional agriculture changed from open-pollination to hybridized seeds as newly developed agri-biotechnology was deployed. In the U.S., this evolution of seed production to GMO seeds prompted the beginnings of the seed activism community. This change in seed production alters the ability for farmers to save seeds, reproduce seeds, breed seeds, and gain access to seeds as traditional networks have been dismantled and corporate contracts prevent seed saving or replanting.

The Seed Sovereignty movement is battling for the right of farmers, peasants, and Indigenous seed owners to produce individually or collectively in support of the democratization of seeds and in support of human heritage through seeds. The right to seeds and seed sovereignty is highly important to secure the autonomy of communities, their rights to culturally appropriate food production, and self reliance.

 

Why Modified Seeds Mean Bad News for Farmers Across the Globe.

These new GM seeds can be formulated to be sterile using  “Terminator Technology,” which prevents re-planting of seeds. Farmers enter exploitative contracts with GM seed producers which prevent them from replanting or hybridizing seeds. These contractual obligations trap farmers into a vicious cycle of dependency on modified seeds from corporations as they must repeatedly buy new seeds to replant and must also buy the required inputs for these GM plants such as pesticides like the notoriously carcinogenic ‘Round – Up’, herbicides, and other plant supplements.

How does the movement fight for Seed Sovereignty?

The cultivation of the Seed Sovereignty movement counters the market based ethos of seed production with one that is based in community production. Rather than domination by the few, Seed Sovereignty works to establish seed-trading networks, exchanges, coalitions, and alliances that encourage local ownership, local variety, sharing of seeds, and biodiversity. The Seed Sovereignty movement promotes the continuous recombination of genetic material, the creation of resilient crops from farmer-developed crop varieties and landraces, and honors the historic creation and recreation of crop diversity from indigenous communities.

In effect, the Seed Sovereignty movement (and seeds as a symbolic extension) are challenging the restructurings of social and natural worlds of seed economies, food systems, and ownership of human heritage by subverting the global neoliberal project that privileges and empowers wealthy, multinational corporate interests.

 

The 411 on Seed Banks

Seed banks are often funded by government, corporate, or university interests for the purposes of developing ‘optimal’ varieties of select seeds. Seed banks work to preserve varieties of seeds and may experiment to create new strains. 

Indigenous activists within the Seed Sovereignty movement are distrustful of these players in the seed world. This is due to Seed Banks’ roots in colonial powers which have historically and continuously harmed indigenous peoples through erasure, genocide, and colonialism. Indigenous activists have serious ethical concerns about seed banks since the fundamental nature of the seed is as a container of life, as a living being with connections and relationships to those past, present, and future. Indigenous actors contend that it is morally indefensible to defy the nature of the seed as a living being by housing it artificially, and separately from connection, in the cold chambers of seed bank labs. 

Industrial agriculture and GM seeds then, could serve as an example of colonial forces’ attempts to claim ownership and mastery over agriculture and plant knowledge to erase Indigenous knowledge. Currently, seed production, storage and economy is unidirectional, individualist, and assumes that nature is property. We must shift our understanding so that we see seeds as reciprocal, collectivist, and based on tradition. 

In an interview with Indigenous People’s Major Group for Sustainable Development, Rowen White, a Mohawk seed keeper and founder of the Indigenous Seed Keepers Network, reiterates the idea that keeping seeds within communities that have historically protected and saved them “honors the grand lineage of ancestors who kept these seeds alive despite adversity and challenges,” and their reciprocal use by later generations demonstrates “a renewed commitment to make sure that younger generations have them for generations to come.”

 

Image Citation:

Wolterink, Maarten. “Customer Loyalty by Monsanto – Bayer.” Cartoon Movement, 30 May 2018, cartoonmovement.com/cartoon/customer-loyalty-monsanto-bayer.

Farmers Are Rich [in produce & cash]!  According to a new study, farmers are raking in profits… or are they?

Posted on by

Published this year in the journal of GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain, a study by researchers Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot analyze the economic effects of genetically modified (GM) crop technology use from sites across the world. Based on data compiled over the last twenty years, the authors conclude that by using GM technology, farmers across the globe have increased crop production and increased their income. 

Though GM crops and technologies are commonplace these days, many struggle to define what exactly a GM crop is. I’ll help you out: genetically modified crop technology is the genetic manipulation of seeds and plants to enhance certain traits, making them grow more efficiently. For example, in Brookes and Barfoot’s research, one strain of GM crops that are measured and analyzed for global production efficiency is herbicide tolerant (HT) crops. These HT crops enable farmers to use herbicides that kill ‘weeds’ (undesired plants that take resources away from the main crop) without harming the crop itself. Barfood and Brookes’ research conclude that these HT crops have reduced costs for farmers and helped them to grow more food using fewer resources by reducing the damage from pests and weeds.

The study takes into account some key variables such as costs of production, gross income, and yields, focusing on soybean, corn, cotton, and canola production globally. The authors of this meta-study claim that farmers have derived significant economic benefits globally since the adaptation of GM biotechnology amounting to $18.9 billion in 2018 alone, and $225.1 billion between 1996 and 2018. Their research discovered that for every dollar invested in GM crop seeds, there resulted in an average gain of $3.24 return in industrialized countries and a $4.41 return in developing countries. These figures all support Brooks and Barfoot’s conclusion that GM crop usage has globally positive economic impacts. 

The problem is that they never explain who is reaping the majority of the profits from the sales of GM seeds. So, how can the researchers conclude farmers are the major recipients of benefits from GM technology without disclosing to whom these profits are going? Interestingly, a closer look at some of the data sourced to inform Barfoot and Brookes’ research reveals a potential source of bias and fallibility, even though the authors do not report any conflicts of interest. Brooks and Barfoot’s research draws on data developed by the global GM icon Monsanto-Beyer in their locations of Monsanto Mexico, Monsanto Australia, and Monsanto Argentina. 

The study fails to distinguish income between small producers and industrial producers where profit margins are the most stark. The study also does not specify what portion of returns are cycled back into the cost of buying new inputs each season. Since GM seeds are manufactured to be sterile (non – reproducing) and require inputs, GM farmers must reinvest their income into the monopoly of GM seeds, ensuring a cycle of dependency on GM seed companies. This cost of replacement seeds and inputs such as pesticides, herbicides, and plant supplements may offset the ‘increased profit’ that Barfoot and Brookes find in their study. Conveniently enough, the additional inputs are also manufactured by the same companies dispensing GM seeds, notably, Monsanto-Bayer.

 

Seed Industry Structure 1996 – 2013. Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and BASF collectively own or partially-own hundreds of formerly-independent seed companies. Chemical company Monsanto holds overwhelming seed monopolies, dominating global seed market shares.

 

Monsanto – Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, and BASF, have dominated the global seed market, monopolizing farmers’ (and consumers) options for produce and have funneled these profits through capitalist schemes – leaving little income for the farmers themselves. Pictured above, Monsanto-Bayer is the largest player in the global seed market, and the company’s profit margins have seen a whopping increase, totaling 141% and growing – a figure that Brookes and Barfoot fail to explore in their research. 

 

Companies owned by Monsanto – Bayer. 

Are Barfoot and Brookes really attempting to lead us to believe this corporate takeover has been beneficial for small producers? These neat, manipulated calculations actually work to divert global attention and opinion about GM seeds in favor of these large corporations, crushing the voices and autonomy of small producers. GM seeds are not to the benefit of global food producers as these seeds have reduced plant diversity, demolished local seed trade networks, encouraged monocropping and use of chemical additives (leading to adverse environmental effects such as chemical run – off, contamination of drinking water), diminished soil quality long term, and reduced local knowledge of foods, farming, and seeds. GM seeds have put many small producers and seed traders out of business by disproportionately reducing crop prices causing inflation in global markets and then buying out smaller producers – resulting in Monsanto – Bayer and other crony capitalists domination of the market, as shown in the above graphics.

Though the authors of this study boast about booming agricultural production, GM crop production has not aided global hunger. The United Nations reported that hunger is on the rise for the third consecutive year and began to slowly increase again in 2015 to now. More, GM seeds are not a sustainable solution for small farmers or communities in need of food security due to the recurrent input costs, lack of climate resilience, damage to local environments, and lack of cultural appropriateness. 

Let’s also address the fact that there is a global excess of produce. This is an issue of distribution, not one of production. Contrary to Brooks and Barfoot’s opinions, a mass increase in crop production is not to the benefit of the world. In fact, overproduction of crops depresses international market prices of crops, creating severe problems for developing countries whose economies are based on agriculture. The majority of countries whose workforce is primarily employed in agriculture are located in developing countries; thus, creating a disproportionate net negative effect on the long-term economic growth and stability of farming economies and jobs.

What Monsanto – Bayer and their crew of GM competitors do not want you to know is that farmers using local and heritage seed varieties can feed hundreds of families off the exact same area of land as GM seeds. Locals using their own seed and techniques enable communities to build sustainable food systems and eventually become food sovereign (in control of their own culturally appropriate food production). Methods of local food production simultaneously support crop variety, biodiversity, climate resilience, historical ownership, resistance to financial flight, nutrition, and many more truly positive outcomes. 

Though Brooks and Barfoot’s rosy economic analyses may be impressive on face value, the real cost of GM crops in our global community is more than just economic. The global adaptation of GM crops has privileged private interests and empowered industrial agriculture while damaging small producers, Indigenous peoples, and cultural heritage in the long run. 

 

Save the Seeds!

Posted on by

Save the Seeds!

Where does our food come from? Some may answer the grocery store, the farmers market, the drive through, or even their backyard. But let’s dig a little deeper… all of our food derives from a basic, seed unit. Seeds have been saved and stored for hundreds of years by farmers, peasants, Indigenous peoples, and garden enthusiasts alike for the purpose of feeding humanity! These little units are arguably one of the most essential aspects of sustaining life as we know it. However, seeds are facing an unprecedented moment in global history, a time where many seeds may become extinct forever!

With increased intensity of the global capitalist economy and advances in crop and seed technology, local seed saving and knowledge of indigenous seeds are in danger of being lost. More, the dangers of loss in biodiversity, and knowledge of regionally native foods and seed families, are all on the chopping block due to seed monopolies and patent lawsuits perpetrated by Big Agribusiness companies such as Monsanto – Bayer. 

Ever since the commercial introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in 1996, Monsanto has aggressively pursued its commercial interests on the market, in the fields and in courts, at home and abroad. The company has filed for patent protection for its genetically modified (GM) plant varieties in various jurisdictions and invented unprecedented systems for the collection of royalties and surveillance of farmers. With its resources and power, Monsanto – Beyer has won every single intellectual property (IP) lawsuit filed in the United States and Canada since 1997. This legal precedent of agribusiness winning intellectual property battles against their growers poses a massive threat (perhaps the largest in global history) to seed sovereignty in both local and international arenas.

Seeds determine how and what we are able to eat. Seeds provide the nourishing foods that support us in our day to day lives. Seeds define our communities and how we relate to one another culturally. Most importantly, seeds define our freedom from dependence on industrial agriculture and modified seeds. In this age of genetic modification and the accompanying intellectual property rights, monopolies pose a threat to each and every one of us. 

The effects of seeds in the wrong hands can displace families, decemate plant diversity, and cause genetic contamination as well as creating a manufactured reliance on industry rather than our own communities. GM seeds and local seeds are incompatible due to ethical differences in viewing seeds as living beings, ancestors of our food systems, and markers of cultural history while the former is a product of lab engineering, ignorance to locality and colonial histories of erasure of Indigenous knowledge – forcing reliance on neocolonial systems. GM seeds emphasize few varieties of ‘profitable’ products rather than that of historically accurate, culturally appropriate, regional varieties that produce more nutritious foods. More, manufactured seeds are less climate resilient than local varieties, produce less compared to local methods of growing, and work to enhance negative environmental outcomes through use of chemical inputs, poor soil management, and imposition of outside actors into foreign soils (quite literally).

Fight the struggle against the restructuring of our social and natural worlds around the narrow logic of the market and join the movement in defence of our freedom and our food systems!

La Via Campesina, Global Campaign For Seeds.

 

Crowdsourcing Quenches America’s Thirst for Better Water Systems

Posted on by

Underfunded and overburdened water infrastructure is a critical problem in the United States. Aging pipes and inadequate regulation lead to decreased water quality and higher costs. Left untreated, these symptoms of a failing water system make people more vulnerable to service disruptions.

One way to mitigate water infrastructure issues is to lower the demand. Centralized water systems became widespread in the early 20th century as a way to  prevent waterborne diseases and improve public health. . Even though this model serves 90% of the US population, its sustainability and effectiveness are challenged due to decreased funding and the challenges of a growing population.

Though fixing a system as daunting as water infrastructure feels impossible, a practical and sustainable water management system is not far beyond our grasp; the solution might even fit in your backyard.

Decentralized water management systems are a way for people to collect, use, and manage their own water supply on their own property or within their community. Benefits include lower cost, more local jobs, and less environmental impact. These systems can also lower the overall demand of central water systems by helping conserve energy and clean water. Using both systems of water management improves resilience to system-wide disruptions like natural disasters.

A 2019 study identifies areas most likely to adopt a decentralized water management approach through crowdsourcing data online. By understanding who is more likely to adopt alternative water management systems, funding and resources can be efficiently implemented, maximizing the benefits of a decentralized approach. 

Surprisingly, one of the best ways to improve the drinking water supply is through new strategies for managing waste water. These decentralized systems don’t have to be technologically complicated or expensive for them to make a positive impact. As this study points out, rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling — where water from sinks and showers inside the home are reused– are viable alternatives to centrally treated water. By having these alternative sources for water that can be used for non-potable uses like irrigation and flushing the toilet, the user is able to meet their water needs while paying less.

Diagram of rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling systems, via Janet Yip Cheng Leong

 

While these systems in the study do not produce potable water, it creates an integrated system where the user benefits from the decreased overall demand of clean treated water from a centralized system and the reliability and cost-efficiency of a decentralized system.

To better understand the public perception and demand for decentralized systems, the researchers surveyed residents of different cities in the US through an online crowdsourcing platform. The survey determined how willing the respondents were to adopt a decentralized water system in their home or community, as well as what factors were the most important.

The study found water scarcity and the respondent’s home property value were main factors in whether a person was willing to adopt a decentralized water system. Additionally, people whose neighbors already had a system were more likely to do so. The researchers further identified areas with the greatest concentration of likely early adopters of these systems. These areas could be of interest in terms of outreach for information campaigns and economic initiatives. This relatively simple and cost-effective survey model could be applied to other metropolitan areas to identify the demand for decentralized systems.

Widespread use of decentralized systems can have large-scale collective benefits, as well. For example, prevalent rainwater harvesting can reduce stormwater runoff and flooding, and greywater recycling reduces the amount of wastewater that needs to be transported and treated at a central facility. 

A rainwater harvesting system, via Christine E. Boyle, PhD

 

Admittedly, collecting rainwater will not have the same effect and replacing old pipes, but it’s a promising start to restructure the US’ relationship to water and its management. It may feel just like a drop in a bucket, but you’ll be surprised at how quickly it will fill up. 

The future of water infrastructure in the US

Posted on by

From the Roman aqueduct to the Brita filter, humans have made leaps and bounds in the ways we consume water.

Today, few Americans even think about their access to clean water, and only pay attention when it fails. The way we get water is no doubt a complex process. Water infrastructure consists of treatment plants, pipes, and storage facilities like reservoirs. Most are managed at the state or local level, and bring water to almost 90% of the US population. 

Water infrastructure lets us have access to this natural resource at the turn of a tap, but this ease can obscure the problems that lie beneath the surface.

Despite its importance, water infrastructure in the US has been severely underfunded over the past half century. In fact, water and wastewater systems require an additional $81 billion investment, a 172% increase from current spending, to get water systems working at the level they should. This lack of funding is not just inconvenient: many of these systems were built in the mid 20th century and are now reaching the end of their lifetimes.

Water system failures are becoming more frequent. Water main breaks, or when old water pipes crack and burst, are increasing in frequency and wasting 15% of all treated water in the US, amounting to $7.6 billion lost every year. 

Aftermath of a water main break, via SUEZ

 

These failures are not just a matter of cost; social and environmental well-being also hinges on the health of water infrastructure. More than 2 million Americans still do not have access to clean running water, and nearly a quarter of the population get their water from untreated or contaminated sources. Additionally, Black, Latinx, Indigenous and low-income communities disproportionately represent affected communities in both urban and rural environments across the country. Racism and systemic injustice in the United States continue to shape access to even the most basic necessities like water.

Protestors in Newark, New Jersey advocating for water rights, photo by Karla Ann Cote via the Real News Network

 

Maintenance of existing systems alone will not be enough to address these inequities. Not only will the general issue of water infrastructure need to be addressed and prioritized in terms of policy, funding, and general awareness; how money and resources are distributed is a key issue to take into consideration to ensure equitable improvements. Access to clean water is a human right. 

Because water infrastructure is reaching the end of its lifetime, there are a lot of opportunities to enact systemic reforms and changes in how it works. Problems surrounding water infrastructure are problems caused by people, but this means that people can fix them, but we have to be proactive. The problems that will come with large-scale failures are an issue of when, not if. In the coming age of water infrastructure renewal, we need to center the needs of the people the infrastructure is supposed to serve, and be both equitable and sustainable for years to come.

How are investors, elected officials, and engineers working to create and maintain equitable infrastructure? How are they held accountable to the communities they serve? How can we increase transparency and visibility in these processes, and engage the public in shaping these structures?

From Roots to Leaves, You Gotta Love Trees: Understanding our true dependence upon trees

Posted on by

Humans have cleared forests for centuries. Deforestation is a key mechanism in the Western model of development, which centers  profit and capital above all else. While the term “deforestation” has drawn the concern of environmentalists in recent decades, many Indigenous people have long suffered from colonial deforestation. For many nations that experienced slavery and cash crop plantations, like Haiti and Puerto Rico, this was a grievous period. But community-led tree nurseries in Puerto Rico have contributed to immense reforestation success! Using Puerto Rico as a reference, I will guide you through questions of deforestation and conclude by addressing the prospects of reforestation.

 

I see trees everywhere…so what is the big fuss about deforestation?

Trees have an important role in our Earth community. Their root systems anchor soil, reducing the threat of soil erosion during storms.

They provide habitat and sources of food for wildlife. Soil-dwellers like worms and burrowing mammals live amongst and feed on the roots. Other insects frequent the trunk and can eat into the bark. Bees, bats, and birds find shelter amongst the canopies. They also produce fruits that people depend on, like mango and guava trees in Puerto Rico.  Imagine how many different species a single tree can support?

Trees must be protected at all life stages to sustain populations. By protecting trees, we protect numerous lifeforms and preserve the vital ecosystem functions of soil retention, oxygen production and carbon uptake.

 

What are the implications of deforestation on human health and well-being?

Trees’ positive impacts on human health extend beyond making the oxygen we breathe and storing carbon. They facilitate soil and water retention, which are instrumental to agricultural success.

Resulting food security unburdens people, enabling them to focus on other aspects of their lives — people can better feed themselves and profit from their crops to afford basic necessities. Farmers can utilize increased earnings to invest in their futures leading to educational advancements and economic growth. 

From their roots to their leaves, trees also have medicinal properties. In Puerto Rico, Rutaceae or “naranja” leaves are used to treat depression and Laminaceae or “menta” leaves are used to remedy sinus and gastric diseases.

 

How does Western “development” and capitalism play into deforestation? 

The Western notion of “development” is profit-seeking, viewing Earth’s resources as marketable goods or removable obstacles rather than key partners in our communities. This mentality has created impressive cities but has greatly driven global warming. Although you may see trees dispersed throughout the city, their numbers are only a fraction of what existed before development — misguided by colonization and industrialization — occurred.

In Puerto Rico, urban area development allowed rural nature to flourish, but if unchecked, those urban landscapes will continue to expand as people seek more space and property. Indigenous cultures have long held connections to and respect for Earth Beings such as mountains and rivers, as well as plants and animals. With global Westernization and industrialization, more people prioritize capitalistic gain over the well-being of the natural world.

But a reason many resource-rich countries have not sustainably achieved “ideal development” (ie. better quality of life, access to clean water, and higher education rates) is that international forces have always sought control. Outside forces exploit other countries’ natural resources, detracting funds from internal ideal development, to control their resources. Within 10 years after the U.S. acquired Puerto Rico, they vamped up sugar production and forced Puerto Ricans into slavery-like conditions. American companies established their plantations in a dry region of the island, but sugar production requires a lot of water. They built dams that redirected water runoff from the mountains, but left behind erosion buildup that has been costly to mitigate.

 

How can we measure deforestation and reforestation over time?

In Puerto Rico, community members and reforestation organizations like Para la Naturaleza utilize nurseries before planting trees. Others track deforestation and reforestation by counting the number of trees present per acre and comparing totals across different years. 

ArcGIS is a geographic information system (GIS) used for mapping. Scientists upload data measurements to make publicly available GIS maps. By comparing maps over time, you can identify trends such as changing forest cover patterns.

Map of forest cover changes from 1980’s-2014 of Puerto Rico (Source: Yuan, 2017)

 

Is reforestation a plausible and successful solution?

Reforestation is imperative to the future of forests. In some nations like Haiti, local community members lead the reforestation movement with NGO support. Tree nurseries are the key. By closely tending to young trees, participants and leaders can ensure the seedling grows, then plant them over time. This sustainable process of community planting has proven successful.

Puerto Rico was once abundant with trees. It was a fully forested tropical forest with over 500 native tree species. By 1940, only 6% of forests remained after plantation agriculture. Between 1950 and 1990, migration to urban areas sparked agricultural abandonment. Over a 30-40 year period, “alien species” that could inhabit post-agricultural conditions — no longer suitable to native species — thrived.  By creating ideal conditions like shade from direct sunlight, alien species facilitated the re-establishment of native species. This led to the largest forest recovery event anywhere in the world. 

In the case of Puerto Rico, urbanization led to a natural course of reforestation. But, urbanization has its own downfalls. Therefore intentional and dedicated community tree planting provides hope that if we reduce global deforestation rates and shift to sustainable development, we can restore vital forests.