Monthly Archives: November 2020

Somebody Call Pest Control: The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Invasive Species in the Northeast

Posted on by

While breeding imported French moths one day in the 1860s, a young zoologist accidentally let a few escape in the bustling city of Boston, Massachusetts. Little did he know, those insects whose products were originally intended to solve a silk shortage would have disastrous effects on agriculture and the economy in New England into the 21st century. Today, we call those escapees “Gypsy Moths”. 

Adult spotted lanternfly (2019) Credit: Mark Nakahara

Invasive species, particularly pests like the gypsy moth, have wreaked havoc on the American Northeast for hundreds of years. One of the latest invasive species is the spotted lanternfly. The spotted lanternfly, which was first sighted in Pennsylvania in 2014, is native to China, Bangladesh, and Vietnam. It has now taken up residence on the east coast from Virginia to Connecticut. Spotted lanternflies will, unfortunately, impact hundreds of thousands of jobs for those in the grape, apple, hops, and hardwood industries because of their ability to quickly decimate these crops. How is it that after all of the experience we’ve gained and the technological advancements we’ve made in the United States, invasive species can still bring American agriculture to its knees?

 

Technology has actually exacerbated the problem. When invasive species find themselves on new shores, they lack the natural predators of their homeland, allowing them to multiply and spread without interference. Technology is at the core of this introduction and spread. Advances in transportation have made a streamlined process to move people and goods, but unwanted species have also found it all too easy to hitch a ride. 

Growth in global travel and trade over the past century has worsened the impact of invasive species. With economic losses estimated at $137 billion per year by the USDA, it is clearly a significant issue. Farmers take the largest hit in these losses; invasive species cause them to lose significant portions of their harvest yields and drive up spending on pest prevention. 

While improved methods of communication allow us to quickly identify and locate invasive species, methods for the control and regulation of these species are still being developed. Policies like quarantine zones that limit the transportation of certain resources outside of the infested area are helpful but are not as effective as more controversial solutions, such as predator species introductions. Introducing predator species requires an abundance of testing to ensure that it’s population doesn’t spread too quickly or endanger unexpected prey. In the past, predator species have included animals, pests, and fungi. Scientists have also been working to make other existing solutions more environmentally friendly. For example, they have been working to improve the effectiveness of pesticides to reduce the number of chemicals being used and limit the chances of those pesticides showing up in drinking water.

My beat will explain the ins and outs of the science behind invasive species and the impact that they’ve had on the environment, economy, and health of the Northeast.

Can honey bees tell us about the conservation of wild bees? According to a recent study, not quite.

Posted on by

     Bee populations have been declining in recent years. Not only have honey bee colonies declined around the world; wild bees are disappearing, too. A global survey from 2017 indicates that over half (749) of extant bee species are at serious risk of extinction due to human activity. These wild bees are incredibly diverse, from the near-microscopic, shiny sweat bee, to lovingly clumsy, fuzzy bumblebees. They serve distinct roles in their ecosystem and represent a fantastic, beautiful family of animals.

     Compared to wild species, understanding honey bee threats comes with an advantage. Honey bees are managed by beekeepers so their hives can be counted and colony health monitored. Honey bees are easy to come by for experimental or commercial purposes. Most bees we see buzzing around us are indeed honey bees! 

     Wild bees, on the other hand, are not closely monitored or kept by humans. We can’t raise them in large groups or harvest their products to consume or sell. Most live solitary lives, and cannot be traced back to large nests. This makes it difficult for scientists to measure wild bee species diversity and numbers of individuals within a habitat.. However, this information is important because wild bees are essential pollinators, and their conservation is crucial to the functioning of ecosystems, as well as pollinating our food, worldwide.

     Since wild bees are so difficult to monitor, can honey bees provide proxy data for wild bee survival? T.J. Wood, a scientist in Belgium, and his team sought to answer this question by comparing managed and wild bee data across Europe. Honey bees and wild bees are influenced by similar factors, so, therefore, they might yield similar results. Both honey and wild bees will forage (collect nectar and pollen from various sources) from the same plants. Because of this, lack of available flowers or pesticide contamination may affect both types of bees. Other factors, such as weather, would potentially have an impact on all bees, as well. 

     When I worked in my first bee lab, I aided a Ph.D. candidate in measuring wild bee populations in a large botanical garden. The process is painstaking. I had to quickly find bees, perched on flowers often several feet away. Then, I crept up to them and quickly captured them in a small vial. Many attempts were unsuccessful and could’ve led to stings (although I was spared!). Lugging dozens of bees in my pockets, I’d return to the lab. There I killed and pinned them in order to properly identify them. This methodology is laborious and doesn’t give a 100% accurate picture of the local populations. Imagine if wild bee scientists, and the sacrificed bees, were spared this process!

A gorgeous brown-belted bumble bee I caught while surveying native bee populations.

     Wood and his fellow researchers approached their question by comparing existing datasets on wild bees and managed honey bees across Europe. The biggest challenge was a severe lack of data for most wild bees. For example, the genus Apis, honey bees, is the least threatened bee genus, but the leading genus in data collected. Data on the most threatened genera is sparse. This paradox makes it difficult to understand the relationship between wild and managed bee populations.

     There is another reason why researchers determined that honey bees can’t simply be a surrogate for monitoring their wild counterparts. Even though many factors influence both, some wild bee species are very different from honey bees. 

     Some wild bees specialize in pollinating a very small range of plants, meaning that is their only source of food. If those plants decrease in availability, honey bees can find others to forage from. However, wild specialists are left in the dust. For example, 28 species of mason and carpenter bees strictly visit flowers in the Aster family, such as daisies. They cannot survive if Asters disappear from their habitat. We depend on specialists as well. Vanilla, native to the island of Madagascar, is now mostly grown and harvested in South America, lacking Madagascar’s orchid bees. These bees are the only ones capable of pollinating the vanilla orchid. Therefore, in South America, humans must hand pollinate each blossom with a toothpick. That’s why vanilla is so expensive! 

     Honey bees also have an upper hand because they are managed, receiving extra protection from threats such as pathogens and parasites. Beekeepers can intervene to help affected honey bee colonies, while wild bees have no human helpers.

     While Wood’s research doesn’t offer shortcuts for monitoring wild bee populations, it provides insightful direction for the future of wild bee conservation. Research and surveys should focus on the most vulnerable genera that lack robust information. After all, shouldn’t science be trying to answer our unanswered questions?. 

     In the future, the grueling work of monitoring tiny wild bees could pay off, and that data may support an efficient monitoring system, helping us better understand the vital roles these insects play in ecosystems.

Why do the bees need saving, and what can you do about it?

Posted on by

     “Save the bees!” has become a popular phrase, seen on cute t-shirts, tote bags, and Instagram posts. Most people are taught to fear bees for their painful stings, but the attitudes of many have begun to shift. Bees provide countless services and benefits to us and the world’s ecosystems, and people are catching on. Honey bees’ capacity to convert tiny drops of nectar from thousands of flowers into pounds of honey is especially remarkable. One in three bites of food we take every single day can be traced back to the pollination services of native bees and honey bees. Beekeepers and researchers of these animals have known these wonders for millennia, and the bees they love continued to prosper until quite recently. 

     A mysterious occurrence, known to scientists as colony collapse disorder, is decimating bee populations. This rapid decline began recently when entire hives were dying. Several native bee species, too, are now near impossible to find. Research is ongoing, and the causes are complicated. What we do know is that human behavior is responsible. Pesticides, such as neonicotinoids have become so potent and effective against target agricultural insect pests, that they easily kill bees, too. The urbanization of once natural spaces, and damaging farming practices have eliminated so many flowering plants, that some bee populations struggle to find adequate food sources around them.

Signs such as this help protect apiaries from nearby farmers who apply pesticides. Photo credit: FieldWatch® apiary registry

 

    Invasive species, a by-product of human activity, also constantly threaten the survival of honey bee colonies. You may have heard of the infamous “murder hornets”. These giant hornets originating from east Asia have been introduced to the United States. The threat they pose to honey bees is serious, as just a few hornets can kill tens of thousands of bees in a couple of hours. These are just the latest of species whose introduction to foreign ecosystems is very dangerous! 

Three Giant Asian Hornets at the entrance of a honey bee colony, prepared for attack. Photo credit: Satoshi Kuribayashi/Minden Pictures

Bees face enormous challenges that are too easy to overlook amid the struggles of 2020. However, there are immense consequences at stake and things people can do about it, besides buying that cute T-shirt. Throughout this term, I will explore some of the biggest threats to bees, and explain the actions and changes anyone can make to protect our precious pollinators.

“Bee hotels”, such as this, provide nesting habitat for many wild bee species. They are easy to make and place outside. Photo credit: tektur (Shutterstock)

Our Colorful Closets at a Cost

Posted on by

If you’re anything like me, your closet is full of bright colors and whimsy patterns. Or maybe you’re drawn to the classics, you can never go wrong with blacks and whites. But these colorful textiles come at a price. Bright yellows and reds are often produced by synthetic “azo” dyes,  nitrogen based synthetic compounds frequently used in food, pharmaceutical, leather, and of course, textiles. However, many of these dyes are carcinogenic and dangerous to the environment. 

How dangerous can a little color be? More than you might think. For years, the textile industry has been using azo dyes and pouring toxic waste into our oceans and lakes, contributing to 20% of the world’s industrial water pollution. 

How exactly are azo dyes harmful to our health?

Workers in a dyeing factory in the Bangaldesh capital Dhaka in February 2016.

Workers in dyeing factory. (source: CNN)

 

Everyday, we are exposed to azo dyes, whether it be through our colorful closets or the food we eat. Although azo dyes are inexpensive and create bright colors, these dyes can also trigger skin allergies, sores, gastrointestinal issues, and increase risks of cancer. These health hazards are not new discoveries. As early as 1895, studies showed that workers in dye manufacturing had higher rates of bladder cancer. More recently, a study in Brazil found azo dye pollution as a cause of cancer in a river serving as a common drinking source for around 60,000 people.

So how are Starbursts, and other colorful foods, safe to eat? They might not be. The FDA claims that the amount of azo in our foods and clothes are so low they don’t pose a threat to our health. On the other hand, the EU has banned many of these dyes due to their carcinogenic properties and have begun coloring their candies with natural pigments, such as carotene. 

To best understand how our seemingly innocuous wardrobe is the culprit of so many health and environmental issues, we will start at garment dyeing plants to understand how our clothes and colors are produced. 

What happens in dyeing mills?

A man works in a fabric dye factory in Hangzhou in east China's Zhejiang province in January 2020.

Fabric dye factory in Hangzhou, China. (source: CNN)

 

Although most fashion consumption occurs in Western countries, like the US, most dyeing mills are located in developing countries, specifically in far-east Asia. Things haven’t always been this way. 

Since realizing the adverse effects of dye pollution, companies have relocated manufacturing from the US to developing countries with lax law enforcement and cheap labor. In Bangladesh, dye wastewater is dumped directly into nearby lakes, exposing these communities to health hazards and degrading the environment. 

The dyeing and finishing process is also especially water intensive.  Water is used in each step: preparation, dyeing, finishing, and rinse.

Preparation 

The fabric is first prepared by removing any impurities through a wash and additions of hydrogen peroxide, enzymes, or brightening agents.

Dye

There is no one-size fits all when it comes to the type of dye used for different textiles. However, the process often includes using synthetic ingredients, usually azo dyes. Popularized in the 1880s, azo dyes are vibrant dyes that color half of textiles globally because they are cheap and bright. However, azo dyes can be carcinogenic and endocrine disruptors, meaning they can result in cancer, birth defects, and other developmental disorders” These dyes also do not decompose and can accumulate in the bodies of water they are dumped in.

Finishing

During the finishing process, garments are chemically treated to improve fabric quality, undergoing treatments like permanent press, microbial/fungus protection, and softening. During this process, the fabrics are heated and steamed to retain this chemical application, and are rinsed thoroughly.

How are azo dyes harmful to the environment?

A man walks through colored rainwater past a dyeing factory in Shyampur in June 2018. Its waste is dumped into the Buriganga river in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Man walks through dye-polluted rainwater in Shyampur, Bangladesh. (Source: CNN)

 

Once the dye process is finished, the hundreds of gallons of water used to rinse the garments are usually dumped into a nearby stream, despite being loaded with all the toxic chemicals during the process. The untreated discharge contributes to 80% of the total emissions produced by the textile industry. 

The World Bank has identified 72 toxic chemicals expelled in waterways as hazardous to public health. The rivers that run through Dhaka, Bangladesh are now a “pitch black color” and elicit toxic smells due to the pollution from nearby mills. .These chemicals build up in skin and increase risk to cancer and other ailments. In many developing countries, the same river water is used for crop irrigation and contaminates produce, further exposing people to these chemicals. Moreover, the mill workers often inhale, ingest, and are exposed to harsh chemicals, as there is inadequate protective clothing.

This discharge negatively affects lake ecosystem biodiversity and soil health because it increases temperature and pH levels. Dark dyes clock sunlight, inhibiting photosynthesis, and leading to a decrease in oxygen which affects all life in these lakes. The toxicity of the sludge is extremely harmful to aquatic animals, causing growth reduction, neurosensory damage, metabolic stress, and even death in fish.

What efforts are being taken to mitigate these harms?

In regards to the health and environmental hazards of azo dyes, many countries, such as those in the EU, have banned these carcinogenic substances. However, many dye manufacturing plants, commissioned by multinational retailers, are located in developing countries, like Bangladesh, where azo dyes are still permitted. This allows companies to use these cheap dyes and save on production costs, while compromising the health and environment of these communities.

Different organizations and manufacturers have begun to look at alternatives to dye processing and treatment, including using organic, plant-based dyes and materials that can benefit health and the environment. However, these are more time-intensive, expensive, and require even more water usage. The EPA also launched a coalition called “The Sustainable Apparel Coalition” that aims to investigate sustainable strategies for the garment industry in over 35 countries. Governments have also implemented stricter disposal regulations and are setting up water treatment plans. Despite new technologies and alternative dyes, there still needs a systematic change in the industry that focuses on less water consumption and pollution, while maintaining public and environmental health. 

While we wait for any increment of top-down change, we as consumers can leverage our dollar by investing in companies who have socially and environmentally conscious practices. 

The Hidden Life of Clothes: an Introduction to the Fashion Industry Crisis

Posted on by

Clothing piled in a landfill. (Source: Textile Mountain Film)

 

With growing environmental concern and minimal action on a national level, the American consumer has taken to their own habits to fight against climate change, whether it be reducing their one-use plastic waste or taking three minute showers. However, perhaps one of the biggest culprits of pollution and climate change is right under our noses: our clothes! With clothing ads swarming the web, consumers are constantly being tempted with cheap price tags. Buying a new pair of jeans and donating last season’s shorts doesn’t usually elicit concern about its environmental impact or disposal route. As a $2.5 trillion global industry, the fashion industry is dependent on wasteful consumerism, especially in Western countries. 

What does the life of a typical garment look like? Your favorite top probably doesn’t have a very happy beginning. Most garments are made from cotton grown in India, China, Brazil, US, and Pakistan, but at the hands of unfairly treated workers. Cotton has been nicknamed the world’s dirtiest crop not only because of how resource-intensive and pollutive the growing process is, but also the industry’s notorious labor malpractices. W0rkers in cotton manufacturing face adverse and illegal working conditions, including forced labor and child labor. More, these workers are exposed to excessive amounts of toxic pesticides. 

Cotton uses more pesticides than any crop in the world, accounting for $2.6 billion worth of pesticides per year globally. These toxic chemicals contaminate nearby bodies of water and often, groundwater resources. Cotton cultivation is also extremely water demanding; it takes 1800 gallons of water to produce one pair of jeans! Loss of biodiversity due to monocropping and soil degradation are also inherent issues tied to this industry. 

Don’t forget about those beautiful patterns on your favorite fall sweater! Textiles undergo a dyeing process that is  water-intensive and pollutes nearby water bodies. The fashion industry is responsible for one fifth of the world’s industrial water pollution. Companies manufacture in counties with weak regulations to exploit the environment and their workers. For example, Bangladesh, the world’s second largest garment manufacturer, has rivers polluted with carcinogenic chemicals from synthetic dye, compromising the health of its communities and altering river composition (even its color!). 

Environment pollution by textile waste water

Textile wastewater pollution in Bangladesh. (Source: Probal Rashid)

 

Garment workers, who transform these colorful textiles into clothes, face unfair wages and working conditions, abroad and domestically. For example, in Bangladesh, the second largest apparel manufacturer, garment workers make around $30 a month, and are forced to work 14 to 16 hours a day in dangerous environments. In the US, the Garment District in Los Angeles has also recently been investigated for labor malpractice and unsafe working conditions. 

So what happens to clothes that are not bought by retailers, like H&M? Unbought clothes are usually sold to other companies (i.e. TJ Maxx), thrift stores, or recycling companies (i.e. TransAmerica). In some cases, companies will burn excess garments, releasing toxins into the air. Storing and properly disposing unused inventory  costs US retailers $50 billion a year. 

We often assume our donated clothes end up in nearby communities in need. However, only around 10% of donated clothes are actually sold by thrift and consignment stores. The rest is sold to textile recycling firms, who recycle clothing into industrial rags or other textile byproducts. Only 20% of the textiles are recycled while the rest are shipped to sub-Saharan Africa or other developing countries. The US alone exports more than a billion pounds of used clothing each year. It turns out, around 80% of all textiles end up in landfills, where it can take up to 200 years to decompose, all the while emitting methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas.

Ghana: 'Protectionist ban on imported used clothing - US threatens East Africa with AGOA expulsion'

Unwanted clothes are bundled into tight packages to be sent overseas. (Source: China Brands)

 

The influx of Western secondhand clothing in African countries has greatly impacted these country’s economies, creating a further economic and social dependency on the West. Local textile manufacturers are unable to compete with the large quantities and cheap prices of Western secondhand clothing. This has led to the collapse of domestic garment industries, resulting in job loss and decreased domestic economic revenue.  This job loss was so significant that in 2016, many East African countries considered banning second-hand apparel in their markets. 

In Mozambique, they call these clothes “roupa da calamidade”, clothes of calamity and in Nigeria, “kafa ulaya,” clothes of the dead white ones. 

The dependency on these clothing imports, and a lack of domestic garment production, creates a displacement of traditional clothing and a shift towards Westernized fashion. The erasure of culture, invaded by unwanted clothing of the West and Far East, depicts the neo-colonialism hidden in our capitalist economy. 

The way our fashion and garment industry currently operates allows us to indulge in large amounts of cheap clothing, but only by exploiting our environment and other people. 

 

How Buying Grandma Sweaters is Environmental Activism

Posted on by

 

 

Racks of secondhand clothes. (Source: Berkeley Economic Review)

Grandma sweaters, knit vests, and dad shirts are in. People are flocking to their nearest donation thrift shop to find unique vintage and retro pieces. We no longer want cookie-cutter, mass produced clothing—different is the new black. In the past decade, sustainable clothing has increasingly garnered consumer interest, as the exploitative nature of the fashion industry becomes more widely understood. 

Everyone is an active participant and consumer in the apparel industry, connecting us to the rising issues of clothing production and disposal. Recently, many concerned consumers have begun turning to secondhand shops for clothing acquisition and disposal in efforts to give clothing a second-life, reducing textile waste that ends up in landfills. Despite the stigmas of shopping secondhand, young consumers have turned to their nearest Goodwill to help the environment, and because “retro” clothes are in style! Young consumers are also keen on donating clothes, as a morally conscious alternative to throwing their clothes out.

To better understand how these consumer trends relate to environmental awareness, researchers Arminda Maria Finisterra do Paço, Walter Leal Filho, and Lucas Veiga Avila studied consumers’ clothing disposal behaviors and motivations, as well as perceptions around buying secondhand clothing.

The study surveyed 203 people from 34 countries with various levels of industrialization and environmental awareness. These cross-cultural findings allowed for a better representation of global clothing consumption behaviors, especially because they included countries where clothing manufacturing is prominent (i.e. Bangladesh). 

First, the study confirmed that consumers prefer to donate clothes rather than reuse or sell them. People either gave their old clothes to family and friends or donated them. All but three participants also showed they recycle in general for the environment and to help others.

Participants also showed they act from goodwill when donating to Goodwill. The top two reasons why participants said they disposed of clothing were “recycling efforts will bring a good impact to the environment” and “to help others”. While participants claimed they disposed of clothing for selfless and altruistic reasons, this might not always be the case. The following three reasons were more personal and less about humanitarianism: “Inadequate size,” “uselessness,” and “shortage of space.”

This study partially confirmed that consumers do not consider environmental factors when making clothing choices (buying/disposal). Purchasing apparel made from environmentally-friendly material was one of the highest factors considered. However, buying clothes from environmental labels was one of the lowest factors, which may seem contradictory, but can be justified with the lack of well-known, easily accessible (and affordable) environmental brands. 

Overall, this research offers much needed hope. The apparel industry as it exists now is unsustainable and poses threats to human and environmental health. In an environmentally friendly world, clothing would be recycled and repurposed. However, this rarely happens, and clothes are too quickly sent to landfill. The current commodity chain is focused on quick and cheap mass production and low retail prices. Although low prices may seem appealing, the inbuilt obsolescence in garments overlooks the environmental impacts of high volume waste.

The solution? Follow the motto we know best– reuse, reduce, and recycle. By reusing and recycling textiles, the apparel industry can shift to  a closed loop production. This can help decrease textiles sent to the landfill, energy and water, pollution, and dye usage. By voting with our dollar and loving our clothes a little longer, consumers can incentivize corporations to revamp their harmful practices.

 

Ecosystem Restoration Can Help Address Climate and Biodiversity Issues

Posted on by

Do you know how far restoring old farmland could go toward solving the global climate challenge? According to a study published in Nature last month, restoring 15% of converted lands in key priority areas could store enough carbon equal to 30% of the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

Ecosystem restoration is gaining recognition as an option to address climate change and biodiversity loss. Ecosystems serve as carbon sinks, drawing in and reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide driving climate change. They can also provide habitats for a wide variety of species. However, the degradation of landscapes, usually for agricultural or development purposes, weakens the provision of these services. Making use of what nature naturally provides by restoring degraded ecosystems can be a cost-effective way to help us address environmental problems. The only issue? Scientists and government officials aren’t sure which ecosystems would provide the most bang for buck as far as restoration goes.

The new study published a month ago identifies key areas for ecological restoration and confirms the immense potential of nature to address climate change and biodiversity loss. The study recommends restoration efforts that would save 60% of species from extinction due to climate change.

According to the researchers from Pontifícia Universidade Católica in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, wetlands and tropical forests are priority areas for restoration. These biomes are home to many carbon stocks capable of storing the atmospheric carbon dioxide driving climate change. They also have rich levels of biodiversity.

What sets this study apart from previous nature-based climate solutions studies is its broad survey approach of different biomes rather than only one biome. The study identifies restoration opportunities for five landscapes: forests, wetlands, grasslands, shrublands, and arid areas. Ecosystems that have been transformed through human actions such as agriculture are the main focus of the study, as their degradation reduces their ability to store carbon and provide habitat.

Fig. 1: Global priorities for restoration according to the combined criteria of biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and minimization of financial costs. Dark red signifies converted lands of highest priority for restoration (top 5%) while blue signifies converted lands of lowest priority (85–100%).

 

Researchers compared the effects of restoration efforts on different biomes by examining changes in projected species extinctions and the amount of greenhouse gases captured and stored.

An algorithm was used to identify optimal areas for restoration across 1,200 global scenarios. The algorithm applied three main criteria: biodiversity conservation, mitigation of climate change, and cost.

The research suggested that protecting 30% of the priority ecosystems of wetlands and tropical forests, in conjunction with protecting ecosystems still in their natural, undisturbed form, would reduce carbon emissions equivalent to 49% of all the carbon that has built up in our atmosphere over the last 200 years.

The benefits are cost-effective. Researchers argue that strategically prioritizing wetlands and tropical forests for restoration can be 13 times more cost-effective than the current ecosystem restoration approach, which lacks a unified global strategy.

Researchers warn that to completely tackle climate change, restoration efforts alone, such as rewetting wetlands drained for agriculture, will not be enough. These efforts would need to be accompanied by strong reductions in fossil fuel emission, which is still the highest priority for limiting global warming. In an interview with InsideClimate News, Robin Chazdon, co-author of the research paper, stresses the need for transformative, societal changes. “The study is just a map, a motivator. To really make any of this happen, we need political, economic, and cultural change.”

Effects from reducing CO2 through the restoration of ecosystems are not necessarily permanent. If ecosystems are destroyed, the carbon will be released back into the atmosphere. If ecological restoration is pursued, mechanisms have to be put in place to ensure that they are protected.

The study confirms that ecosystem restoration can play a major role in addressing climate change and biodiversity issues – and the best part is, we can do it at a low cost. We’ll still need to reduce our fossil fuel emissions. But, restoring ecosystems is a step towards saving our world from climate change.

What the heck does NbS stand for?

Posted on by

Our planet is facing a dual climate and biodiversity crisis. Around one million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, and a billion people are exposed to sea-level rise. Much of this is driven by how we use land. From planting trees to restoring degraded wetlands, nature-based solutions (NbS) are growing in popularity as their social, environmental, and economic benefits are recognized. This piece explains the significance of NbS and how they can help address climate change and biodiversity issues.

What are Nature-based solutions (NbS)?

Nature-based solutions (NbS) is a catch-all term for actions that leverage nature to help us address global issues such as climate change and biodiversity loss.

Climate change is driven by the accumulation of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Human activities such as industrial manufacturing and transportation increase the concentration of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

Many NbS focus on protecting landscapes that take in and store greenhouse gases to reduce the risk of climate change, such as forest and salt marshes.

 What are the societal benefits associated with NbS?

Aside from preventing climate change, NbS can also help buffer the impacts of natural disasters on communities. For example, wetlands can protect coastal communities during storms by absorbing precipitation and reducing runoff. By protecting these landscapes, communities can protect themselves against floods without needing to create flood infrastructure.

Some cities have integrated nature into their plans. The Chinese city of Shenzhen struggles with heavy downpours during the monsoon season and water scarcity during drought. By outfitting buildings with a green roof, rain gardens, and permeable pavement, the solutions captured up to 70 percent of surface runoff.

Restoring mangroves can provide coastal communities with a form of flood protection.

Restoring mangroves can provide coastal communities with a form of flood protection.

NbS can also help address biodiversity loss through forest restoration. The Amazon is home to over 3 million species. Restoring degraded areas would provide much-needed habitats to threatened species.

This all sounds good, but what are the barriers and trade-offs?

NbS face many barriers to implementation.

Because there’s no unified global strategy for this approach, countries and local municipalities implement NbS as they wish. This provides interested parties with flexibility. However, if these projects are implemented as uncoordinated small-scale pilots, their potential is limited, so lots of planning support is needed. For example, NbS projects such as creating green parks to promote clean air and reduce rain runoff often need lots of land. In crowded urban environments, NbS projects may compete with housing for space.

There also needs to be careful monitoring and evaluation efforts to promote the success of these projects globally. NbS projects, if not carefully planned, can harm nature and people. Because these projects can be land-intensive, conflicts may arise when there are different land-use interests at play. A tree-planting climate mitigation project could clash with agricultural or grazing land if careful analysis is not done beforehand.

NbS are also not necessarily permanent. NbS often involve protecting or restoring ecosystems, but progress can be reversed by fire or pests. For NbS aimed at climate mitigation to work, the ecosystem involved must be maintained.

What needs to be done?

We need a more standardized approach to implementing and evaluating NbS interventions. An agreed-upon framework providing guidance on designing NbS projects would maximize the potential of NbS.

Part of implementing NbS at greater levels involves writing it into international legislation. Making sure that policymakers include NbS as a policy tool within climate change agreements and development goals would mainstream it into more projects. Citizens can lobby for NbS to be implemented in community public investment projects, especially on a local level.

Funding for projects from the private sector would help. Policymakers can create policies and laws incentivizing companies to incorporate NbS into their corporate social responsibility work to help mobilize private finance.

NbS are becoming more prevalent as tools that can help us address the world’s most pressing issues. Let’s build on this momentum by leveraging nature’s power before it’s too late.

Natural Solutions to Human-Driven Problems

Posted on by

In Vietnam, a coastal community struggling with flooding implemented a mangrove restoration project. The project saved $215 million in flood damages. What if a strategy such as this could be deployed more broadly to tackle some of the world’s biggest challenges, like climate change? Nature-based solutions (NbS) involve protecting, restoring, and sustainably managing landscapes to help us address society’s challenges.

NbS typically involve carbon sinks, or reservoirs that draw down and store carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases driving climate change. Forests are the world’s most well-known carbon sinks. Less recognized are peatlands, a type of wetland consisting of organic matter such as soil, leaves, and branches. Here is a surprise: despite only making up 3% of global land area (28% less than forests) peatlands can store twice as much carbon as the world’s forests! Protecting forests and peatlands is vital to addressing climate change. Losing these ecosystems, typically through agricultural or industrial development, hampers the Earth’s ability to store carbon and emits greenhouse gases in the process.

Peatlands are carbon-rich ecosystems with massive carbon storage potential. Photo courtesy of Wetlands International.

NbS not only reduce the risk of climate change but can protect communities against its negative impacts. Climate change makes natural disasters more likely to happen, but ecosystems can serve as first-line protection. Wetlands moderate storm and flooding damages, saving homes and fishing grounds in coastal communities. Protecting ecosystems and making use of what exists in nature is a cost-effective method for guarding communities against climate impacts.

In the United States, natural wetlands prevented losses of $625 million during Hurricane Sandy. Photo courtesy of Bridget Besaw.

Despite the evidence in favor of NbS, implementation is slow. Of the 167 countries that submitted their country climate pledges under the 2016 Paris Agreement, less than half integrated nature-based solutions into their plans.

Part of the reason for the slow uptake is because NbS alone will not completely solve the climate crisis. There needs to be massive action to reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and trees and peatlands can only take in so much. To meet the goals set by the 2016 Paris Agreement, we need to shift our energy and transportation systems away from carbon-intensive activities, such as coal burning.

But this doesn’t mean that NbS should be disregarded. Climate change is an existential threat, but nature has immense restorative power. It presents cost-effective climate tools we can use towards addressing the climate crisis. We need to let ecosystems take center stage. I will explore how NbS can help solve climate change, from the benefits and challenges that come with them to how we can better integrate them into our society.

Colony Collapse Disorder: The Mysterious Plague of Honey Bees

Posted on by

A honey bee queen surrounded by helping workers. Photo Credit: Pixaby Photo

In the winter of 2006-2007, beekeepers across the U.S. reported losses of 30-90 percent of their hives. The phenomenon was named colony collapse disorder (CCD). It’s defined by honey bee colonies missing adult workers, where only a struggling queen and a few juvenile workers remain. Recently, researchers found new ways to protect vulnerable colonies. The average annual loss rate of honey bee colonies has dropped to 39%. The rate is still bad, and CCD still threatens honey bees. This article will explain why honey bee colonies are so vulnerable to CCD.

 

The inner workings of a honey bee colony

     The western honey bee (scientific name Apis mellifera) is a famous and fascinating animal. They are known for their ability to produce honey and other valuable products such as beeswax, propolis, and royal jelly. Honey bees are eusocial, meaning they depend on a large familial lifestyle. 

     Some honey bees are wild, found in the cavities of trees, or anywhere else they can build their homes. However, in the U.S., where honey bees are non-native, most are kept by beekeepers. Beekeepers’ hives provide a sheltered cavity where bees can build comb, store food, and live while making inspection and honey collection easy for their caretakers. 

     A colony consists of one queen, tens of thousands of female worker bees, and a couple of hundred male drones. The queen bee is the only egg-layer of her colony and can live up to five years. Workers, making up the majority of their colony, perform dozens of important tasks to maintain living conditions. Some of these tasks include foraging for nectar and pollen, caring for young, and defending the nest. 

     Without the presence of workers, honey bees wouldn’t be able to survive and pass down their genes. The queen bee, unable to perform any other tasks, besides egg-laying, depends on her daughters. Because of this, colony collapse disorder is fatal to the remaining queen bee and her babies, because no one remains to care for, feed, or protect them.

 

Culprit #1:  Toxic Pesticides

     A new class of pesticides, called neonicotinoids, was developed in the mid-1990s. It’s now widely used in agriculture because it’s effective, easy to apply, and non-toxic to most wildlife.  Unfortunately, neonicotinoids decimate pollinator populations, including bees. These pesticides, unlike many others, accumulate in the pollen and nectar of plants that honey bees depend upon. Neonicotinoids lead to lower cognitive ability in adult bees, and lower survival among brood. The popularity and accumulation of these pesticides in soil and organic matter coincided with the 2006 observance of CCD.

 

Culprit #2:  Pathogens

     Honey bee hives provide a tempting environment and food resource for pests and pathogens. Beehives are warm, perfect for incubating bacteria and viruses. Their honey, as well as the larvae growing in the comb, are a nutrient-rich food source that must be constantly protected. Over time, more and more pathogens and pests have been identified that pose risks to honey bees. Currently, and during the rise of CCD, one of the most prominent and dangerous pests is a small mite known as Varroa. 

     Varroa parasites attach to the bodies of both adult and larval honey bees and suck their bodily fluids. Varroa can impair the function and survival of parasitized individuals, as well as spread diseases such as Deformed Wing Virus. The mites reproduce in brood comb, where immature bees grow. These invasive creatures have become so deadly for honey bees that even the most “natural” beekeepers are forced to intervene. Colonies must be regularly measured for infection rates, and chemical treatments must be applied to kill the mites. 

This honey bee has been parasitized by Varroa. Photo credit: Alex Wild

Culprit #3:  Loss of Forage

     As the human population expands, natural spaces have been converted to residential or agricultural land over time. Other factors, such as increased biofuel production, have contributed to the loss of flowering plants across the country. If honey bees cannot find enough nectar from the plants growing around them, they cannot produce enough honey to sustain the colony over the winter. Loss of foraging resources is classified as a cause of CCD.

 

Culprit #4:  Modern Management Stress

     In addition to your friendly backyard beekeeper’s hives, commercial apiaries have been a growing industry in the U.S. Commercial apiaries are bee yards containing hundreds of hives or more. This industry supplies the ever-increasing demand for honey and provides pollination services to farmers. Did you know that California’s almond industry depends on the rental of honey bees that supplement the lack of available, local, almond pollinators? Unfortunately, commercial beekeeping is hard on honey bees. Commercial beekeepers tend to harvest as much honey as possible from hives and feed their bees in the winter with artificial replacements, such as high-fructose corn syrup. This takes away the medicinal benefits the bees receive from their own honey, resulting in poor nutrition. The size of the apiaries and close contact in travel lead to a higher risk of pathogen spread and losing workers in travel. 

 

No Singular Convict:

     While the above factors are clearly linked to the phenomenon of CCD, it is impossible to trace it back to one cause. CCD is still the spearhead of modern honey bee research, as we scramble to protect these essential insects. There may be dozens of other reasons for CCD, and more may emerge in the future. What matters is taking action and accountability for the known culprits, and changing our behavior to prevent further damage.